I rather not give too much attention to fake skeptics, or climate risk deniers as I like to call them, but lately they are somehow finding it in themselves to come up with stuff that they think disproves Arctic sea ice loss. I've already posted about MASIE annual average nonsense (about which the last word hasn't been said), but in the past couple of days an even more spectacular and desperate attempt at downplaying Arctic sea ice loss has sprung up. I'm posting it as a reference, because I'm sure this will become a (short-lived) meme.
It all started with a blog post on fake skeptic blogger Paul Homewood's blog Not a Lot of People Know That (NALOPKT) about how the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) got rid of an old sea ice extent graph "simply because it gives the 'wrong' results". I decided to partake in the discussion because I knew what it was about and the reason the DMI removed that graph was because it had been replaced by another graph months ago, accompanied by the announcement that it at one point would be removed. The graph had clearly been neglected as it diverged more and more from other SIE graphs.
It was a nice exercise for me to drive my points home, but I had no interest in posting about it here, as it was a typical mountain-molehill type of misinformation, sprinkled with some suggestive conspiracy ideation, on the fringe of the fake skeptic echo chamber.
However, for some reason Anthony Watts elevated it to WUWT status:
The word 'inconvenient' you see there is spelled incorrectly and should read 'incorrect'. Let me explain in detail what this is about, and how pathetically these climate risk deniers are grasping at straws. It's all about these two DMI sea ice extent graphs, on the left the old SIE graph with a 30% threshold, and on the right the new one with a 15%threshold (as used by most organisations around the world):
Many months ago the old graph was replaced by the newer one. There was still a link to the old graph below the new graph, accompanied by a text saying it could continued to be be viewed "for a while" (see the image in this Great White Con blog post). It's quite clear from visual inspection alone that something was increasingly wrong with the old graph, and the logical explanation was that no one at DMI was correcting it because it had been replaced by the newer graph.
In fact, this was my first argument in the discussion on the NALOPKT blog, but this didn't convince the fake skeptics who rather believed that the DMI removed the plot because, and I quote (lest you think my imagination came up with it):