![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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Here is the typical temperature profile from the sea ice off of Barrow Alaska in 2012.
Air temperature above -33C (height of the winter I guess). Down to the surface of the snow at -28.0C. Down to the top of the ice at sea level -20.0C. The ice slowly becomes warmer and warmer as one goes deeper until the bottom of the sea ice 4 feet down is -1.7C. What is the accurate surface temperature.
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel/brw2012/BRW_MBS12_currTprof.png
I look at the NSIDC Arctic page routinely, and this winter it sure looked like their Cartesian plot of ice coverage vs time, was well below what their map showed.
Could just be my perception, I didn’t digitize anything. But, anyone else sense that too?
Just a thought I had after reading this…
If areas of Sea Ice are masked when displaying these maps, does this also apply when calculating temperature anomalies?
If so, areas that are normally covered in sea ice but are open would obviously show a positive anomaly, while areas that are normally open but are covered in sea ice would be masked off (but would presumably have otherwise been a negative anomaly). This could potentially introduce a warm bias in the two poles…if sea temperature anomalies are calculated in a similar manner.
I don’t know if this means anything and I’m sure they account for this, but it was just a thought I had.
The same kind of color bar manipulation goes on in the oil and gas exploration industry. Multimillion dollar decisions are based on interpretations of seismic data. Once it’s colored up, it’s hard to unsee an interpretation. I can’t tell you how many times we’ve been offered drilling opportunities that ultimately fell apart simply by applying the “default” color bar instead of the “sales-pitch” one.
Intrigued, I clicked the link in the original posr, switched to SST anomaly, and on my screen at least the ice covered areas for March 28th are currently a snowy white sort of a color!
I just reasoned that the plots posted show (in order)
1) Sea surface temperature with a floor at -2 C (based on sea water covered by ice)
2) Ice surface temperature anomaly. Since the ice surface can and usually is colder than 0 C anomalies can have wide swings above and below the average. To be fair, I find it curious that there are regions where the colors transition from full scale positive to full scale negative over short distances which makes me wonder whether the measurement is reliable and if it is, what physical phenomena makes it so.
3) Doesn’t show data for the area of interest, so I’m not clear why it’s included.
4) Ice extent greater than some concentration (>15%)
5) Ice concentration
So my wild assed guess is that the pictures are different because they’re picturing different things, but I suppose one can’t exclude some nefarious plot.
You got results:
Rather harsh criticism of Climate Reanalyzer’s daily sea-surface temperature anomaly map was posted yesterday on Watts Up With That?. At issue was the lack of a mask over sea-ice covered areas. Surface temperature anomalies are much greater over ice than over water, and the WUWT article implied that our graphics were intended to mislead or misrepresent information. This was not our intention. In order to avoid confusion and further angst, the surface temperature field now includes a mask over sea-ice covered gridcells. Today I will verify that reported region-averaged anomaly values are correct and do not include the masked areas.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/CR_blog/CR_blog.php
People in climate science really should have to take a class in cartography before they graduate. The internet is awash with awful, irresponsible, and deceptive maps.
Josh might have some fun with this.
Picture a “climate scientist” standing next to a globe with a paint brush and a can of red paint…
Caption:
“It looks like it’s warmer than we thought!”
Or more simply:
“It LOOKS like it’s warmer….”
izen says:
March 28, 2014 at 2:35 am
“@-Jimbo
“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. ”
Perhaps you need to ask a better informed ‘warmist’?
Here are five to be going on with.
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/wcas_2011.pdf
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3908.1
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.81/abstract
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html
”
Picked the third one, read the abstract, no mention of man or anthropogenic. Where’s the beef.
Thanks, ES. Good news.
3/28/2014 — SST Anomaly Map Now Includes Sea Ice Mask, Posted by Sean Birkel.
See http://cci-reanalyzer.org/CR_blog/CR_blog.php
This is a plus for Climate Reanalyzer,
We need a map showing the measurement showing the locations of the measurement points, and the region that the results are mapped over.
How accurate would those temperatures on the ice be if they were all plotted based on a single measurement at someplace like Point Barrow.