Earlier this week, I published a post titled: DMI disappears an inconvenient sea ice graph . Some of the usual folks who police any sea ice discussion went ballistic over the post, and in some ugly blog posts of their own, suggested I and others were engaging in Lewandowsky inspired “conspiracy ideation”. While others may have been, I wasn’t, and made it very clear, but that doesn’t matter to those types, as that sort of stuff is their m.o. when it comes to criticizing climate skeptics.
The fact is though, that DMI did in fact remove the graph from public view, and offered no explanation to the public when they did it. If you aren’t a daily watching sea-ice fanatic like some of the critics, it was easy to miss that the product had been quality control neglected by DMI. Worsening the issue, in an email exchange published in that same WUWT story, one DMI employee was quoted as saying (paraphrasing) “I got tired of answering questions about it so I took it offline”. If there were a lesson of how not to instill confidence in the public when decisions are made to remove data products that have been around for years, suddenly disappearing them with no explanation to the public would certainly qualify as a worst-case example. DMI simply bungled the public face of the decommissioning, there’s really no other way to look at it. Had they done this sort of due diligence before removing the graph, and placed a link to an explanation rather than to the new product with greatly differing values, there likely would not have been the questions about why it suddenly disappeared, and what the possible motives might be. The ham-handed response from the DMI employee did nothing but add suspicion to an already poorly handled situation.
They’ve realized this, and offered an explanation and an apology on their website today. I accept both, which I have republished below.
On a personal note, for those elsewhere in the blogosphere who want to try to convince skeptics that the explanation was rooted in technological problems, I suggest this maxim: “you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar”. The ugly labeling of people with legitimate questions while at the same time trying to convince them of details they may not be aware of was just as badly bungled as DMI’s decommissioning. There’s lessons to be learned all around.
From DMI:
Sea Ice extent – explanation on an appearent [sic] divergence between algorithms.
DMI has removed the old sea ice extent graph to focus the attention on the new graph that is based on data from an improved algorithm.
However, the removal of the old sea ice extent graph was done at an unfortunate time, namely, during a period where it seemed that the new and old ice extent plots disagreed (see figure 1). Naturally this has led to discussion among our dedicated followers, about the “true” ice extent. The apparent elevated sea ice extent in the data from the old extent algorithm was an artifact, caused by a new and higher resolution coast mask.
An off-line update of the old sea ice extent plot (left), where it appears that the sea ice extent is much larger than previous years and
the sea ice extent from the operational algorithm (right), which is DMI’s and the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF)
official estimate.
Most of our sea ice extent followers know that the old plot includes a coastal mask, inside which sea ice was is accounted for. In summer 2015 this mask was refined and the masked region was subsequently smaller, thus leaving mo re area for classified sea ice and open water. The difference in masked area, before and after summer 2015, is approximately 1.4 million km2. This corresponds to difference of the blue coast lines in figure 2, showing the old and new coastal masks in the left and right panels, respectively. The difference may be difficult to detect on the figure, but the area is quite significant. The increasing sea ice extent that is caused by the new coast mask is not great during summer, because sea ice has a relative short line of contact with land during summer. But the new and finer coast mask will result in increasingly more sea ice, compared to previous years during winter, as the coast line with sea ice contact is increasing. This is the reason for an increasing sea ice extent during current freeze-up period, relative to previous winters. A comparison of the 2015/2016 sea ice extent with previous years does therefore not make sense (see figure 1-left).
Plots of sea ice types February 22 2015 (left) and February 22 2016 (right) using 2 different coast masks.
The mask used before summer 2015(left) is wider than the new mask (right), corresponding to approximately 1.4 million km2 less area under the new mask.
Because of the deprecated status of the old plot in the past year, DMI has not been monitoring these irregularities. The old plot should, of cause, have been removed when the mask was replaced. DMI apologizes for the confusion and inconvenience this has caused.
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/iceextent_disagreement_is_an_artifact.uk.php
h/t to mosher
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So, let me get this straight. The science of ice area was settled but then someone moved the coastline in the Arctic and it needed a new masking algorithm.
The science was settled but then we suddenly realised that temperatures from ship inlets and buckets (which are taken to enable the efficient running of the engines and gennys) were more accurate than temperatures from buoys put in place specifically to measure ocean temperatures for climatic purposes.
The science was settled that we were emitting all the nasty CO2 but then we stuck up a satellite which showed most CO2 in the Southern hemisphere so it had to be re-calibrated and tucked out of sight.
The science was settled that the temperatures were rising rapidly until they stopped at the turn of the century and we had to stop using the satellite measurements and go back to infilling and UHI effects and making up temperatures in the Arctic to the nearest 1200 miles.
The science was settled and the USA was warming until the USHCN stations were brought into use and they had to be ignored because they needed to be adjusted upwards every year.
The science was settled and the Pacific Islands were going to sink beneath the waves until we discovered that they had , on average , increased in size.
The science is settled and the ice will be gone in summer by 2013/14 except it isn’t and wasn’t gone.
The science is settled and The deserts will engulf Central Africa except that now the green is spreading instead of the yellow.
The science is settled on an endless drought in California and in Western Australia……apart from the rain and flooding of course.
Forgive me for being confused by all these erstwhile and earnest climate scientists and their talking faces in the media but I am quite unsettled by this settled science of Climate catastrophism.
“DMI simply bungled the public face of the decommissioning, there’s really no other way to look at it. Had they done this sort of due diligence before removing the graph, and placed a link to an explanation rather than to the new product with greatly differing values, there likely would not have been the questions about why it suddenly disappeared, and what the possible motives might be. The ham-handed response from the DMI employee did nothing but add suspicion to an already poorly handled situation.”
You make it sound like you think you are their boss or something like that. I really do not think the DMI answers to WUWT.
“and what the possible motives might be.”
And just why would anyone question their motives? Maybe the questioning itself has a motive.
“There has been so much skulduggery going on in the climate establishment in recent years…”
This sounds like a claim of conspiracy to me.
Oh, please. Your are free to think whatever you like, we know what your motives are as they are on clear display throughout the blogosphere.
None of that changes the fact the DMI issues an apology for something they felt an apology was necessary for.
Feel free to be as upset as you wish.
If you think the arctic sea ice data are suspect, talk to someone who lives in the arctic. Below is a quote from a relative who recently flew from Pt. Hope to Barrow.
“leads open to the horizon, like it was late May.”
Many data sources confirm this.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png
Open leads! We’re doomed, DOOOOOMMMEEDDD!
you do know leads opening up at this time of year has nothing to do with melting and everything to do with currents and wind luke. it could well be that a current shift creating open leads is part of the mechanism for the rapid drop in surface temperatures in the north atlantic the past year.
open leads just now are doing nothing but allowing the ocean up there to cool rapidly.
“Below is a quote from a relative”
Science isn’t quotes from relatives.
Andrew
Andrew, Right but many here are questioning the data so I offered a personal observation. The person I quoted has lived in the arctic for 35 years and has seen enormous changes in the sea ice over that time. Again, I offer observations that confirm the science since many people seem to question the data.
“but many here are questioning the data”
A healthy way to address “scientific” information presented, I’d say.
“The person I quoted has lived in the arctic for 35 years and has seen enormous changes”
I’m sorry, Luke, but this is a generalization and doesn’t do much for scientific inquiry.
Andrew
I noticed you put scientific in quotes. That suggests you are questioning the data so I offered a personal pespective. I suggest you either get up there and see what is happening or provide a credible explanation for why the NSIDC data are incorrect. If you do neither you are just pontificating.
Luke, listen up: IT’S NOT DATA!
It’s an algorithm. Do you understand the difference?
dbstealey: It is an algorithm that computes ice cover based on satellite data. UAH uses a complex algorithm is used to convert satellite data to temperature and, if I remember correctly, you don’t have any trouble with that.
“why the NSIDC data are incorrect”
That’s not my position. My position is that data just is what it is, and is neither correct or incorrect. The questioning, which is necessary for a scientific-minded person, is about how it’s collected, evaluated, (re)presented, and adjusted. You don’t have such questions, Luke?
Andrew
Luke February 26, 2016 at 9:25 am
Andrew, Right but many here are questioning the data so I offered a personal observation.
If only it were data, but it in’t is it. It is a product produced by computer algorithms which are subjective.
To get any further than simply questioning you need to do you own analysis or provide some concrete reasons why the current analyses are wrong. Simply stating that computer algorithms are involved is not a sincere criticism and will not advance our understanding.
“advance our understanding”
I agree this is the goal. But non-critical acceptance of what you are given doesn’t advance any understanding, either.
Andrew
There are multiple independent data that all point to a decline the sea ice extent in the arctic over the past 35 years. If you feel there are problems with the approaches that are being used to estimate sea ice extent, it is incumbent on you to identify the flaws and publish your findings.
Luke says:
…you need to do you own analysis or provide some concrete reasons why the current analyses are wrong.
DMI doesn’t provide the necessary information. You should ask them why they don’t. We’ve tried, but they just ‘Say Anything’. But still, insufficient data.
“There are multiple independent data that all point to a decline the sea ice extent in the arctic over the past 35 years.”
Luke, you are being deliberately obtuse. But I’m repeating myself.
Andrew
Anthony: I love your work, but “disappears” as a verb?!?!?! C’MON, MAN!!!!!!
Steve:
Is already a verb matey. But you’re right to question the unusuality of its usage. I was hard pressed to think of another such example, when Christopher Monckton suddenly came up with the phrase “to vanish the pause.” How strange, using verbs as .. er .. verbs. “My learnin’ must be laxin’ a bit,” I says to meself.
Anthony, I have read your comment above and have read some of the comments on the previous thread.
Let me give my twopenneth worth on this.
DMI had a product which was deep linked by people who watch it. I know why it’s deep linked by certain communities just as you do. I, personally, always go to the DMI front page for data and then look at what they are presenting to the world as their day to day statistic.
When that product, no longer maintained and not linked to directly from the home page, was removed, there was consternation in certain circles.
You then placed a post on your site where you “implied” that this non-maintained graphic had been removed “with a purpose”. I’m not going to analyse the words or any implications of those words. Suffice to say the words used were not the normal words which imply that the graphic were simply removed in the normal course of the operation of the DMI. In fact they alluded to the fact that the DMI “might” want to present data in a better light by using a different metric for their data.
And that’s as far as I’m willing to go in even discussing that previous article.
Your current article appears to be a discussion on how DMI have badly mishandled the removal of the old graphic and why it led to you post your prior article. In short it looks very much like an excuse for jumping to conclusions. But don’t take my word for that I could be very much wrong in my assumption that this is what you are saying.
So. What I suggest for the future. Is that before you place a post which “could” be construed as both misleading and implying nefarious activities to a very well esteemed climate data centre; you send them an email explaining who you are, what has happened and asking them if they would like to explain the situation to you.
In that way, this tempest in a thimble might have been avoided and you could have then written an article explaining what had happened to your readership who do use this graphic and, should you wish to do so, highlight the rather poor communication technique of a body of people who deal with data first and users second.
You also might want to explore the Danish laws on written defamation and how they define it and what they do about it. Lest you wind up like Julian Assange who fell foul of the Swedish laws on sexual activity, which very few Western English speakers would credit, let alone expect.
On moderating your own board, I decline to comment other than to point you to your own comments about the communication style of the DMI and the impression it gives. Your own site is yours to moderate as you choose and nobody can deny you that right.
NeilT
Twopenneth worth? Talk about price gauging!
“Why are they going to disappear him?’
I don’t know.’
It doesn’t make sense. It isn’t even good grammar.”
― Joseph Heller, Catch-22
I am still waiting for some adjustment of a data set or algorithm that “improves” accuracy to have results not friendly to warming. If one assumes the problems addressed had a 50/50 chance of over or under estimating, then cause for suspicion of tampering is more than justified (some may say proven). Why DMI will not continue the old way for a few years while introducing the new algorithm so some comparisons are possible, I do not know. I do know, as I understand the graph, to put the new results with the old ones can only lead to bad conclusions.
They have had them both up for a while.
Any time you are dealing in shaky statistics, and you introduce a new process that leads to a step change in the output, you have got to be careful, and explain EVERY little thing to your audience. I’m still arguing every time the issue of the alleged ozone hole comes up, with a guy here who thinks a step change in NOAA data that happened around 1984 proves the absolute truth of the alarmist position on that issue.
I think that if someone did an ‘Ice Graph’ of all areas that suffered temperatures of 0C degrees and below and then converted it in to one of those silly ‘Global Animations’, people would soon realise that the so called ‘Global Warming’ is a myth.
Even the ‘Sub Tropics’ suffer from 0C or less some time of the year,and maybe extends to the ‘Tropics’ in some cases.
Really? You don’t think that people know that it gets below freezing at high altitudes in the tropics? I suggest you give it a try and see how many people change their minds about global warming.
Luke,
Don’t try to ‘Obsfucate’, lets take ground tempratures.
In a nutshell, DMI are now part of the AGW drama (paid by IPCC, WMO, UN ect) so they cannot be trusted anymore. Their graphs/data are not worth anything from now on as far as I am concerned. I hope the Danish people wake up to this soon.
The Danish Meteorological Institute is the official Danish meteorological institute, administrated by the Ministry of Energy, Utilities and Climate.
It is reasonable to think that DMI might be more likely to look for and publish data in favor of the climate theory put forward by United Nations climate panel than against.
In fact NOAA. GISS, WMO surface is not worth anything as well. The USA congress is currently investigating potential fraud By NOAA just as an example, so this is not news. DMI is now in the same category as all those others. I have fear for the like of RSS and UHA satellite data holders in fact. Our only hope is that the USA elects a GOP candidate at this stage.
Lamar Smith has probably got a big one hiding from NOAA whistleblowers this is what is starting to happen maybe WUWT will wake up some day http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/scientists-finally-admit-climate-models-are-failing-to-predict-global-warming/
Sea Ice cryin’ in the reign.
===========
DMIs explanation doesn’t make sense to me.
I would think that the 30% area would have less contact with the coast ,thus would be less affected by a revised mask.
Whereas if a new coastal mask has so much affect from 2015 onward ,how can the 15% data be compared to any previous years prior to 2016?Shouldnt all the previous years be recalculated using the new mask?
Isnt the 2016 15% data the artifact of adjustment?