UPDATE: 3/5 8:30PM PST There’s a hilarious backstory on the sockpuppetry that went on yesterday from the founder of The Arctic Institute – read my comment on it here
It is that time again where attention turns to Arctic Sea Ice because it is approaching maximum extent. There’s really only two periods each year that garner intense interest, and that is the times of maximum and minimum extent. We are fast approaching maximum.
First, let’s start off with a tiff that has developed between Cleveland’s NewsNet5 meteorologist Mark Johnson and an outfit I’ve never heard of called the “Arctic Institute” which called him out a couple of days ago over his report “Ice, ice, baby: Arctic sea ice on the rebound“. They opined on his report:
Only two problems, when I queried him, Johnson stated he was referencing NORSEX SSM/I from the WUWT Sea Ice page, not NSIDC. And, since the Arctic Institute apparently doesn’t know how NSIDC graphs work, they’ve pwned themselves in the process of making their put-down counter claims. Have a look:
The NSIDC 3/3/12 chart looks well within ±2STD and pretty close to the ±1STD boundary to me. Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
NORSEX SSM/I extent for 3/4/12 is in fact within ±1STD:
Source: http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
Mark Johnson was right. You’d think an outfit that bills themselves as…
The Arctic Institute seeks to establish itself as an authoritative, interdisciplinary, and independent source for information and in-depth analysis about the developments in the High North. The Institute was founded in 2011 and currently aims to bring together scholars and researchers to build a growing stock of knowledge and expertise on the Arctic region. In contrast to existing platforms for Arctic affairs, The Arctic Institute is not affiliated with or sponsored by any of the Arctic states.
…would know that NSDIC graphs are on a five day average (and thus don’t reflect recent updates right away), and that daily graphs such as the NORSEX SSMI showed that there had been a dramatic surge in the last couple of days. I guess we know now that “authoritative” is just really their own self serving world view, and not based in actual evidence.
By itself, this peak doesn’t mean all that much. We saw a similar jump near the max in 2009 and 2010, and in 2010 the extent hugged the normal center line for several weeks. In the end though, most people are interested in the minimum in September, and since that event is so dependent on the short term vagaries of wind and weather, having a normal extent at maximum doesn’t guarantee a higher or even normal minimum in September.
One other thing I noted about the Arctic Institute is that they really didn’t show the current extent mapped out, so here it is:
I note that folks like the Arctic Institute just don’t like showing picture of reality, especially at maximum, since their entire existence is predicated on the Serreze “arctic death spiral” mentality and picture like this tend to make people wonder why there’s still ice in the Arctic when they have been told repeatedly it is disappearing at “unprecedented rates”.
So as to prevent the on cue wailing and gnashing of teeth from folks of that ilk, here is their favored presentation:
It sure would be nice if University of Illinois could learn to time stamp their images like I finally convinced NSIDC to do. That would be the scientific thing to do.
The offset right now is minus 726,000 square kilometers, an area slightly bigger than the state of Texas (695,621 sqkm). Most of that missing ice extent is in the Barentz and Greenland seas, as noted in this image from NSIDC I have annotated below:
Source: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_bm_extent.png
And according the the Naval Research Lab, the extent loss in those areas appears to be entirely the result of wind patterns compacting the ice northward. There are strong northward drift vectors in the Barentz:
Source: http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticicespddrfnowcast.gif
And the air temperature in the Arctic is well below freezing, so air temperature induced melt is likely not a factor…
…but wind driven warmer sea water incursions into the Barentz sea from more southern latitudes seems to be happening in that area and may be contributing to some edge melt:
In other news.
The Antarctic continues along happy as a clam, above normal, with a positive 30+ year trend.
I await the usual condemnations from the excitable folks that are terrified that the world will lose the ice caps soon.
UPDATE: Now the Arctic Institute has added a caveat:
*** [edit: Even the latest available ice extent chart from the NSIDC released on March 3, 2012, one day after Mr. Johnson’s article was published, shows ice extent well outside the one standard deviation area.]
I wonder what they will say tomorrow when NSIDC updates again?
After being confronted with irrefutable evidence, the director of The Arctic Institute has admitted in an email to me that he created fake names and fake email accounts for the express purpose of sockpuppeting WUWT comments. It appears that he also sockpuppeted his OWN website to make comments against TV met Mark Johnson of Cleveland.
I’m giving the “Institute” chance to put a full apology on their web page before I run a new story on this and what our moderation team has found, not only about the deception and fakery, but about the “Institute” itself.
It isn’t of Gleickian proportions, but the M.O. is similar. Check back at WUWT after 9PM PST tonight if there’s no update at http://www.thearcticinstitute.org
What’s at stake is scientific integrity and accuracy. I believe both NSIDC and the Arctic Institute have an agenda to fan the flames of arctic ice depletion. Frankly I don’t trust either group to accurately map the extent of arctic ice. History has shown that the extent of arctic ice is replete with gains and losses. It is more than disappointing to see government funded groups push an agenda consistent with Al Gore’s crazy, wrongheaded, fraudulent malevolence. Worse yet, the fraud is the basis of public policy—this is worse than fraud it’s venality on its face.
Uzi
Russell, if you would like to read up on the processing of the satellite data to produce the sea ice records that NSIDC distributes, I would be happy to point you to those links. You can also download the raw data if you like and run your own sea ice algorithm on the data if you don’t trust NSIDC to process the data. All the data, and the algorithms are freely available for anyone to do their own processing if they so choose. That way you can make your own plots and determine for yourself whether or not the sea ice is in a period of decline. You may note though that all sea ice groups, using different algorithms, different sensors, etc. all reach the same basic conclusions: Arctic sea ice is in a state of decline.
I think what some folks may not completely realize is that observations are one realization of natural climate variability and any external forcing. Thus, you cannot separate out natural variability from external forcing (such as rising concentrations of GHGs) from the observational data record, such as the sea ice record. Numerous studies have shown that the sea ice decline is a result of atmospheric and oceanic warming, and anomalous wind patterns that helped to remove ice from the Arctic Basin. But how much is a result of natural climate variability versus GHGs cannot be determined from the observations alone since both are acting on the system at the same time. Climate models on the other hand provide numerous realizations of internal/natural variability, which is one means to allow for separation of noise versus external forcing on the sea ice trends. Those studies (the most recent one being the Kay et al. 2011 GRL study) have all come to the same conclusion, that the last 30+ years of Arctic sea ice decline cannot be explained by natural variability alone.
Anthony, just saw this at the AI webpage:
“In fact, it’s been met with so much controversy that I received several e-mails from the founder of http://wattsupwiththat.com/. He demanded that I recant statements made within my post and apologize, and if I did not take these actions before a specified time, he would reveal my address or other personal details online, threatening to put my “personal life at risk”. I continue to stand by the assertions I made in my post, but I do understand that people may disagree with my conclusions.”
Reply: Anthony is aware of this. ~ ctm
There’s some illuminating stuff on this site …
http://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/cps/rde/xchg/SID-71309C7D-EAB2CFED/bst_engl/hs.xsl/nachrichten_100592.htm
Unbelievable.
Julienne Stroeve,
On the contrary, natural variability is fully sufficient to explain the Arctic ice decline [which is not in dispute], since it has happened repeatedly throughout the pre-industrial Holocene. And so far the null hypothesis remains unfalsified.
If CO2 is putatively causing Arctic ice decline then I am sure there is a convoluted explanation of why Antarctic ice is rising. But I don’t buy it. CO2 is everywhere, and there is a whiff of the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy in trying to blame CO2. Also, a 0.7°C rise in global temperature is not going to melt Arctic ice, which is still far below freezing. The effect of ocean currents and wind is the simplest explanation, therefore the most likely cause. Occam’s Razor.
But the more important consideration is the reason behind Russell’s comment. You can see how badly the lies, distortions, lack of transparency, and ignoring of the scientific method is damaging the public’s perception of scientists in general. It is a rare scientist with the courage to speak out against those causing the damage. The same scientists who defend Peter Gleick’s indefensible actions, or remain silent regarding The Arctic Institute’s ethics-challenged shenanigans are making the problem worse. Scientists in general are losing credibility with the public. Why are these serious ethical lapses tolerated by the vast majority of honest scientists? Does the truth not matter any more?
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
info@thearcticinstitute.org
The recipient’s e-mail address was not found in the recipient’s e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Hmmm…
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/03/message-from-founder-of-arctic.html also says:
The confusion didn’t last very long! Intriguing that he felt he needed three imaginary friends to help out, one would have done just fine. Hmm, just how well known are the AI staff? From Google searches it does appear that all are real people. Here are the “results” for each. (N.B. Google’s results number is greatly overstated. Sort of like CO2 and climate sensitivity.)
9,200 “Malte Humpert” (The link told me “This blog is open to invited readers only.”)
944 “Andreas Østhagen”
1,470 “Alison Weisburger”
528 “Andreas Raspotnik”
1,800 “Moki Kokoris”
712 “Olin Strader” (most are for a Baptist minister in Indiana)
2,530 “Clare Richardson-Barlow”
835 “Anneliese Guess” (also is Project Manager at the Bertelsmann Foundation’s
Washington, DC office)
And then there’s:
35,100 “Ric Werme” (Greatly overstated….)
342,000 “Anthony Watts”
While http://www.maltehumpert.com/ isn’t readable at the moment, if you Google |”malte” site:maltehumpert.com| there are several cached pages. Nice photos.
One more, but with a too-common name (and a warm welcome to WUWT):
12,500 |”mark johnson” meteorologist|
Heh – First result: Punxsutawney Phil goes up against Power of 5 Meteorologist Mark …
Second result: Mark Johnson’s discovery helps solve mysterious mass bird death …
From Anthony Watts on March 5, 2012 at 3:07 pm:
The reply:
Let’s review the details. What Humpert has done is slander if he speaks it, and libel if he writes it, and he’s done the second. That’s correct, yes?
Smokey, just because there have been times in the Earth’s history without sea ice, this does not mean that an external forcing is not acting on the climate system today. There are many papers out there that have dis-proven the null hypothesis. And there are several reasons why the Arctic is behaving differently than the Antarctic, many of which have been discussed on WUWT. You may notice that the Arctic Ocean is surrounded by land whereas there is a continent that covers the South Pole. That in itself influences atmospheric and oceanic circulation that impacts on ice growth and melt. In addition, the Antarctic mostly has a seasonal ice cover, whereas the Arctic was mostly defined by a perennial ice cover until recently.
I had never heard of the Arctic Institute until today. While WUWT may want to focus on the handful of climate scientists who have been unethical, this in no way means that all climate scientists are that way or are not following the scientific method. I would encourage you to read the papers out there on the sea ice cover and judge for yourself on the quality of the scientific method employed in the analysis.
Sorry I don’t have the link saved, but it is available in one of the many posts on this site related to our dear friend Dr Peter Gleick. I am referring to his testimony before the US Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee on 2/7/07. I printed it out for future reference. It’s quite complete, but I didn’t save the link.
I refer to his paper on “Deceitful Tactics and Abuse of the Scientific Process paper, referenced to his Pacific Institute, 2007”, that was presented at that hearing.
I checked out the link to the Arctic Institute site, provided by the paper at issue, and was appalled by the infancy of the thinking that has been published. I have observed that children below the age of two normally don’t understand ethics or morality, or even truth since they often deal in thoughts of fantasy. In my opinion, the individuals at this site have apparently never matured beyond that age, or perhaps they are teenagers that share the same thought pattern.
Please reference the Gleick document, again I am sorry I don’t have the link, and look at his points regarding “Mischaracterizations of an Argument”. In my opinion, the Arctic Institute site uses every one of these mischaracterizations chronicled by the Pacific Institute. This includes Begging the Question, Circular Reasoning, Partial Truths, Selective Choice of Problems, Straw Man Argument, Loaded Question, False Dichotomy/False Dilemma, Misplaced Burden of Proof, Confusing Cause and Effect, Red Herring, and Slippery Slopes. Apparently the operators at this site were well schooled.
Juliene, while I certainly respect your statements. You have a problem. You have climate scientists splicing temperature stations in the Antarctic to show a rise in temperature on the cover of TIME magazine. You have climate scientists, very famous ones, telling us the arctic summer will be ice free in 2000, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and now 2013 or 2015. Other climate scientists are adjusting the temperature record at this very moment (GISStemp v4/HADcrut v3), upward by erasing warmth from the 1930s, & 40s in places like Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Scotland and Russia. They tell us this is just noise, but with it they will be able to erase the past decade of cooling and make 2010 the warmest year ever. When UEA announces its new and improved v3 data set this year, will you be surprised at the reaction that will occur. And the list goes on and on. With all due respect to you, the scientific method seems secondary to what is going on here.
ALERT:
Arctic institute claims Anthony was “threatening to put my “personal life at risk””
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/03/message-from-founder-of-arctic.html
quote:
In fact, it’s been met with so much controversy that I received several e-mails from the founder of http://wattsupwiththat.com/. He demanded that I recant statements made within my post and apologize, and if I did not take these actions before a specified time, he would reveal my address or other personal details online, threatening to put my “personal life at risk”. I continue to stand by the assertions I made in my post, but I do understand that people may disagree with my conclusions.
I have the screenshot if you need it…
In Malte Humperts comments at The Arctic Institute, he claims to have sent me an e-mail asking for sources and verification of my statements BEFORE Mr. Humpert published his hit piece late last week. I received no e-mail from Malte Humpert nor the Arctic Institute. I have asked for the original e-mail from him. I have also inquired as to whether it was addressed with his name, a staff member’s name or, perhaps, one of his alias’s. I was blocked from commenting on his site and my request sent through info@arcticinstitute bounced back… So I still have no e-mail or answers.
Here’s my story on sock puppetry and ethics
Thanks Ric Werme (upthread), I laughed out loud when I saw this http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/03/message-from-founder-of-arctic.html
Ok folks here’s the backstory. The founder of that outfit played some sock puppet games here last night. He got caught. Here’s what brought it on:
======================
and followed by:
======================
and…
========================================
He got caught because one of our moderators noticed three different names all coming from the same IP address in Washington DC. All were Gmail accounts, and they were used to make attack comments like those above. I’m publishing them since “radner” already gave his email address above willingly in comments with his challenge
steve radner steveradner at gmail.com
karl williams kariwilliams19 at gmail.com
john christie johnchristie12 at gmail.com
Of course all IP addresses in every blog software (wordpress, typepad, tumblr) are recorded when comments are made so that moderators can figure out what people are sockpuppeting or making threats. We get this all the time at WUWT as do many blogs. People behave entirely different when they think they are anonymous.
If we hadn’t gotten all these different names from the same IP address the moderator wouldn’t have gone looking. But we were given a challenge by “Radner”. It was much like the Gleick affair, an interesting puzzle.
So we used one of the publicly available tools to trace where that IP address was. It traced to Washington DC, and an apartment complex that offers internet service to their tenants. We put the name of the apartment complex into Google, and out popped all the details, including a street address.
It also showed in Google searches that there was a bedbug infestation problem there. The moderation team got quite a laugh out of that as did I. Where’s that DDT when you really need it? 😉
So when we put the street address into Google, guess what popped out? The address of the so called “Arctic Institute” It was in an old web page for another website that looked identical in format:
http://theclimateinstitute.org/
Comically, this has now been “disappeared” (as has the street address on the remaining working page of http://www.thearcticinstitute.org). Of course anyone can still look at it and the email of the address of the founder referencing “The Arctic Institute” simply by putting the URL into Google and viewing the Google cache. We didn’t have to last night, because the page was up and the address plainly given in full public view.
So I dropped Malte Humpert an email (using his public email on his page here: http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/staff.html) telling him that we didn’t appreciate this comment:
==========================
steve radner says:
March 4, 2012 at 6:57 pm (Edit)
so when you don’t like comments you accuse people of being dishonest. excellent.
==========================
I said in my email that he was the one that was being dishonest with his making up fake names and emails like Glieck did to attack via the internet and that we had backtraced his deception for all three email addresses.
No response…so about an hour later I sent a slightly stronger email laying it all out irrefutably, and shortly after I did get a response. That response included an apology and admission of “unethical behavior” on Mr. Humpert’s part. He said he’d “like to meet me someday and apologize in person”. I was not impressed. He also in a second email begged me not to reveal any of the details of his street address, because as it turns out, he’s running the “Institute” out of his apartment!
Quite a contrast to the big presentation they make about “the Institute” and all that on their web page.
So I said I’d think about it. Today I dropped him an email saying look, here’s all you have to do, just put up an apology on your website about the sockpuppetry, apologize to Mr. Johnson, point out that there’s no scientists actually at “The Institute” and I won’t need to publish anything. Basically I said “here’s your chance to act ethically”. I gave him a way out.
Meanwhile, he spent the day “disappearing” a whole variety of websites (like Ric Werme points out above with his personal webpage above) it was comical to watch because Mr. Humpert apparently just doesn’t understand how the Internet works…everything he tried to disappear remains cached at Google, and many other websites and search engines. It is all still there for anyone who wants to look just like when it was public info.
Just about anybody with any Internet savvy can figure this all out, there’s no giant secret here, but when you put your home address out in the open and call it an “institute” somebody is bound to figure out this silliness at some point and call you on it. That’s this risk you take when you mix the two.
The event in total is comical, and has provided the moderation staff and myself quite a few chuckles over the past 24 hours watching it all unfold.
Well, tonight, he published what has to be the most laughable apology ever.
http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/2012/03/message-from-founder-of-arctic.html
I suppose this is what passes as an apology for “sockpuppeting” to a person like him:
The Arctic Institute has been monitoring comments in response to my article made on other websites. Both the Institute and I were subjected to repeated ridicule in these forums. As a result, I no longer felt comfortable commenting on these forums with my real name, so I resorted to the use of pseudonyms in order to address issues that came up within the comments. I apologize to the readers of WUWT for any confusion this may have caused.
Generally, one needs only one identity when you want to play fake-out. Peter Gleick needed only one, Mr. Humpert felt so “uncomfortable” that he needed three!
Then, in the style of teflon, what he does next is flip around my suggestions that he doesn’t have to reveal his home address, which is also the address of the “Institute” and then turns that around into making it look like I’m making a personal threat against him. I wasn’t. All I wanted was him to publicly apologize for being dishonest while accusing me of being dishonest for no longer accepting his comments in violation of our stated site policy. And I wanted him to point out that his institute really isn’t an “Institute” at all in the brick and mortar academic sense, just a guy in his apartment and some friends trying to make enough noise to attract funding. The web facade he’s constructed is highly misleading.
So, for the record, I don’t much care what Mr. Humpert does with his one room “Institute” in an apartment building that has a bedbug problem. He can say or do whatever he wants. The only thing he can’t do is comment here anymore.
One of our moderators wrote that this might be a “teachable moment”. I doubt it. Mr. Humpert doesn’t seem to have learned anything about ethics here.
It would be sad, if it weren’t so darned funny watching it all. – Anthony Watts
Mark Johnson says:
March 5, 2012 at 7:50 pm
On the staff page http://www.thearcticinstitute.org/p/staff.html there are Emails for everyone, Humpert’s is malte.humpert@thearcticinstitute.org . I wouldn’t be surprised if they shutdown the whole mail system, as I wouldn’t expect the info address to fail. Possibly due to threatening to put my [Humpert’s] “personal life at risk”. Of course, I suspect he’s reading all the comments here.
Frankly, I wouldn’t want his personal life today. 🙂
Julienne,
The null hypothesis has never been falsified. Why do you think that Kevin Trenberth is demanding that it must be turned on its head, and that scientific skeptics should now have the onus of, in effect, proving a negative? Trenberth knows that the null hypothesis completely deconstructs his alternative CO2=CAGW conjecture. That is why he wants the null hypothesis to be reversed: because it undermines his runaway global warming alternative hypothesis. If the climate null hypothesis had been falsified, Trenberth wouldn’t care about it.
You state that “the Arctic was mostly defined by a perennial ice cover until recently.” There are a lot of similar uncited opinions like that in your comments. I provided several citations showing that the Arctic has been mostly, or completely, ice free at times during the Holocene. Yet you claim that until recently there has been perennial Arctic ice cover, despite eyewitness observations as recently as the 1920’s showing that there was less Arctic ice cover than there is now. Sorry to have to disagree with your conjecture, which as I’ve shown is simply not factual.
Natural variability is entirely sufficient to account for all of the current changes in the Arctic. I did not say that there are no other factors at work. But that is conjecture, not verifiable, testable fact. And there is way too much conjecture in what passes for climate science. That is what generates grants, I understand that. But there is far too little legitimate skepticism, and far too much uncritical acceptance of opinions – AKA: conjectures.
People amaze me. This reminds of a show where they catch shoplifters. Deny, deny, deny, some of them even after they are shown the “Clear Video” of them stealing. I keep a special place in my heart for Liars and Thieves.
You couldn’t make this up.
Then there’s this:
http://www.aol.com/video/global-warming-and-the-melting-arctic-ice/517283924/
Both, hilariously, coming on the day when Arctic ice is at its highest level in the past five years:
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
In most contexts, stillborn is not a good word to use but, as with the “ocean acidification” meme, we’re talking stillborn for the Arctic Institute.
Bye guys. It wasn’t nice knowing you.
Jeff I agree.
No sock puppetry for me… I want you to know it’s me when I hit your jugular. 😉
Sock puppets are for the weak.
(Of course you knew that about me already.)
Humpert’s comment cracked me up:
Both the Institute and I were subjected to repeated ridicule in these forums.
Well deserved ridicule, I might point out, but Mr. Humpert misses the irony. He’s also being redundant when he writes “the Institute and I”. One is the other, no?
Anthony Watts says:
March 5, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Here’s my story on sock puppetry and ethics
That is HILARIOUS!!! I wonder if all the rooms at that “institution” have rubber walls, or just one of them.
We probably know that guy by another name. A “mainstream” climate scientist perhaps. Mosher, who is it?
I was the moderator who first noticed Mr. Humpert’s sock-puppetry and tracked the IP address. Anthony made the connection to Arctic Institute. He kindly kept me copied on the e-mail exchange, so I can assure everyone that the sequence of events described by Anthony is correct and the depiction at Arctic Institute is quite distorted. The moderation staff, sterling individuals who you’ve all come to respect and admire, I’m sure, unearthed quite a bit of material that Anthony has discreetly not made public. Anyone interested in the back story can do their own research and reach their own conclusions.
If Mr. Humpert had chosen to argue his case here in his own name rather than trying to astro-turf WUWT he would have been welcomed. Anthony and the senior moderators are always stressing the importance of moderating with a very light hand and erring on the side of liberality so that this site does not become an echo chamber like others we could mention. I have learned a great deal from the commenters here at WUWT, both pro and con, and hope that our efforts will keep this blog a place where people can both learn and not be afraid to express themselves.
-REP, moderator
Have you noticed he could have done a preemptive apology last July? The ICCC-6 meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute was at the Marriott Wardman Park at 2660 Woodley Rd. 1.4 miles away! Lost opportunity.