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.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 19, 2010 at 5:41 am
“I still believe we could do with a wiki-type deconstruction of Skeptical Science.”
Lucy, this sounds good. In many many ocntext, alarmists thinks they can throug a link to skeptical science and then they have presented a good argument. A few times I have digged in to the arguments used, and its been a laugh. For example their UHI-argumentation where they use measurements in the London region and compare them and cannot see a difference…
England – like Southern California etc. is one big UHI area, so Englan is the poorest place on Earth to examine UHI. Furthermore, London is one of the only cities in the world with a multi million population already in year 1900. So choosing London and the surrounding stations is a JOKE!
Likewise their “argumentation” to support the divergense problem, that is, argumenting why trees should now suddenly show wrong results is a JOKE too.
So yes, perhaps a Skeptical-skeptical-science dictionary on the net…. We all dig up arguments scattered around the net, but it would be smart to collect the problems in skeptical science´s argumentation in one place.
– a good tool.
K.R. Frank
Remeber too that the UAH satellite data is measuring the “atmospheric” temperatures at various elevations up through the troposphere. The DMI 80-90 north latitude instruments directly measure air temperature right at the surface in all weathers and storm conditions.
You’d be hard-pressed to justify a claim that satellite data is “better” at these particular latitudes than surface measurements because of how the orbits pass overhead in a criss-cross pattern near the pole, and because the surface DMI measurements are taken “away from ” what few local cities and airports exist.
At lower altitudes, satellites are much better over wide areas because of their orbits. At populated areas , the UHI and TOS “corruption” (er, correction” of data by GISS makes the satellite a better standard.
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:18 pm
“” http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/seaice.anomaly.Ant_arctic.jpg
The poles simply swapped roles. The Arctic 2007 melt looks no worse than the 1980 Antarctic melt, just 27 years apart.””
___________Reply;
I think I have an answer to the pole swapping pattern of ice growth, it is because the ecliptic plane transects the orbital planes of the outer planets at an angle, at the points where the two cross and the Earth is North of the planes of the outer planets the Arctic has the greater growth, from 1979 up till they got close to the same, 1993 through 2007, then the earth went South of the outer planet orbital planes, and the Antarctic ice extent is maxing out as the Arctic is struggling along. By 2013 the earth’s ecliptic plane will be back on the planes of Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus, and we should see the Arctic ice start to peak again over the next 10 or 12 years, while the Antarctic ice will be in decline.
It is not CO2 driving the global climate but the dynamic interactions of the orbital parameters of the whole solar system, and its affect upon the flow of the solar wind as it passes the Earth creating the natural variability patterns that are really driving the climate.
If the planes of all of the planets were the same, the weather and climate would be a lot more stable. If there were no outer planets there would be very few tornadoes, hurricanes or earthquakes. If there were no moon there would be no jet streams and any Rossby waves left would be greatly reduced in variability, and would look much like the laminar flows of Venus, with gradual drizzles in what ever seasonal shifts were left, from coming between the center of the galaxy and the sun. From spring to mid summer moisture coming of the equator, then heavy precipitation moving down from the polar latitudes, till all moisture was snowed out by spring. Large frontal systems with severe weather would no longer exist, with out a moon.
The signature of global warming is, by recent decision, not GLOBAL, but regional warming (and cooling) of large amounts, hence the proposed legitimacy of the term “climate disruption”. By this reasoning, the global ice balance is irrelevant, and has no impact on the warmist hypothesis.
The downward correction of the ice data is once more pro-AGW. How can another adjustment be pro-AGW? Perhaps because there is a correction loop: adjust the land data upward, which means the nearshore oceanic temperatures must go upward, which means that the whole oceanic data must go up, which pushes the area for ice formation back towards the pole, so the error bar of what is ice and what is not should be biased towards “not”.
A strong bias feedback loop is, I believe, a characteristic in CAGW, all based on the intellectual model that the doubt should always be given toward warming, as a back-projection of the Precautionary Principle. This ice situation could be a symptom.
rbateman says:
October 18, 2010 at 10:18 pm
Our little planet likes balance… too bad many refuse to think of our systems in a way that allows influence but allows the internal systems to maintain themselves..
I guess the science is settled….:(
I thought it this was going to be on DMI temperature…? Then it bounces to Arctic sea ice extent, then to global sea ice…
In any case, reading the DMI site, it does not appear that this temperature set is made to compare over the record of years. The model that outputs the curve changes through time, and the input data changes considerably, from only land stations (not many up there, aye) to land, ships and mostly satellite data now.
An easier-to-do, high-payoff value-added feature would be for persons like yourself and Pamela to be allowed by Anthony to go through the archives and flag the best posts in each thread with a star or two. (If WordPress allows that.)
In addition, or instead, it would be nice if it were possible to yellow-highlight good passages, because often there are nuggets in otherwise undistinguished posts. (If WordPress allows that.)
These flags and/or highlights would make it much easier for newcomers to skim the site for the Good Stuff and get up to speed. It would also make it easier to handle drive-by critics who re-raise a point that’s been dealt with before, by referring them to threads they can quickly skim.
Regarding the Skeptical Science website – they enforce their Comments Policy pretty strongly; ad hominem attacks, rants, political (as opposed to scientific) posts, accusations of deception, and repeated off-topic posts (see the link) get deleted. I’ve had a few of my own deleted there when I posted something while riled.
Nobody gets banned. If everything you post falls afoul of the Comments Policy there, though, you _will_ have a lot of postings deleted.
” Ric Werme says:
October 19, 2010 at 4:38 am
Danish keyboards have a ° key? Gotta get one, I’m tired of typing ° all the time.”
I recommend a Swiss keyboard (French and German letters and more like öé°$£çñ, but no Euro and no Skandinavian ö and O).
The worst I have seen is the US one.
But I am waiting for somebody to make a keyboard (software included, keys included) where the user himself can choose the additional signs aviable on the keys. Scientific keys for some, phonetic sign for others, Greek letters for Greeks and mathematicians.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 6:19 am
Don’t rightly know how much or why CT adjusted 2000 on Northern Sea Ice data.
I do know that an eye for an eye it taken in my ‘de-adjustment’ here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Maybe I took a wee bit more than just one eyeball’s worth. Clumsy me.
And of course all the hub-bub about melting polar ice caps is based on data that goes back 31 years . . . with the assumption that what has happened is a loss of ice when they could have assumed, had they been so inclined, that it was a correction back to normal.
The ice loss meme fits the predisposed ideas held by the scientists writing the scary stories and reaping the windfall of $research funding that goes along with Crisis Politicized Science as practiced by the Warmistas.
“”” JDN says:
October 18, 2010 at 8:33 pm
Frank: You need an editor.
extend -> extent
Im -> I’m
jan -> Jan
banal -> trivial
You need to lay out the main points of the article you’re addressing. “””
I thought we didn’t do typos here at WUWT. If my German was within two orders of magnitude as good as Frank’s English; then I would not be spreading umlauts all over the place where they don’t belong.
Besides I have a quick typing dylsexia that constantly flips pairs of letters, including space bars; well it does serve to keep Chasmod awake sometimes.
A rule I try to follow is: if a typo or Malapropism results in real miscommunication, then a corrective suggestion is in order, but otherwise, if I think I understand what the writer meant to say; even if (s)he didn’t say it, then I prefer to let it ride.
I’m amazed at how many collected languages we have coming here to WUWT.
As to what the arctic ice is doing, the data that Frank presents seems to say there is a downward trend; and it would be nice to know if that trend rate is just the exit from a past ice age; or is there a modern acceleration. I’m not a fan of replacing oodles of actual real data, with y = m.x + c and suggesting that I have new information; but what I do see in all those transient spikes about the straight line value, is that quite large recovery corrections (to the actual amount of ice) can happen very quickly; as of course can quite large drops. Which I guess suggests that the system is capable of much faster response to conditions than any trend lines suggest. Mother Gaia knows how much ice there is supposed to be, for any possible set of conditions and she always arranges to have exactly that amount; no more and no less.
Alexej Buergin says:
“I am waiting for somebody to make a keyboard (software included, keys included) where the user himself can choose the additional signs aviable on the keys. Scientific keys for some, phonetic sign for others, Greek letters for Greeks and mathematicians.”
I use the Characterpal widget:
http://www.tacowidgets.com/widgets
It has most of what you mentioned.
Thank you Mr Lansner for an interesting article. I wonder why GISS doesn’t use the data from the DMI recorders? Surely actual data is preferable to interpolated data. What’s up with that?
“”” Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
Peter and others: Yes im Danish, like Connie Hedegaard, Henrik Svensmark, Bjorn Lomborg, Leif Svalgaard etc. “””
So Frank, Do you know Svend Hendriksen; who I believe works for DMI. He apparently lives on Greenland; out in the boondocks somewhere; and he has kindly sent me all kinds of interesting stuff on ice; both Greenland/Arctic/Antarctic, which seems to be his area of expertise. I guess he can take pictures with some polar orbit satellites and then download them when the bird flies over his Igloo up there.
I guess from time to time they let him go back down to where there is grass growing; but I don’t know where in Denmark that would be (that he lives).
George
Jakers, you write:
“reading the DMI site, it does not appear that this temperature set is made to compare over the record of years. ”
DMI has a green “average line”. This line has an average in the melt period of + 0,9 C.
In 1991 the temperature average was + 1,3 C
In 2010 the value has rather smoothly declined down under the average to a record minimum of +0,3 C.
Why do DMI make a green average line if we should not get the message that 2010 is significantly under average and 1991 significantly over average? Does it mean nothing with such a huge decline trend in data?
Why should anyone bother looking at the DMI data anymore if even such a huge dive in data means “nothing”?
🙂
K.R. Frank
George E. Smith says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:56 am
George E. Smith says:
“”” Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
Peter and others: Yes im Danish…
So Frank, Do you know Svend Hendriksen; ”
Oh yes 🙂
True he´s working at DMI, Greenland, and has a lot of great stuff and opinions coming my way too.
K.R. Frank
“rbateman says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:23 am
Don’t rightly know how much or why CT adjusted 2000 on Northern Sea Ice data.
I do know that an eye for an eye it taken in my ‘de-adjustment’ here:
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/TempGr/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg”
Ha!! Wonderfull DE-justment!
yes, what happens to global sea ice data when the CT year 2000 adjustment is removed?? Nice.
But your de-justment is 1 mio sq km? Or how much did you de-just? perhaps 0,5 mio sq km is more fair 🙂
K.R. Frank
KR says:
“Regarding the Skeptical Science website… Nobody gets banned. If everything you post falls afoul of the Comments Policy there, though, you _will_ have a lot of postings deleted.”
That sounds very similar to the excuse RealClimate uses to censor inconvenient posts by skeptics. It all sounds so reasonable – until you notice that none of your polite but skeptical posts ever get out of moderation.
WUWT is the Gold Standard of free speech, as we see from the number of trolls who take advantage of its policy to “moderate with a light touch.”
Opposing points of view are posted at WUWT. But on most alarmist blogs, to varying degrees skeptical comments are deleted with hifalutin’ excuses for what amounts to censorship. Climate progress, Realclimate, deltoid, etc. are at war with free speech.
Also, every blog that gets more than a few comments is forced to ban a few posters, and anyone who denies that is fibbing. You can’t have an individual constantly spamming and trolling a blog to their heart’s content and driving others away. If John Cook says he never bans anyone, he’s simply not telling the truth. Surprised?
At last count, over the past 3 years there have been close to half a million comments posted at WUWT – and plenty of those come from climate alarmists who are always trying to convince everyone that down is up, war is peace, black is white, ignorance is strength, evil is good, and CO2 causes CAGW. You will notice that they don’t get censored here. Ridiculed by other posters, yes. But censored? No. Their science-challenged views are still posted.
It is our attitude toward free thought and free expression that will determine our fate. There must be no limit on the range of temperate discussion, no limits on thought. No subject must be taboo. No censor must preside at our assemblies.
–William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1952
If it weren’t for censorship, the denizens of alarmist blogs would realize they’re no longer in a self-reinforcing, North Korea-style echo chamber, and they might learn something. Like, for instance, how the scientific method works.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 10:16 am
Ha!! Wonderfull DE-justment!
yes, what happens to global sea ice data when the CT year 2000 adjustment is removed?? Nice.
But your de-justment is 1 mio sq km? Or how much did you de-just? perhaps 0,5 mio sq km is more fair 🙂
K.R. Frank
I de-adjusted by eyeballing the 2000 on data for a few years, and came up with 1M km^2.
Maybe later on it’s 0.5M km^2, but that would seem rather strange. Why would they slope it?
Smokey
I’d like a keiyboard withh letterrs large enought for clumsyt male fingers-about 25% biggerr than the normal oners 🙂
tonyb
Rbateman, you write
“I de-adjusted by eyeballing the 2000 on data for a few years, and came up with 1M km^2.
Maybe later on it’s 0.5M km^2, but that would seem rather strange. Why would they slope it?”
Yes, the ways of alarmist adjustments are not easy to figure out allways.
But the more i look at the Cryosphere adjustment, the more it strikes me:
Cryosphere must have som very interesting story for WHAT ON EARTH happened in year 2000 to allow for this 1 mio sq km adjustment in year 2000?
http://hidethedecline.eu/media/GlobalIceExtend/fig4.jpg
I think this needs attention.
LUCY 😉
Yes perhaps there are more Scandinavians active in the climate debate now, but as i remember you have used my stuff a few times before 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/17/the-co2-temperature-link/
K.R. Frank
Fred says:
October 19, 2010 at 9:28 am
And of course all the hub-bub about melting polar ice caps is based on data that goes back 31 years . . .
Sea ice area, since 1900:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
Sea ice extent, 1951 to 2000, and Sea Ice record of Newfoundland from 1810:
http://www.socc.ca/cms/en/socc/seaIce/pastSeaIce.aspx
Frank says:
Why do DMI make a green average line if we should not get the message that 2010 is significantly under average and 1991 significantly over average? Does it mean nothing with such a huge decline trend in data? Why should anyone bother looking at the DMI data anymore if even such a huge dive in data means “nothing”?
I think it is informational, as it is not a real data set or a continuous observational record. There is probably a good reason why DMI does not do that analysis with their model output.
Frank Lansner says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:35 am
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.
______
Hi Frank!
I’m Swedish – living on the B(w)estcoast and do back/forth fish for lobsters [the real good ones…] and I fully agree with your statement on the Swedish [Scandinavian] lull-lulling + brainwashing of the populase, it’s really dreadful! [apart from economically disasterous]. The [Swedish] MSM, including the so called ‘public service’ [TV & radio] are so much more DDR/North Korea than anyone on this blog could ever imagine! I’m sorry, my Country hurts me!
(We do however, always, check the DMI forecast before going for the lobsters… plenty much better than the ‘SMHI’)
Brgds/TJ
Looking at the full year DMI temperatures, there’s a 0.376 degrees C per decade increase in yearly average temperatures. That’s 1.88 C rise in yearly average temperature over the last 50 years.
The summer average just above 0C is only indicative of measuring temperatures just over ice – energy that would otherwise raise the air temperature is going into _melting_ that ice. So the temps are clipped to just above zero, at least as long as there’s summer ice present.
The rising average temperature means that more time is spent at zero, more time melting ice.
Ignoring the clipping of summer temps to just above zero and not showing the yearly temperature trends is (IMO) a pretty appalling misrepresentation of the data.