![arcticsstnowcast[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/arcticsstnowcast1.gif)
Earlier, we talked about how NOAA NCDC made February look warmer by choosing some nice pastel colors for “below normal” temperature in the USA.
Now, WUWT regular Chris Beal points me to the Arctic to look at sea surface temperatures, claiming they are running red hot.
A quick look at our WUWT Sea Ice Page tells me it looks pretty cool, like zero or below for a good portion of the Arctic. See the SST image at right and note the purplish-pink hue represents approximately 0°C
So, then whats up with this SST map from the University of Maine (up there in the vast wasteland known as Taminoland) that shows red roasted pepper color all over the Arctic? Is it Arctic Amplification Gone Wild?
Source: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php
Hmmm, all that hot red shows where sea ice grows. I think if that if nearly the entire sea surface area of the Arctic was 7.4°F above normal, it might very well be melted ice. It is also quite interesting that right next to that roasted red pepper, we get a whole bunch of fuchisia showing -7.2°F in Hudson Bay.
But, other maps, like this one from NOAA, show no anomaly in the Arctic at all. All the ice is masked off so as not to give a false impression. Note the subtitle (white regions indicate sea-ice).
![anomnight.3.27.2014[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/anomnight-3-27-20141.gif)
Source: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2014/anomnight.3.27.2014.gif
[Added] Dr. Ryan Maue says:
@NJSnowFan@wattsupwiththat ghastly use of GFS data. This is how you do it: pic.twitter.com/VWAqPE9WPThttps://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/449292829974482944/photo/1
So, since that ice is behind the mask, let’s check the UM Sea Ice and Snow plot to be sure the ice is still there.
Whew, for a moment there I though maybe all those calls for an Ice Free Arctic™ finally came to pass.
Hey, wait a minute, I’m pretty sure Canada is covered with snow, as it much of Russia. Let’s check the Cryosphere Today map:
![cryo_latest_small[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/cryo_latest_small1.jpg?quality=83)
Hmmm, the red hot ice and the missing snow must be a case of CLIMATE REANALYZER™ disclaimer-itis then:
DISCLAIMER
We make every effort to provide datasets and visualizations that are error-free. However, information on this site is provided “as-is”, and the Climate Change Institute and the University of Maine will not be held liable for errors or inconsistencies if they occur. Please report bugs to the contact e-mail above.
Source: http://cci-reanalyzer.org/DailySummary/index_ds.php
I’m sure being the self appointed climate integrity standard bearer of Maine, our friend Tamino (Grant Foster) will be right on the problem any minute now with a sternly worded letter to UM.
Simply a hoax. A total hoax.
The Distinguished Professor would be proud of this type of data manipulation, but this is what today’s ‘climate science’ is all about – that and keeping the troughs full by keeping them well supplied by the use of scary tales and illusions.
Perhaps they had intended to publish the page 4-1-2014 but the NSF grant for Climate Research required an early release…
Easy. Show a departure from a long-term average, whenever the ice extent is decreasing.
Steve Godard had an NCDC map up yesterday which showed that parts of New England were ‘average’ at minus 5.5c below norm whilst parts of California were ‘much above average’ at 2.5C above normal. As you Americans say…go figure.
@Charles nelson and WUWT had a more complete analysis of that here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/27/coloring-reality-with-climate-division-ranks/
What these daft institutional warmists don’t seem to understand, the more they use optical and grammatical tricks to pedal their theories, the more people mistrust and turn away from ANY university for knowledge.
I remember a few years back, the images overlaying dark red over the western Antarctic ice sheet. Must have represented a balmy -30 degrees F.
Climate Change Institute? Enough said.
Fiddling with the data they can, until the snow stands a meter at their own doors in late spring…
Rather than showing the temperature of the water beneath the ice, which would be around the freezing point of salt water, [-1.7 to -1.9, Celsius, depending on how brackish the water has been made by melting ice], I think they must be showing the temperature of the upper surface of the ice, which is dependent on the temperature of the air-masses flowing over.
Despite the fact the arctic sun has now risen, the air up there looks like it is between -10 and -20 Celsius, which is still cold enough to freeze up any water exposed when ice cracks and leads form. However it is also “above normal,” because so much cold has been exported south to North America, replaced by milder air. “Normal” is around -25. Therefore, if you wish to play with crayons, you can have the whole Pole red, indicating that the surface of the ice is “above normal.”
The problem is that the map is suppose to indicate the Sea’s temperature, not the temperature of the air above the ice. If the sea was truly four degrees above normal ice would be melting like crazy, but it is not.
We actually could use more data on sea temperatures at various levels of the Arctic Ocean. Unfortunately, when the public wakes up to how they have been toyed with, they are not going to be in the mood to fund any arctic exploration. The real scientists who do real work will get punished, though they are not the ones who deserve it.
You see, the Climate Analyzer failed to produce the desired scary results so they turned to the trusty Climate REanalyzer and there ya have it.
Is the ice temperature +7.4F above average? What is average arctic ice temp? Is that even measured by the satellites? Since the sea water 2 meters or less below the ice surface is at 31F (-1C) or so, would that really just be measure of sea level air temp departure from average?
Just saw Caleb’s more complete post after I refreshed from my post.
couldn’t agree more with Caleb, this is, about the public being in no mood to fund real polar data surveys and instrements once they find out they’ve been played for stupid by the AGW alarmists.
Gosh darn it , there we go again , those big scarey red and orange blotches , now they are showing up in the frozen arctic where ice is hot…. when is the public going to have a collective brain hemmorage, honestly. I can’t take it ….
The “Arctic Temperature” (above 80 deg) graph in your Sea Ice reference page seems to show the arctic temperature about 8 degrees above normal. Could that be related to this red graph?
Arctic amplification kicked in last year when Arctic sea ice extent and volume was up ~50 on 2012.
BBC
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-25383373
http://www.bbc.com/newsround/25401940
I meant
Arctic amplification kicked in last year when Arctic sea ice extent and volume was up ~50% on 2012.
Well it’s a little warmer in Siberia, but it’s still plenty cold all around the artic ocean, but facts don’t seem to matter to the Alarmists.
OT
On extreme weather I have notice that when I ask Warmists for say 5 peer reviewed papers showing extreme weather trends CAUSED by man – they freeze. They attack me instead of my request. There is a ‘mountain of evidence’ but they – freeze. This is the one to shoot for guys.
This is what I would call “selling your deal” vs presenting science. They have a deal to sell to the public (CAGW) and they are looking for ways to do it (color schemes). I can’t fault them for that part of it but what I would fault them for is pretending that they aren’t “selling a deal” and this is all about science. That is simply dishonest.
Plausible deniability, nice.
I can confirm that from Greenland and across most of Canada it was solid ice and snow on Mar 18th as I personally observer same from 40,000 ft. Probably Iceland, too, but I was watching a movie.
Let’s think about the average temperature of the ice at the top of the surface, essentially the temperature on top of the 2 feet of snow at this time of the year.
It is actually about -20.0C on top of the snow. At the bottom of the six feet of sea ice, it is around -1.6C in most of the Arctic, about -0.9C on the Siberian side where it is less salty.
Okay we have 8 feet of snow and ice to play around with now. The very top is -20C, the very bottom is -1.6C. It is possible to play around with these numbers to any extent that one wants to.
But how does one really know what this profile really is. There is only about 2 places in the entire Arctic when they are measuring this profile on a weekly basis, let alone daily.
Climate/meteorological science has just decided to just call any ice covered region -1.6C. Its frozen so it is really -1.6C somewhere in that 8 feet of profile. But the actual surface on top is -20.0C.
It is quandary that can’t really be resolved.
Now bring in the surface temperatures at 2 metres height which most other meteorological temperatures on land is based on. More fun. They don’t measure the temperature of black soil beneath the instrument which changes by up to 40C during the day as the sunlight hits it and fades away at night.
Just some point to think about here.
I live here.
bunch of idiot hippies.
I suspect they are toeing the line to keep the funding for the offshore turbines the UM was working on.
Some may be unaware of the DMI’s new ice temperature product (among others):
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/ice_temp/index.uk.php
Go here for what else is new: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/index.uk.php