http://www.skepticalscience.com/DMI-data-on-Arctic-temperatures-Intermediate.html
regarding the article:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/dmi-polar-data-shows-cooler-arctic-temperature-since-1958/
I can see that skepticalscience appears satisfied with the DMI data when you use the full year data – so what causes the summer temperature mismatch north of 80N between GISS data and DMI data?
Let’s refresh our memories:
A few days after the WUWT article, the DMI “melt season” was over and the final version of updated DMI 80-90N DMI summer (melt season) temperatures appears as follows:
Fig 1.
– Yes, the DMI melt season temperatures 80-90N in 2010 hit an all time low temperature record of just near +0,34 Celsius thus once again confirming the cold trend that started around 1991.
DMI trend summer 1991-2009: COOLING
GISS 80-90N temperatures june and july mostly projected up to 1200 km.
Fig 2
GISS june, july trend 1991-2009: WARMING
This does not make the GISS temperature projection method look good.
I can’t see how the writing at Skepticalscience.com should change that. I also showed other examples of problems with the GISS temperatures projected 1200 km over the ocean not really addressed in the skepticalscience article.
Normally when examining ice extent, believers of the global warming hypothesis mostly focus on the summer melt period. But now when a data source (the best data source for 80N-90N) shows temperatures for the melt period to be cooling of the area 80-90N, then we should look at the whole year. OK, lets then focus on the FULL year ice extent for the FULL globe based on Cryosphere data:
Fig 3
The 2010 column (an early prognosis) so far comes in number five since year 2000. That is, the fifth smallest global sea ice extent since year 2000.
So to begin with, the anomalies of global sea ice extent for 2008-10 appears to be just 0,3-5 mio sq km under normal.
However, Cryosphere in January 2007 made a Correction/reduction in Arctic sea ice data:
Fig 4
Here we see that the whole level of Arctic sea ice after year 2000 has been corrected down by Cryosphere with around 0,3 – 1,0 mio sq km. So this correction itself is perhaps large enough to fully account for the “missing” sea ice extent 2008-10. The strong La Nina cooling 1999-2001 is clearly reflected in the CT 2006 data, but not easy seen in the CT 2010 data.
So, without the Cryosphere correction done in January 2007, the sea ice anomalies 2008-2010 would have been zero or positive.
In my archives, I found this compare of arctic summer ice extents showing, that CT´s Arctic summer ice decline is over 1 mio sq km larger in 2007 than other data sources:
(Im not sure who collected these data.)
This indicates that the essential Cryosphere Jan 2007 correction may be an outlier.
Similar to the uncorrected CT data are the gridded NSIDC data presented by Jeff Id:
Fig 6
Again, the years 2008-2010 is not really supporting any downward trend, although the entire period 1978-2009 shows decline using a banal flat trend.
For both CT data and Jeff Id´s NSIDC data presentation we see that its in fact it is mostly the years 2005, 2006 and 2007 that shows a large dip in global sea ice extent. Take away those years, and where is the decadal declining trend?
When Jeff Id Zooms in on the years after 1995, it becomes clear, that the 3 years (2005-7) is responsible for downward trends if we use the banal flat trend argumentation for global ice extent:
Fig 7
Link to Jeff Id´s article:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/sea-ice-copenhagen-update/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Very nice work Frank, I really hope they deserve such an extensive and well founded answer.
CT needs AGW funds the NH graphs are all rigged to show extra melting, period. Just look at the borders areas and the way they calculate ice extent. DMI is the only one I trust
This one speaks for itself.
“Tuesday, 18 December, 2007
Has solar cycle 24 begun?
Being a bit of a solar geek, I take great interest in the fact that magnetic activity has been spotted on the sun’s surface that may signify the beginning of solar cycle 24. ”
“The one thing we know is over the next 5 years, solar activity will continue to rise, peaking around 2012.”
WE KNOW?
These people are sort of funny in a sad kind of way.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080507024305/www.skepticalscience.com/Has-solar-cycle-24-begun.html
Can’t seem to find it on the current web site. Deleted perhaps?
Check out http://web.archive.org/web/20080507024305/www.skepticalscience.com it is good for a few laughs.
Now the warmists are engaging in out and out fraud. No longer are we dealing with the ‘homogenization’ of actual data to satisfy the lust of scientists faced with information that is contrary to their grant and ego needs. Now we are dealing with pure deception.
JDN says:
“Also, the minimum ice extent is being used by the CAGW crowd because they believe a tipping point is possible such that, once the ice disappears in the arctic, it will not return. ”
This is an absurd idea. In the Baltic the ice melts every spring and refreezes next winter and has done so throughout history. And since the Baltic is fairly shallow the water even warms to bathable temperatures in summer.
And lest somebody claim that it would be different in a deep and salty sea, exactly the same thing happens in the Sea of Okhotsk.
There is no way a sea can stay open through the dark of an arctic winter, and nowadays most arctic geologists think that there was probably winter ice in the Arctic even during the warmest intervals in the past when summer SST’s were at 20+ degrees centigrade.
I agree with some others here, in that we shouldn’t be giving the website any mention. If you go there you’ll get rabid responses, and that’s if your post doesn’t get deleted – even when it’s fully on-topic and abides by the rules. Like Tamino, they don’t like the truth, only to reinforce what they already think.
HR says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:37 pm
Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?
Hi mr Ewing (?)
In my original article i simply pointed out that DMI´s melt-season over the Arctic is becoming colder since 1991. It really significant from + 1,3 Celsius to now just + 0,3 Celsius. This happens at the same time Sea ice is reduced and might indicate that other factors than melting have caused the ice retreat too. Never mind what the reason is, I think it is 100% scientifically fair to point out this interesting phenomena, that melting seasons are colder when the ice extend is reduced.
I cant say I have the full explanation.
The DMI data is based on (modelled) data from bouys actually in the ocean rather than GISS data that are sitet far away on land. Therefore, the GISS data to me appears weakest.
So, “Why would you compare the 80-90oN temp with the full globe polar ice?”
Its because Skeptical science when confronted with the 80-90N summer DMI data showing cooling, they dont want to find out how this can be, what is the exciting scientific explanation. They in stead want to look at something else, the 80-90N FULL year data which is warming. To this kind of escape from any cooling dataset I say: Ok, if you want to look at FULL year for some reason, why not go all the way and also look at the FULL globe??
If we have GLOBAL warming, and ICE-extend for some reason is used to show this, then its fair to sometimes also examine the GLOBAL ice extend 🙂
Im not comparing 80-90N summer DMI data with any global data, im just showing the GLOBAL trends as well.
AND : Then i think that the Cryosphere-correction needed more attention, its not mentioned much on the net, so here it is graphically illustrated not to be forgotten 🙂
K.R. Frank
” David A. Evans says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:01 pm
JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Frank is German. His English is good. Stop nit picking.
DaveE.”
To the best of my knowledge Frank Lansner is Danish. His English is not perfect, but the same could be said about many living in an English speaking country. He is an important voice in Denmark, where there has been a gradual move from scepticism towards AGW belief and don’t forget that Danish Connie Hedegaard is the EU Climate Change commissioner and is totally “sold” on the AGW belief mantra.
Frank Lasner is a German, uses a decimal-comma but suppresses degrees (0,34°C and 80°N)? Does he type on an American keyboard?
Frank: You need an editor.
extend -> extent
Oh dear, that says it all really about how much effort this person has put into increasing his knowledge wrt Arctic sea ice. WUWT quality, as usual.
I repeat, 30 years of data is far too short a time for for any meaningful trend to develop. Ice will vary every year, temperatures will vary every day. Get used to it alarmists.
Oh, tipping points do not happen with climate, never did in the past will never happen in the future.
Peter and others: Yes im Danish, like Connie Hedegaard, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, Leif Svalgaard etc.
I believe that Denmark and perhaps Germany, Scandiavia etc. are indeed some of the strongest areas of global warming belief and fear, and also global warming misinformation in medias. Therefore the climate-debate is important in these areas.
So far no one has explained why DMI data 80-90N melt season temperature trend is so radically different from GISS june and july temperature trend in the same area for 1991-2010.
(I really trust DMI, that they play a honest game all the way. The employees at DMI appears strongly in favour of the global warming idea to me, but I have never seen any sign of DMI giving in and making global warming friendly data or the like.)
R. de Haan: Thankyou so much!!!
Rocky Balboa says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm
“Why do you continue to even acknowledge skepticalscience.com? It is not skeptical science – it is propaganda for CAGW. It is a garbage website that even a five year old could refute. Pure crap.”
YES! YES! YES!
Ignore them and please do not give them any traffic.
Richard
I tried to answer at skeptical science, but my answer was removed after 20 minutes….
Maybe it’s correct like Richard S. Courtney says, to ignore them, but that site appears like a bible to many alarmists.
So im not really sure how to deal with them.
K.R. Frank
anna v says:
October 18, 2010 at 9:37 pm
You have to be an ice hugger to appreciate the catastrophic nature of it. For everyone else it’s like “so what, who needs it”.
@frank
Rest assured your English is far superior to the Danish of the nattering nabobs of negativity who jumped up to correct your small mistakes.
Alexej Buergin says:
October 19, 2010 at 1:30 am
> Frank Lasner is a German, uses a decimal-comma but suppresses degrees (0,34°C and 80°N)? Does he type on an American keyboard?
Danish keyboards have a ° key? Gotta get one, I’m tired of typing ° all the time.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 4:14 am
> I tried to answer at skeptical science, but my answer was removed after 20 minutes….
> So I’m not really sure how to deal with them.
Probably the best way is here. Bigger readership, people who appreciate hearing both sides of the story.
crosspatch says:( October 18, 2010 at 10:51 pm )
Your remarks are a subtle reminder of why current living beings use models to see what the future may hold. None of us will be around when these things come to pass. It can be a bit frustrating to know that one will never see the end results and will never know how it all plays out. It’s like losing a good mystery book before your finish reading it. You will never know who done it.
I’m with anna v. Let’s enjoy our current warm period for all that it provides and not worry about a future we really cannot control.
Mods, please correct “chryosphere” with “cryosphere” in Frank’s article.
Frank contributes to a forum in Danish. I’ve noticed an increasing number of Scandinavian names hereabouts, the last few months, so perhaps word is leaking out and the intrepid Scandinavian nature is starting to resurface. I remember Amundsen and Fritjof Nansen and those Norwegians from Telemark who survived the Hardangervidda winter on the stomach contents of reindeer before blowing up the heavy water plant at Rjukan. To say nothing of Hans Andersen creator of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”.
Stay simple. Clear simple science. Think tactics.
I still believe we could do with a wiki-type deconstruction of Skeptical Science.
[REPLY: I believe I have now made the sp corrections… ..bl57~mod]
Frank: thank you for the graphs and your efforts.
I am not (yet) troubled by the “lack of a theory” for this 52 year decline in Arctic summer temperatures.
The theory (the explanation, if you wish for a different term) for the decline in summer temperatures cannot be developed nor analyzed nor refined nor criticized UNTIL it is first “admitted” as information.
But because the CAGW crowd denies any and all evidence that conflicts in any way with their heartfelt, much beloved theory of Mann-caused global warming, they cannot admit this type of evidence exists.
However, remember also that no one – at any level of technology or design or the sciences – needs a complete and robust “peer-reviewed” theory to “use” any new information that is found. We used magnetic compasses for centuries before magnetic theory and the laws of electro-magnetism were written. We built with plumb bobs and strings and water levels for centuries before Newton “discovered” gravity, and long before Einstein “corrected” that theory.
Note also that the continents were still moving even while the “acceptable” theorists denied their motion. The light was traveling just fine in the curved vacuum of space even while “acceptable” theorists promoted the aether that supposedly let it pass. The sun shone just fine with fusion energy even when the British Royal Society claimed “We know all the physics in the world” – before fission, the nucleus and atomic theory, radioactive decay, and fusion were “discovered.”
So, who is more valuable? He who writes about puzzling differences in the observed data? And, at the time he writes about the puzzling differences, admits the puzzle?
Or he who gets funds, adulation, and peer-reviewed articles re-writing only what his peer-reviewed friends want read to to get their peer-reviewed friends to review? 8<)
GISS arctic “measurements” are pure fantasy. SkepticalScience is grasping at straws.
Thanks RAcookPE1978 🙂 It will be nice when science again one days becomes all about exploring the universe and nature.
The Cryosphere correction jan 2007:
Does anyone know how Cryosphere has argumented for this level change they introduced for year 2000? In this year they shifted the sea ice levels with around 0,5 mio sq km for all the later years:
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig4.jpg
Whats the excuse??? Can the Cryosphere-crew defend themselves?
I mean, If you change procedure, methods etc it should be changed for ALL years starting in 1979. You dont change a method starting from year 2000.
Is this well known in the climate debate?
K.R. Frank
LOL,
The same John Cook who very probably posted in my forum almost 3 weeks ago.He seemed to think I would have trouble answering it.He did it cowardly too by using the GUEST forum to make his posting.
I gave him a “stock” reply and he never came back.
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forums/thread-928-post-6879.html#pid6879
Calls himself Guesty.
I read skepticalscience.com yesterday.
Apparently there are some people who doubt the Greenhouse effect…because the Greenhouse effect is really easy to understand – and he failed to explain it at all in terms of physics. Possibly because he wasn’t an atmospheric physicist, but more likely because his explanation was couched entirely in terms of condescension.
I was tempted to start a weblog called SkepticalSquared.com (Skeptical about the skeptics of climate skepticism), but the urge to mock abated. It takes effort to comprehend the real atmospheric effect that is commonly mistitled “The Greenhouse Effect” and no-one on skepticalscience can be bothered to learn.
If there were truth in advertising, then it should be called “Straw Men and Condescension”. But there isn’t. So its not.
John Kehr, thank for relevant comment. You mention UAH North polar data that shos warming.
I think the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) used by DMI are the best suitable data since they have the best cover.
The further North you go, the poorer coverage in UAH. More: The UAH polar covers down to 65N as I remember which then includes large parts of Scandinavia etc.
The 80N-90N area,not so well covered by UAH is ICE covered. Its obvious, that the Arctic ocean areas without ice cover in later years are much warmer due to water presence. This will affect UAH data, but much less data taken directly from the ice covered 80-90N, the DMI data.
So: UAH does not cover 80N-90N as well as DMI, but in stead they cover huge land and ocean areas further south.
UAH “polar” data cannot reveal the temperature trend 80N-90N nearly as well as the DMI/ECMWF data.
K.R. Frank