UPDATE: 2/25/16 DMI offers an explanation and an apology here
One of the graphs we have had on the WUWT sea ice page has been the DMI graph showing 30% concentration of sea ice extent, there has been a widening divergence between the two Arctic sea ice extent graphs produced by DMI. WUWT reader David Burton writes:
Until a few days ago, Denmark’s Meteorologiske Institut (DMI) graphed Arctic sea ice extent two ways. They had a graph comparing the current year to the preceding ten years’ “30%+ concentration” Arctic sea ice extent, with coastal zones masked out, by graphing each year in a different color on the same horizontal timescale.
They also had (and still have) a graph comparing the current year to the preceding four years’ “15%+ concentration” Arctic sea ice extent (and I don’t know how they handle coastal zones in that version). In both graphs, the current (partial) year is plotted with a heavier black line.
Until a few days ago, depending on which graph you choose, you could “prove” that Arctic sea ice extent is either the highest (in the “30%+” graph) that it’s been in the last eleven years, or the lowest (in the “15%+” graph) that it’s been in the last five years.
On 2016-02-18 DMI discontinued the “30%+ concentration” version, which showed high recent ice extents.
This is how DMI describe their 30% graph data:
Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.
The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure.
Compare the description of the other DMI graph of sea-ice extent at 15% concentration:
Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere during the past years, including climate mean; plus/minus 1 standard deviation. The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 15% are classified as ice.
The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. The total sea ice extent can differ slightly from other sea ice extent estimates. Possible differences between this sea ice extent estimate and others are most likely caused by differences in algorithms and definitions.
Paul Homewood notes on his blog:
Now there may be good reasons for this difference, and it must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it.
Assuming both are right, we have a situation where there may be less ice in coastal regions and/or less 15% ice, but more of the 30% concentration. Given the fact that some of the mixed land/sea pixels can confuse the algorithm, there is good reason to think the 30% version is actually more reliable.
But the real problem is that DMI has now withdrawn their 30% graph, offering this explanation:
I have removed the old sea ice extent graphics and the new graphics (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.php) is now our one and only official sea ice extent.
When I introduced the new graphics I also announced that the old graphics would be removed after some time – and now is the time, sorry.
I spend too much time explaining the differences and it was quite confusing for many – so, I decided to remove the old graphics. However, all the data are available here http://osisaf.met.no/p/ if you would like do the plotting your selves.
The link for the data which they offer is not of any use to laymen, so effectively the DMI has withdrawn this data from the public eye. Now, when the old link is clicked, we get this:
There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results. I may be being harsh, but if DMI wants to avoid these sort of accusations, the answer is imply to restore the graph, whether convenient or not.
I would tend to agree.
There is clearly no equipment failure, nor computing failure, it’s simply the person in charge of the product has become irritated at having to explain the differences with the 15% graph to the public. Instead of simply creating an explanation page to link in the 30% graph page, he simply disappeared it to make his job easier. That’s some really lazy science, and does not serve the public interest, something DMI is tasked to do by their own mission statement:
Mission and vision
Mission
We create and communicate knowledge about weather, climate and seas for the benefit of society.
Vision
We are a world-class meteorological institute. We help citizens, public authorities and private companies to transform knowledge into safety and growth.
Whether it is “skullduggery” or not as Homewood notes, climate science has this continuing habit of not showing adverse results, something Steve McIntyre has noted on more than one occasion through the years.
Since we are still learning about sea ice trends, factors, and effects (unless you are one of those who think the science is settled and nothing more to learn) it seems to me that this graph offers an important insight into change in the Arctic that can’t be seen [elsewhere], that may be a precursor to change at the 15% concentration level.
Given their mission statement, I think DMI should restore the graph. For those that agree, you can contact them at: kontakt@info.dmi.dk If you do email them, please be respectful and cordial; accusations, rants, and anger won’t really mesh with them wanting to cooperate with the public.
UPDATE: The typical haters, such as Neven Acropolis, are making claims in comments that I see this as some sort of “conspiracy”. I do not and any such claim is false and political in nature. I see this as nothing more than a DMI employee who has become annoyed at having to answer questions about the 30% graph, and made a decision to pull it, something supported by the DMI reply email posted by Paul Homewood. In that email DMI doesn’t explain why they’ve chosen to remove it and only make the 15% graph official, only that they have.
WUWT readers may recall that once before I was accused of making conspiratorial thinking when NSIDC’s graph went wonky, even NSIDC told me it “wasn’t worth blogging about” only to have egg on their faces days later when it was clear the satellite data had failed, and it was the result of the instrument on the spacecraft, something I alluded to. That pretty well silenced those people, but of course they never apologized for it.
Given that the DMI 30% graph is made from the same satellite data as the 15% graph, people such as Neven will have a very hard time claiming that somehow the the 30% graph is flawed, and the 15% graph is not. There’s no separate satellite instrument to capture 15% vs. 30%, as that is done in post processing, so we can rule out equipment failure as an issue.
As I noted, Steve McIntyre has shown through the years that there is a tendency in climate science to not publish adverse data and/or results that are inconsistent with conclusions of papers and institutional outlooks. This may be one of those times, or it may simply be a grumpy product manager who is tired of answering questions about it. Hopefully DMI will clarify their position and give a credible explanation as to why they have removed it.
UPDATE2: Commenter “pethefin” notes that DMI has an entire page dedicated to the use of the 30% concentration value that is still operational:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/extent.uk.php
The continuation of 30% product types like this by DMI makes it pretty hard for some people to credibly claim that somehow the 30% graph that was removed was flawed where the 15% graph made from the same satellite data is not.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
[snip wildly off-topic -mod]
We’re being asked to spend trillions and drastically change our lifestyles, but hey, it’s too much trouble to maintain one graph!
I had been wondering about the 30% v. 15% graphs. A table giving 0-10%, 11-20%, etc. ice areas. might clarify the situation.
And if land-sea pixels are the most difficutlt measurements, then why not just remove them and report on only sea pixels? I find it hard to believe that ice % right at the shores is what CC should be concerned with.
Your second observation is why on the 30% graph, coastal pixels were masked out. On 15% ice/ 85% water, the coastal pixel problem essentially solves itself.
Just read up on MASIE. Only available from 2006, but higher resolution (4Km) and higher ice concentration 40%. H/t Ron Clutz. They get the higher resolution than microwave alone because integrate visual signals also whenever seasonally possible. And are more accurate during the thaw season since not fooled by standing meltwater. Problem was illustrated in essay Northwest Passage.
To me it seems logical that the Arctic is freezing harder and that the area of 30% ice is expanding, while the area of 15% ice beyond it is extending farther but not as much as the 30% is, so the 15% figure will drop a little. Is this possibly what is going on?
I noticed that the DMI 30% chart was running high but thought it was probably just poor processing, maybe by a new trainee. They always said they would shut down the 30% chart at some point, so no surprise that they did. If the 30% ice were actually so large, then I’d expect a slow melt this coming summer, but my own expectation is that we’re heading for a grand minimum this year, to be followed in future years by recovery as the Sun cools. So it’s in the pudding, as usual.
They’ve had it for years, why shut it down rather than fix it if in fact it were a problem? They still maintain a climatology page based on the 30% value.
What changed is that DMI signed onto OSISAF (which is linked on the center of the DMI page) a few years ago which is a European consortium to process satellite & other data. Now DMI doesn’t have to do its own work anymore, they can use OSISAF’s. Mind you, OSISAF has taken on board much of the Danish expertise (as well as a heavily Norwegian contingent) but not the 30% concentration — they’ve standardized on 15% like everyone else. I quite liked the DMI 30% chart, thought it the most reliable one (except when they visibly ran off the rails periodically), but they did seem to lose their bearings in the last 3 months — probably deliberately to diminish its audience and so facilitate the planned shutdown.
If you ratio the 30% and the 15% data you have a measure of compaction. Not a bad thing to do and you know where the data is.
NZ Willy, you might be right or not. What remains puzzeling is the adjustements the the DMI made to the fall 2015 rise without any explanation. I have followed the 30 graph for a long time and have never noticed any similar reinterpretation for such a long period. Climate scientists can thank themselves (Climategate etc.) for people being skeptical. A simple scientific explanation of why the reinterpretation was necessary would suffice, accompanied with an explanation of how such need for interpretation affects their methodology concerning their other products.
Heh, this reminds me of Richard Feynman’s story of how he got silver electroplating onto plastic working, so his employer marketed silver-plated pens etc. The competition were impressed by the products (since the silver hadn’t started peeling off yet) and concluded that Feynman’s employer must have a large laboratory with 10-20 skilled scientists developing the technology — so they abandoned trying to compete against that. But actually it was just Feynman by himself. So here you are looking for DMI’s scientific methodology and the scientific explanations thereof, but it looks from Caleb’s posting above that the 30% DMI graph was likely being produced by “Ulrik” all by himself, in a process mixing art and science. What’s the Danish for “Science? Wha?”.
World governance based on lies will only get you a revolution at some point in time when folks catch on. I hope to see it in my lifetime.
..Anybody read Danish ? This the reply I got back !
Vi har indført nye procedurer for henvendelser til DMI. Din henvendelse er derfor ikke registreret hos os.
Vi henviser dig derfor til at skrive til os via vores kontaktformular på:
http://www.dmi.dk/om-dmi/dmi-paa-nettet/kontakt-dmi/kontaktformular/
Vi ser frem til at betjene dig.
Med venlig hilsen
DMI
Kundeservice
…Funny thing is, I got the reply within 2 minutes, so it is either automated or somebody doesn’t have much to do !
Try google translate,
or look up a few posts 😉
..Never mind, the answer is supplied above, thanks !! ( hey, I was busy typing ! ) LOL
I’m happy to entertain valid comments about the science
Well, I hope you pay attention to my valid comments about the science, because you’re making an ass of yourself. And I’m writing this, knowing that you probably won’t post this comment.
[Well, Neven, you are making an even bigger ass of yourself by not acknowledging that you’ve improperly labeled me without cause, and apparently are refusing to post my update on your blog stating I don’t think there is any conspiracy at all. This will be your defining moment. What will it be? Truth or your comfort zone of hate? Until you post that update in entirety in your blog post, you’ll have no forum here – Anthony]
In the comment section I have posted your statement that you haven’t said there is a conspiracy, even though we both know that you clearly alluded to it by using words as ‘inconvenient’, ‘skullduggery’ and ‘withdrawn because wrong results’.
When will you inform your readers of the fact that the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph is most probably incorrect? And that Global sea ice minimum records have been broken, and the Arctic sea ice maximum could very well follow suit? Never, right?
In the meantime I’ll let you know that I posted a link to your blog post so that people can make up their own minds, but so far you have failed to return the courtesy, even though you explicitly name me in your blog post, and I have refrained from posting multiple links to my blog to reference the points I make.
I challenge you to post this comment, if you dare.
“DMI SIE-30% graph is most probably incorrect?”
You have absolutely ZERO proof of that baseless assumption.
I challenge you to make it clear in the main body of the post, as I requested. I’m betting you won’t, because it’s outside of your comfort zone to admit you’ve improperly and derogatorily labeled me.
You want the courtesy of a link when you’ve done that? Fix your own problems first.
Do that and we’ll talk, otherwise don’t post here again.
[snip – no posting here until you fix the body of your post to include my update stating I don’t believe there’s any conspiracy – Anthony]
“There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results.”
“I would tend to agree.”
So you are saying you are tending to agree with “so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment” therefore a graph is withdrawn.
You do seem to imply that something nefarious is going on in climate science circles.
Assuming bad faith implies ulterior motives.
Dear Wagen,
Your Danish is apparently first rate, but your English needs a little work.
The phrase, “I would tend to agree,” has what is known in English grammar as a logically implied “understood” or “silent” qualifying phrase. Since you did not realize that, here it is: “I would tend to agree, {however, I am not concluding this at this time.}”
And, even IF Anthony DID think there was likely an ulterior motive, SO WHAT? That is (if you are familiar with the historical record of the AGWists activities) a logical conclusion.
Time to get our eyes off your overworked, sophomoric, diversionary tactic and on back onto the ball: the facts about Arctic sea ice extent and why a popular, clear, presentation of them was removed from DMI’s website.
Janice
Oh, boy, for you, an English-not-first-language speaker, I’d better post this: “… and
onback onto.”Wasn’t skullduggery Paul Homewood’s word?
Wasn’t Paul asking for clarification from DMI while maintaining that he was trying not to be harsh?
why not just let him post Anthony I got banned from his forum for refusing to take his sites extreme position, apparently disagreeing is moaning like a princess. even when you are asking for explanation.
Idont think he would last for long here just like any other ardent believer on either side of the argument.
I thought your policy was not to moderate, so that we can see the blindness of belief.
I would be miffed if he doesnt post your full comments on his site but there again where are the numbers, that go to his site and read his blog………..or in other words why do you care.
Neven says, “When will you inform your readers of the FACT that the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph is most probably incorrect?
============================================================================
The DMI web site says the 30 percent graphic masks off what they describe as “confused” costal zones, so in fact they are clearly stating that the 30 percent region they are showing is more accurate. No wonder you blog alone Neven, when your definition of “fact” is so confused.
I don’t own my own Climate Blog, so perhaps it’s easy for me to say – but I’d rather see comments from a wide range of competing views, rather than having somebody banned for vociferously pushing different ideas. If they write rubbish, there are plenty of people here to belittle them, without having to ban them, and it also provides entertainment for us (mostly) armchair viewers.
nevenA to me it looks like you can’t read. Nowhere in this article did anthony use the words you say he uses. he quotes Paul homewood who indeed uses these words.
i also followed the DMI 30% graph for years just because it is a good “overall graph”. Of course it can’t be compared with the 15% ones or it doesn’t say anything about extend, it says something when you compare the years of only this graph with each other. I didn’t see the graph going that positive for years. then to see it adjusted at such big rate does also spark an alarm bell
unless DMI accounts for this largest adjustment i have seen in the 5 years i observed their graph, i also tend to agree “something is going on”. it’s bizarre to see the graph suddenly break the 10 year average on the high side just before it got discontinued.
I personally don’t think the discontinuing is the issue. that was announced for years. It had to come one day. but the last and biggest adjustment i have seen is the oddity here.
do i blindly believe skullduggery is being applied? No As long as the DMI doesn’t give any reasons i would keep an open mind and give them “the benefits of the doubt” but i am surely tending to agree something “unconvenient” is being hidden by this last (and biggest) adjustment.
Thus the title is spot on without making accusations, it is based on facts that were visible till 18/02. Unless the DMI will give information about their adjustments made this is a correct way to title this. WUWT is known to place updates and change the title or even strikethrough parts of articles when a valid answer proves any author wrong.
a lot of other climate related sites (pro or contra CAGW) i visit still have to learn from this
Anthony, If you don’t believe its a conspiracy, and don’t want to imply that it is, maybe you should change the title of the post? “DMI disappears an inconvenient sea ice graph” sounds exactly like you are accusing DMI of removing the graph because they don’t like the results..
[No, “neven” didn’t like the title at Paul Homewood’s blog where the word was “hidden”, so there is doubt anything would satisfy the whining and accusations. Even if the title was changed, they would likely complain about that too. -mod]
And furthermore, surely “disappear” is an intransitive verb, so the title doesn’t make sense anyway?
Speaking of “not showing adverse results”, it should be noted that Paul Homewood still hasn’t updated his blog’s monthly ‘global surface temperature’ page with January 2016 data. These days Paul’s blog only updates the satellite data (or at least it did). The surface data went out the window shortly after it started showing warming.
Have the satellite data sets befallen the same fate?
I’ll point out this comment to him. He may simply have not gotten around to it yet. I sometimes miss my own self-imposed deadlines too.
I suspect the recent increase was a processing issue and not worth dealing with on a product that they had already decided to drop based on the issues that they had with the masking. This year the 30% graphic is showing about 3million sq km below the 15 % graph compared with 4 million last year which seems improbable. According to the 30% graphs this year’s value is about 1 million sq km more than last year, while the 15% graph is about half a million less than last year, doesn’t seem likely. The DMI 15% data is comparable with other satellite measures so the discrepancy is more likely in the 30% graph.
That may very well be, but why would an organization that has provided a climatology comparison page based on 30% data for years suddenly decide not to fix it, and leave the climatology page (which has years of data) an orhpan.
They provided something unique, that apparently had value to climatology because of that effort. Why stop it?
Taking them at face value, the problems with the near shore masking issues were more easily solved by going to a 15% metric which the other sources use. They’d made the decision to drop this product before this divergence occurred, seems more likely due to no longer paying attention to that metric. Arctic sea ice is at all-time lows at present, unlikely that the 30% graph is the only one that is right.
” Arctic sea ice is at all-time lows at present,”
That is an absolute load of twaddle and a total MIS-REPRESENTATION of reality..
There is plenty of evidence showing that Arctic sea ice is actually still rather high compared to the rest of the Holocene , even up to the MWP. During the first 3/4 of the Holocene , there was often regular periods of ZERO summer sea ice.
The ONLY reason the Arctic sea ice level is still so HIGH is because we are still trying to RECOVER from the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.. ie the LIA.
Paul Homewood currently has a great series of links about this very FACT.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/how-the-arctic-climate-has-changed-since-the-mwp/
Here is one of the charts he uses.
These people claim to be using concentrations of greater than 30%
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=01&fy=2007
AndyG55 February 22, 2016 at 12:47 pm
” Arctic sea ice is at all-time lows at present,”
That is an absolute load of twaddle and a total MIS-REPRESENTATION of reality..
There is plenty of evidence showing that Arctic sea ice is actually still rather high compared to the rest of the Holocene , even up to the MWP. During the first 3/4 of the Holocene , there was often regular periods of ZERO summer sea ice.
The ONLY reason the Arctic sea ice level is still so HIGH is because we are still trying to RECOVER from the COLDEST period of the last 10,000 years.. ie the LIA.
Paul Homewood currently has a great series of links about this very FACT.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/how-the-arctic-climate-has-changed-since-the-mwp/
The first graph Homewood show is wrong and doesn’t show the last 165yrs of data! The graph you show here is useless since the axis legend is unreadable, but in any case appears to show today comparable with the MWP.
However, the discussion here is centered on satellite sea ice data which was what I was referring to, for this time of year we are currently at a record low sea ice extent, it’s even possible that the record low maximum could be set this year.
Phil.
The sun is just barely above the horizon up north, and there is no energy to be absorbed nor reflected yet from the sun until about 1 April. Thus, since energy is lost FASTER from an open sea than from a sea covered by sea ice all the many months between 1 Sept and 30 March 15, does not the absence of Arctic sea ice mean a cooler planet seven months of the year?
Phil. You do realise there is satellite data from 1975, when ice was much lower?
“useless since the axis legend is unreadable”
Your incompetence doesn’t interest me. !
And yes I know you would like to rest your junk science just on the tiny period of time of the satellite record, while ignoring the longer history.. That is ALL the AGW farce is capable of doing.
The longer history absolutely destroys their histrionics and their BASELESS hypothesis.
AndyG55 February 23, 2016 at 3:11 am
“useless since the axis legend is unreadable”
Your incompetence doesn’t interest me. !
Not my incompetence, the incompetence of whoever scanned that image, Homewood?
The vertical axis is so blurred that it’s unreadable, I don’t know why you chose it.
Phil, get it right.
“The DMI 15% data is comparable with other satellite measures”
The DMI 15% data is compiled from satellite data, not comparable with. The data is compared with other measures which all use the same algorithm for a 15% estimate so they are all the same. Fantastic observation.
The problem is the 15% and 30% estimates use different algorithms on the same data.
Hence 15% estimates underestimate and 30% overestimate. Even Neven could understand that logic.
But he won’t.
Phil.February 22, 2016 at 11:52 am
“The DMI 15% data is comparable with other satellite measures so the discrepancy is more likely in the 30% graph.”
Get it right.
The DMI 15% data is compiled from satellite data, not comparable with it.
All 15% data sets use the same algorithms, that is why they match so well.
DMI used the same algorithms for their 15% product.
The DMI 30% data uses a different algorithm on the same data.
Obviously one underestimates and one overestimates when you have a choice of 2.
MASIE, a different product, shows much more ice and agrees with the 30%
By your “logic” 30% must be correct because it agrees with another comparison whereas 15% does not.
angech February 22, 2016 at 4:29 pm
Phil.February 22, 2016 at 11:52 am
“The DMI 15% data is comparable with other satellite measures so the discrepancy is more likely in the 30% graph.”
Get it right.
The DMI 15% data is compiled from satellite data, not comparable with it.
All 15% data sets use the same algorithms, that is why they match so well.
DMI used the same algorithms for their 15% product.
I guess you don’t understand what ‘other’ means?
Actually they use different algorithms, NASA Team, Bootstrap, Artist, Norsex for instance.
They also use different satellite data, JAXA uses AMSR2 data from their satellite, NSIDC uses SSMIS, DMI uses OSI SAF data from SSMIS.
The DMI 30% data uses a different algorithm on the same data.
Obviously one underestimates and one overestimates when you have a choice of 2.
MASIE, a different product, shows much more ice and agrees with the 30%
MASIE shows 14.9 million, NSIDC 14.2 million, JAXA 13.6 million, DMI (15%) ~14.5 million, DMI(30%) ~ 11.5 million.
By your “logic” 30% must be correct because it agrees with another comparison whereas 15% does not.
I think not.
“I think not.”
Ahh…. your first correct statement… well done. !!!
AndyG55 February 23, 2016 at 3:12 am
“I think not.”
Ahh…. your first correct statement… well done. !!!
Your reading comprehension not so good. Perhaps you should check the originating websites where you’ll find that different algorithms are used and some different satellites.
The statement that “MASIE, a different product, shows much more ice and agrees with the 30%” is clearly nonsense: MASIE shows 14.9 million, whereas DMI(30%) shows ~ 11.5 million.
lee February 23, 2016 at 2:42 am
Phil. You do realise there is satellite data from 1975, when ice was much lower?
Yes from about 1972, much lower than when? Certainly not lower than now.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/pub/DATASETS/nsidc0192_seaice_trends_climo/total-ice-area-extent/esmr-smmr-ssmi-merged/gsfc.nasateam.month.extent.1972-2002.n
Phil. Interesting data. However the IPCC map of Arctic Ice shows a discrepancy of ~0.9m km^2 for the average between 1975 and 1990, which is not reflected in the data in your reference.
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf fig 7.20 p224 or p30 of the pdf.
Can someone make a request for the code used to generate the graphs? I’m assuming it should be a fairly self contained program. With that the graphs could be regenerated from the data and maybe some additional graphs and figures generated as well.
Seems a little counter intuitive that >15% ice extent would be less than the >30% extent. It would be nice for DMI to give an explanation for the difference,
The 15% value is about 14.5 million vs the 30% value at about 11.5 million.
There is around 4-5 million km² approximate difference.
Also remember where the warm land blob from December was (northern Russia)
Also remember that the jet stream is all over the place at the moment.
It is quite conceivable that there is large area of this dubious 15% sea ice gone missing, possibly piled up towards the heavier ice.
The Adjustoscene comith.
OMG, Seriously ?????
… All that has happened is they didn’t change the line colour! WAKE UP!!!
No it does not.
I think that you are misreading the graph.
If you look at the plot, on the right hand side, 01/11 and 01/12 this is the data going through November and December 2015 culminating at just above the 10 million mark on 31st December 2015.
If you look at the left hand side of the plot, you will see 01/01 and 01/02. The lower dark black line (ie, the line starting below the 10 million mark) is January and February 2015. The dark black line that starts at the extreme left at just above the 10 million mark (ie., the second higher black line) is the 2016 plot. It covers January through to mid February 2016. You will note how the higher black line on the extreme left hand side of the graph follows on from the December 2015 figure.
So in short, the left hand side has two black lines, which cover different years. The lower is January 2105 onwards, The higher is January 2016 and culminates around mid February 2016 when DMI pulled the plot.
As AndyG55 says, it is a colour coding issue, not an issue of having different values for the same data.
The continuous black line running throughout the entirety of 2015 should no longer appear as a black line but should appear as a coloured line since it is no longer the current year, and forms part of the historical data for the years 2005 to 2015. What colour it should be given is anyone’s preference.
The higher black line should be in black since it is the start of the current 2016 data, and covers the period as from 1st January 2016 through to 17th February 2016.
Re the controversial dropping of the 30% concentration graphic, it will be interesting to see how the 15% graphic changes over the next couple of years as the Northern Atlantic and Northern Pacific sea surface temperatures start to drop. This drop will follow the current “flipping” of the PDO and NADO from the “warm” to “cool” phase). One would expect annual melt-back in sea ice at the extremities of the sea ice pack to lessen as the ocean temperatures drop – in which case the 15% graphic will start to drift back up.
Concerning the replenishment of the Arctic ice pack itself, it would be interesting to know what impact persistent jet contrails are having on multi-year sea ice. These have increased and broadened markedly over the past couple of decades in response to increased polar route traffic between North America and SE Asia.
And DMI’s Arctic sea ice extent data product will end up being this:
Here ya go, folks! Arctic Sea Ice TODAY.
AW writes: “UPDATE2: Commenter “pethefin” notes that DMI has an entire page dedicated to the use of the 30% concentration value that is still operational:”
If one bothers to read the chart or visit the page you’ll notice that it only goes through 2014. I.e., the data for the 30% chart you’re displaying in the UPDATE does *not* include current data. Hmmmm … maybe because they discontinued the 30% product in 2015?
I would hardly call data that only goes through 2014 “still operational.”
As Walt Meier has said “… there is generally automatic quality control done to make sure the final results are accurate and consistent. If such QC is not done, a lot of incorrect values can occur. I suspect that since the older version was no longer supported, the QC wasn’t being watched and something went wrong that they didn’t bother to fix (or maybe didn’t even notice) because the new 15% version is the official DMI output.”
Why not just admit that the graph was no longer supported, began being filled with errors, and was therefor deemed no longer worth keeping around? Oh, but then you wouldn’t be able to slander climate scientists with statements like: “There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results.”
Sheesh, has it occurred to you that fixing errors are exactly what these paper are paid to do in their line of work? Imagine if all science took this approach. “oh, it has errors, and we don’t want to take the effort to fix it, so lets just discontinue it, especially since we get so many questions about it”.
That’s not science, it’s laziness. Something you seem to embrace with your comment.
The page is still operational, and that is what I referred to. If the 30% data set (and plot) has errors, why keep it in one section but discard it elsewhere? That doesn’t wash with the flawed data explanation.
Lazy thinking indeed, on many levels.
This graph http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/stats_mean.uk.php
most likely is updated only once a year, after analysis of the previous year, in other words, let’s be patient.
Then there is even a third graph by the DMI that also uses the 30 % coverage
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/extent.uk.php
which presumably also is updated once a year, unless they discontinue that too.
Is this Neven using a sock puppet?
He quotes Walt Meier and down below brings up conspiracy theories.
Style of writing is similar to Neven as well but ???
Silly me, it was Neven’s sook puppet Kevin O’Neill, not his sock puppet
Posted at WUWT – let’s see if it goes through:
oneillsinwisconsin February 22, 2016 at 2:51 pm
AW writes: “UPDATE2: Commenter “pethefin” notes that DMI has an entire page dedicated to the use of the 30% concentration value that is still operational:”
I used Walt’s email reply to Jim, but didn’t link anything in the comment so that AW couldn’t use it as an excuse to snip.
Posted by: Kevin O’Neill | February 22, 2016 at 23:59
For me its 100% certain that the plot was removed due to political pressure from WMO.IPCC probably members of the Danish government, Mann. the team ect …just look at the graph below carefully what sticks out? They have removed both 2015 and 2016 graphs, its a dead giveaway, even from the removed graph. I really don’t get how “skeptics” get scr#### continually by the AGW team. LOL
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
Examine the horizontal scale, do you see what is different from the now defunct graph?
Paul Homewood blog
” Lawrence Martin permalink February 21, 2016 8:23 pm
[SNIP] Lawrence Please stop this ridiculous trolling.”
Wow! The horizontal represents months, not days. The numbers go from the 1st day of the first month (01/01) through the 1st day of the twelfth month (01/12).
TPGazer
You are right, that is what I get for not wearing glasses… the new graph uses months on horizontal axis and I jumped to an erroneous conclusion , Sorry
Poor Lawrence again proves he is … not… very,,,, bright !!!
Eliza, the DMI did not remove 2015, they reinterpreted the fall 2015 and picked a color almost identical to 2008 to depict it. As a result, it is almost impossible to follow the 2015 trend. Not to mention the truly interesting questions of why the reinterpretation was deemed necessary. They did remove the beginning of 2016, I wonder why since they could have reinterpreted that too and use yet another color to depict it?
2015 and 2016 ice plots
DMI is no longer a credible scientific entity.
The 2015 plot is not the same as the one that had been there, I(n fact I do not believe it is a 2015 plot check it out
I think that you are right.
In the plot that remains, 2015 has been coloured purple and 31st December 2015 is well below the 10 million mark.
If one looks at the plot that was up on 17th February 2016, the plot for 1st January 2015 through to 17th February 2016 was black. On 31st December 2015. the black line was touching the 10 million mark.
The black plot on the removed graph does not appear to be the same as the purple 2015 plot on the graph that still remains.
WUWT?
I consider that DMI should be asked to clarify.
They reinterpreted the data, as has become very usual in climate science. However, the choice of color in the graph for 2015 could have been more informative since the color that they for some reason chose is almost identical to the color of 2008. And of course, a scientific explanation for all of this is missing entirely.
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
There is no room for lethargy in science. There is no excuse for giving up in aggravation. That is the nature of it.
Painstaking effort against relentless aggravation and disappointment of expectations is the lot of all truthseekers.
Mr Martinez is a warmist friend of Jim Hunt and conspiracy theorist Neven.
Handle with care!
jim hunt is a nice man. he is going to pay £1000 to my favourite charity in 2022 in line with our arctic sea ice bet 🙂
Hey, bit chilly, we had a bet almost lined up, but the threads got old. Are you still interested? We would only have to wait until Sept 2018.
Eliza writes:
This is simple conspiracy ideation and absolutely nutters. Some sites will ban you for spouting such nonsense. It would take tens of thousands of people to be on it. And you haven’t a shred of evidence to back you up. 100% certain – LOL. Yep, zero possibility you’re wrong. Case closed.
..” . It would take tens of thousands of people to be on it ” ?…Ummm…it took ONE person to cancel it ! D’oh !
+1
While one cant be 100% certain that it was political influence, one cant as such be 100% certain it wasn’t
Ironically you are criticizing the absolute statement whilst going all absolute yourself at the other end of the scale.
What do you call it when you can contradict yourself and not notice..
Paul Homewood blog
” Lawrence Martin permalink February 21, 2016 8:23 pm
[SNIP] Lawrence Please stop this ridiculous trolling.”
I made a simple comment to the DMI
“I miss the 30% sea ice graph. If it was so much trouble to explain why not compromise and publish one graph with 22 1/2% sea ice?
Why not get rid of the, in their own words, “confused” 15% chart.
janice once again highlights why i love her posting style !