Party like it's 1989

This guest blog was sent to me by Bill Fothergill, also known by his nom de plume billthefrog. It discusses and takes on the yearly fake skeptic tradition of misleading people into thinking all is fine because ice cover around the maximum (when viewed from above, of course, not from the side) is just as large or even larger than in year X. It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. Thanks, Bill!

Another thrilling instalment in the long running saga
of the “Arctic Sea Ice Recovery”

The Arctic Sea Ice Blog features a frequently updated set of links to relevant news articles. (Or should that be “arcticles”?) One of these recently linked out to a blog hosted by the Toronto Financial Post and written by the redoubtable Lawrence Solomon. The heading of the piece in question loudly and proudly proclaimed…

Arctic sea ice back to 1989 levels, now exceeds previous decade

On one level Mr Solomon’s claim is nothing more than egregious nonsense, but it is nonetheless worth looking at in order to see how cleverly the misdirection is perpetrated. (It is also worth looking at his article for no other reason than to see the somewhat unambiguous feedback provided to Mr Solomon by a certain Neven Acropolis.)

When trying to separate reality from fantasy in such articles, it is essential to be able to discriminate between an objective statement of fact, and any untenable inference loosely based thereupon. Mr Solomon may be accurately quoting the facts when he states that the National Snow and Ice Data Centre figures shows the 14^th April 2013 Arctic Sea Ice extent at 14.511 million square kilometres versus a paltry… wait for it… 14.510 million sq km on the same date in 1989. A reasonable question to Mr Solomon might be ...”Yes, and your point is?” Whilst those wishing to deceive themselves (e.g. Homo struthio) might be impressed by such figures, the more astute readers of this blog will be aware that the NSIDC only claims an accuracy of around 50 thousand sq km for their daily analysis algorithms.

Although words such as “straws” and “clutching” spring easily to mind, the key element at this stage in the misdirection is that stalwart servant of the devious – good old fashioned cherry picking. Anyone possessed of even a modicum of genuine scepticism would take a moment to look at a bit more than just two days worth of data out of a dataset spanning over 34 years. Whilst the tabular form of the data is perhaps obscure and difficult to wade through, when presented graphically it sends a clear and chilling message. (If a warming trend can send a chilling message!)

What Mr Solomon has cleverly done is to notice that the rate of decline in Arctic sea ice is at its lowest around April/May time, and that a statistical outlier – such as the 1989 results for April and May – can easily have a lower value than that currently being experienced. However, it is not overly surprising that Mr Solomon was aware of this possibility, as he penned a very similar article in 2010 . This earlier piece of work attracted the attention of his fellow Canadian blogger Deep Climate, and the rebuttal can be found here. It may have escaped my attention, but I don’t recall Mr Solomon making any retraction or correction to this earlier post in light of what was to subsequently follow. (One also wonders if he gets paid twice for recycling garbage.)

Contrary to what was implied in Mr Solomon’s 3 year old rather premature ejaculation (noun: sudden utterance or exclamation – look it up in a dictionary) the month of May 2010 experienced a monumental loss of ice and the following month – June – ended up with what is still a monthly record. Mr Solomon’s attempted prescience at that time proved to be especially faulty, as every subsequent month that year from July – November ended up occupying, at least temporarily, either 2^nd or 3^rd lowest position. As a final nail in the coffin, December 2010 went the extra mile and still holds the record low for the month. (As does January 2011.)

At this point, it is worth taking a moment to justify the claim made in a preceding paragraph that April and May of 1989 were statistical outliers. There are many ways to reveal such apparent anomalies in a dataset, and one visual technique (i.e. non-technical) is to perform a ranking exercise on the monthly average results and then apply some form of conditional formatting. This is a trivial exercise in Excel, and one of the built-in conditional formats produces a “heat chart” as shown in the following table…

Data source: NSIDC Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent The number shown for each month represents its ranking position, with a value of “1” representing the lowest average Arctic sea ice extent for each given month.

If the above is a bit too “busy”, a bespoke formatting regime can equally easily be applied. The same ranking profile is repeated below, but with the following colour coding…

Red = Lowest / Orange = 2^nd / Yellow = 3^rd / Light green = 4^th / Dark green = 5^th / Grey = range 6-10 / Blue = 11-15

When presented in formats such as the above, several noteworthy points should be visible even to the untrained eye.

1. As mentioned earlier, only two figures prior to 1995 have “lowest ten” status, namely the April and May figures for 1989

2. The May 1989 figure is even more of a stand out in that it has the lowest ranking (5^th) prior to 2004

3. With the exception of 2011, the April/May figures since 2008 all share the characteristic of being significantly at odds with the rankings of the subsequent months of the year

4. Of the 10 entries for April/May recorded between 2008 and 2012, no fewer than 7 have had higher monthly averages than their 1989 counterpart.

Rather sadly, Mr Solomon seems to have shot his bolt a tad prematurely yet again, as the 2013 April average came in at about 70 thousand sq km lower than the 1989 figure. He should, however, keep his pecker up, as the May average will indeed probably be higher than its 1989 equivalent, and he will thus undoubtedly be able to do a bit more recycling. From June onward though, things could get interesting this year.

(For those wishing to peruse the data themselves, the NSIDC has a variety of visual aids freely available to help appreciate the changes that are taking place. Two extremely useful examples are the Charctic Interactive Sea Ice Graph and the Browse Image Spreadsheet Tool . Both of these are excellent for providing an overall “big picture”, as opposed to the misleading minutiae that Mr Solomon is trying to peddle.)

Mr Solomon also chooses to refer to the Arctic Sea Ice Monitor which, he quite correctly informs us, is operated jointly by the International Arctic Research Centre (IARC) and the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA). His observation that the 2013 figures were, for much of March and April, languishing above the most recent decadal average does at least have somewhat more substance. This is clearly visible in the diagram below.

However, Mr Solomon must know his readers well enough to realise that many (most? all?) of them will unconditionally accept his pronouncements without bothering to actually look at the data to which he refers. One is rather forced into that opinion as it would be a pretty clear “own goal” otherwise. Anyone with a functioning brain looking at the above chart, and its accompanying CSV file, can see that the decadal average minimum for the 1980’s was a shade over 7.3 million square kilometres versus a shade less than 3.5 million sq km for last year. Worryingly, given last year’s spectacular new record minimum, 2013 can be seen tracking very close to its immediate predecessor. If Mr Solomon thinks that this lends corroborative support to his frankly bizarre claim that there is no evident trend, then I would like a pint of whatever he is drinking. Please.

Presumably whilst inhabiting some part of the multiverse far, far removed from our own, Mr Solomon then offered the following sage observation…

Last year at this time – April 2012 — was also well-iced, showing the current comeback of the Arctic ice to have been no one-time wonder.

Given what subsequently transpired last year, it is frankly astonishing that Mr Solomon elected to even mention 2012. The final seven months of that year saw two monthly records (August and September) and four 2^nd lowest average extents, with only November bucking the trend in 3^rd lowest position. Those who take a closer look at the numbers than Mr Solomon appears to do will also have noticed that the average annual figure was also broken for the second year running. However, possibly the single most amazing result was the fact that the average extent for August 2012 would itself have ranked 4^th lowest amongst the September figures. (Behind 2012, 2007 and 2011)

A further analysis technique that can be very useful in teasing out long term time series patterns is to look at the “highest attained rank” across each year. For example, September 2005 briefly set a record low, with 2006 subsequently slotting in as 2^nd lowest. Although every subsequent year has finished with lower September figures, 2005 and 2006 would still retain highest rank scores of “1” and “2” respectively, as these were their year-end positions.

Again using the NSIDC extent figures, the “highest attained ranking” table looks like…

The clutch of green shading for April/May from 2008 onwards (except, as mentioned, for 2011) is clearly not reflected in the results for the remainder of the year. Neither is this behaviour unprecedented, as it is similar to that experienced in 1997-2001. Equally clearly, the record setting March-May numbers in 1989 failed to have any lasting significance.

What Mr Solomon has unwittingly demonstrated is the real Homo struthio approach to climate change. The scientific method necessarily involves an iterative technique based on the concept of “observation – hypothesis – prediction – test”. Mr Solomon and his ilk dispense with such time-wasting frivolities and instead adopt the far simpler “highly selective observation – infallible pronouncement – uncritical acceptance by the acolytes”.

Given the apparent trend reversal around April/May, one can certainly argue that there is an a priori case for a genuine sceptic to hypothesise a recovery. However, such a person (possibly mythical) would also be forced into the construction of an alternative hypothesis. This unpalatable alternative hypothesis is, of course, one in which the Arctic sea ice is nowadays left in a weakened state at the end of the annual melt/growth cycle. In such a hypothesis, it would be extremely susceptible to being spread out by the vagaries of wind and current for perhaps a month or two, but would then rapidly disappear once the melt season gets seriously underway. The reader is cordially invited to consider which opposing hypothesis is best supported by the ultimate arbitrator – the data.

Incontrovertible as these results seem (except to Mr Solomon) an even starker picture emerges if one looks at the sea ice area results.

The swathe of red across the 2012 row unambiguously demonstrates the continuing nosedive of Arctic sea ice levels. (N.B. The figures for February and October 2012 each equalled an earlier year.)

Another facet to Mr Solomon’s distortion of reality involves a really brilliant rhetoric device – misdirection linked to plausible deniability. The critical term to watch out for is the apparently innocuous word “today”. Mr Solomon winds up his article with …

We have had good records of the extent of Arctic ice only since 1979, when satellites began tracking it in earnest. Over those three decades and a bit, the ice extent has varied wildly. In the first decade tracked, the 1980s, the ice extent was much greater than today. Over much of the second decade – the 1990s — the ice extent was comparable to today. The third decade saw less ice than today. The only evident trend in the ice, as in the weather, is variability.

The innocent stooge in this piece of disingenuous nonsense is, as mentioned above, the word “today”. Were someone to use an expression such as “there are more cars on the road today than 20 years ago”, it is highly unlikely that they are referring to a specific 24-hour period. Mr Solomon can of course claim that he was indeed referring to a given 24-hour period, and that it is hardly his fault if his words are taken to mean something completely different. Some of us might beg to differ.

The final piece of irony in Mr Solomon’s article is the glaringly obvious self-contradiction that he has constructed. In one sentence we are told that…

Last year at this time – April 2012 — was also well-iced, showing the current comeback of the Arctic ice to have been no one-time wonder.

However, a few lines later we are given the reassuring news that…

The only evident trend in the ice, as in the weather, is variability.

So, there we have it. The Arctic sea ice is staging a prolonged comeback (well, two years) from a trend that he claims does not appear to exist. Well, I guess that proves it then.

Possibly the ice just seemed to disappear for a while as it was actually forced underwater thanks to the weight of all those polar bears that have been rapidly growing in numbers.

Comments

[sofouuk]

I mean, it's a great article, but I'm not happy with the phrase 'how cleverly the misdirection is perpetrated'. 'how wilfully perverse and far beyond shame you would have to be to put your name to such complete and utter tripe', might have been closer to the mark. don't tell these people they're clever. they're not clever.

well, and, possibly a bit too long for mr solomons target audience to read through to the end, as well, assuming any of them actually are genuinely misinformed

[Kevin McKinney]

Couldn't finish it. The demolition was more than complete halfway through...

If Mr Solomon thinks that this lends corroborative support to his frankly bizarre claim that there is no evident trend, then I would like a pint of whatever he is drinking. Please.

No, you wouldn't, Bill! That's not *just* Kool-aid!

(By the way, there were a number of, er, phallic references. Was Mr. Solomon implicitly being compared to a 'Spenserian spur', by any chance?)

[GreenOctopus]

To summarize the mind of a denier failing the sniff test: "No global warming since 1997. No Arctic ice melt since 1989. And the New York Yankees have been losing more games since 2002, so they are clearly becoming a worse baseball team. No, don't try to explain to me how they won the 2009 World Series! They're on the downtrend!"

This kind of nonsense is their M.O. Draw a line from the highest peak to the lowest trough, or vice versa, and call it a cooling or recovery. When they can't counter with science, apply Occam's Razor and take the path of least resistance: pick a random point, subtract it with another point of different numerical value (hopefully you should be able to do this at ease by age 6), draw an absurd conclusion, then call yourself a genius for uncovering these egregious lies of climate change skullduggery. It's so puerile and pseudo-intellectual, I'm not sure if it's more appropriate to laugh or to cry. It is kind of amazing how much we find ourselves playing whack-a-mole with these people, considering they are not interested in learning from their mistakes or what have you. It's intentional deceit. That's obvious by now. They are only interested in finding some combination of data that will get them what they want to see. Like school-age children, they run home and can't wait to show everyone that they know addition and subtraction; except that children are actually genuinely interested in finding answers to questions, so I'm not being fair to young people. These fools just entertain themselves with confirmation bias and by bathing themselves in the groupthink of conspiracy theories. It. Is. Old.

[Hans Gunnstaddar]

It may also be a case in which many deniers secretly desire disastrous consequences for any number of personal reasons stemming from unfulfilled lives (or a desire for Rapture), in which denial helps serve to reject the need to slow CO2 emissions or attempt geo-engineered techniques, to keep things moving towards calamity.

It would explain a lot.

[Paul Beckwith]

Being Canadian myself, I am very embarrassed to have people like Lawrence Solomon in Canada.

He writes for the weekend national newspaper "The National Post" and his article is usually on the back page of the business section "The Financial Post" of this paper.

I would encourage people to write letters of complaint to this paper asking that they refrain from publishing this pack of lies and get accurate realistic truthful articles on climate change.

[Syddbridges]

When I was a child, in the 1950s, I was taught about "the Wisdom of Solomon." Whatever happened to it?
However, at that age we played just such puerile word games as are being played here. If you knew what was good for you, you only played them with other seven-year-olds, and certainly not any of the teachers. Perhaps the Toronto Financial Post is edited by a seven-year-old?
As the Scotsman said, "I hae ma doots as to whether he'll be singing this tune in September."

[Bill Fothergill]

@sofouuk

Thanks.

When I originally penned this piece it was, how shall I put this, somewhat more liberally sprinkled with invective. Before sending it to Neven, I did a total rewrite, adopting instead a more tongue-in-cheek approach laced with deliberate understatement and, let's be honest, possibly more than a hint of sarcasm.

I do believe that some of the utter bollox that one gets from the usual suspects does contain some extremely clever use of the English language. (As well as outright cherry picking and "lies, damned lies and statistics".) Pointing out some of the standard rhetorical devices thus employed might help others recognise their use in the future.

Having been brought up in Glasgow, it is rather second nature for me to refer to such people as a "bunch of f*****g two faced lying b******s that should be stood up against a wall and shot". However, as indicated above, that would not have been in keeping with the tone of the OP. ;)

I fully agree that the OP was somewhat voluminous, but that was again deliberate. I could think of no other way to clearly show up the vast number of holes in the argument that Mr Solomon was trying to make.

With Neven's permission, I might do another guest post dissecting another of the "recovery" memes in similar detail.

Most of the readers here are already aware of the sheer scale of the ongoing deception that passes for sceptical argument. However, having the rebuttals assembled together might help in any discussion with people who do not know which "side" to believe.

Cheers billthefrog

[Rob Dekker]

Worth More than a Thousand Words

[Bill Fothergill]

@ Kevin,

Your insinuation that I was using euphemisms of a "below the waist line" nature is naught but a fallacy. ;)

@ Rob Dekker,

Yep, I thought about throwing in a chart like yours but I was concerned that the "date for date" comparison would be lost.

By the way, on my browser (Chrome) your chart cuts off at 2007. (The start of the recovery :)

cheers billthefrog

[Fufufunknknk]

In the few years that I have been following ice and warming, the blogspace has changed a lot. I don't bother (much) arguing with deniers anymore because the battle seems moot - ish. The arctic seaice either is doomed this year or the next, or we are all wrong.

So the question is, are the denialists like Comical Ali?, just scraping their last few years of revenue from sites and shill funding? What is the dark side's plan for post icial arctic?

[Espen Olsen]

Fufufunknknk;

Interesting question, I also gave up arguing with hardcore and even semi deniers some time ago, because it always ended with a stupid ping pong game of words. But I think they will continue their arguments as long as there is ice left in Greenland and Antarctica, so they will still have some years left working on their project.

[Kevin McKinney]

billf wrote: "Your insinuation that I was using euphemisms of a "below the waist line" nature is naught but a fallacy. ;)"

Ah! I'm abashed, then, though had things been otherwise, I would probably have agreed with you...

Thanks again for a very thorough piece of analysis.

[R. Gates]

Fufuf...said:

"What is the dark side's plan for post icial arctic?"

____
This is an interesting question, and surely it will depend on the "so what" factors involved in an ice-free summer Arctic. If wacky extreme weather is conclusively found to be the result (i.e. more blocking events, more Hurricane Sandy's, etc.) then the "so what" answer will be a strong one. If we simply get more revenue from the Arctic (oil, shipping, tourism) that is ice-free, then the "so what" might actually be much different.

A worse-case scenario is of course that the "so what" to an ice-free Arctic is that we get some huge burps of methane and other releases of carbon from melting permafrost and we see GH concentrations sky-rocket, then we could see some of the scenarios develop that the so-called "alarmists" have been warning about for some time. In which case there would be some big push for geoengineering efforts, but at that point, it might be just a tad too late...

[Robertscribbler.wordpress.com]

Ignoramus, dumb@ss, shill, and idiot are all appropriate responses to deniers, in my opinion.

As for what they will do once the ice is gone, I agree with R. Gates above. They'll try to sell what's 'good' about ice loss. They'll act like they don't care (so what?). And they'll shift more to the 'luke warm' argument of downplaying the impacts of global warming. Most of all, they will forget they were ever wrong in the first place as they continue down the path of being wrong again...

[Harold lee]

“The really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible cause of action.”
Chief, thanks for entering the lions den on your sea surface estimate recently, I hope it does go as high as you say but it might need a year longer
Apropos this topic it explains why no one side can win an unwinnable argument.
The really important question is when will we take a cold downturn and for how long.
the facts are that it will take a number of numbers [3 only] to move in the direction of global cooling for a small number of years [4 definitely but even 2 would be great] to shift the weight of the public to a mainstream sceptical view [right or wrong] despite all the good arguments on either side
.
While the surface temperature and sea heat content rise and the Arctic Sea ice extent remains low all considered sceptical arguments fail and if it cools all AGW arguments fail.
History shows such a downturn will occur at least 3 times in a century and it may well happen now and is much more likely the longer we go [inevitable] which makes being on the denier side the better place to be this year, this decade and this century.
the 30% Danish ice graph is now breaking free laterally emphasising Mr Solomon's otherwise dubious point

[Aaron Lewis]

We have a good idea of the distribution of clathrates. We understand the dissociation of clathrates. We have some understanding of ocean dynamics.

However, if one puts these 3 concepts together for an engineering estimate of methane release rates, then one is an "alarmist". And, in this usage, "alarmist" is the strongest possible slur.

We have theory. We have 15 years of field observations of increasing methane releases from the polar regions. We have satellite data showing increasing atmospheric concentrations of methane. We know that right now, significant amounts of clathrate are near conditions that would induce instability and dissociation.

In the next few years, global warming will accelerate massively as we lose the albedo cooling of the Arctic sea ice. At that point, ocean warming will massively increase, and large amounts of clathrate will be exposed to conditions favoring dissociation. These are known knowns. There are unknowns, but the system behavior is very likely to be driven by the knowns.

In the next couple of decades we can expect significant clathrate instability and dissociation. To put it crudely, we have already triggered the "Clathrate Bomb". The good news is that it had a 50 year fuse. The bad news is that we triggered it circa 1985 as CO2 concentrations passed 350 ppm, thus we can expect real effects within 2 decades.

It is time to take global warming seriously.

The public does not take global warming seriously because "Climate Science" did not take global warming seriously. Anybody that leaves carbon feedback out of general circulation models, does not take global warming seriously.

Signed,
Your Loyal Alarmist

PS Storms Issac, Isabel, and Sandy were real effects of global warming. Global warming says there is more heat in the system. Thermodynamics says that more heat in the system affects all weather. The system oscillates, but much of the oscillation is forced by the accumulation of additional heat. The behavior of the highly forced system is different from the behavior of the system near equilibrium. Between drought and flood, we will not be allowed to forget or ignore global warming.

Historical precedents no longer apply to our climate system.

[Chris Reynolds]

Lawrence Solomon is a double digit IQ dolt.

That's not an ad hominen. It's an insult, verging upon fact backed up by observational evidence.

[Doug Bostrom]

Unfortunately, a fundamental asymmetry is that Solomon's payload is successfully delivered into many if not most of his target minds via the headline and lede, within mere seconds. The mental weapon he's deploying is intended for people in a hurry, who will absorb the article's message of "everything's ok" without any trouble and almost unconsciously.

Conversely-- as we see here-- in order to repair the cognitive damage done by Solomon's article requires concentration, a little bit of time and quite a bit of space.

Not a new observation, but the fundamental mismatch in available tools and tactics is especially striking in this case of the Arctic sea ice.

[sofouuk]

I don't think it's really true that deniers can get their message out in a headline, while realists have to produce a thesis - what is true is that deniers are much better at 'framing' and spinning, and are not afraid of telling barefaced lies. For example, you could rebut Solomon's article with a simple 'I see you've conveniently forgotten that last September saw the lowest amount* of Arctic sea ice ever recorded. Oh, and that the six biggest summer melts have all occurred in the last six years ... you do know the difference between summer and winter, right?'

Well, and I'm not sure how effective his little piece of nonsense was, either. Unless you've already decided climate change isn't happening, you very likely know from news reports that the Arctic is melting. We know that environmentalists who start to cry wolf will soon lose their audience; if anyone read Solomon's article and wondered what the heck was going on, I assume they'll figure it out when they see the news report of this summer's record melt (assuming it does actually get reported, of course ...)

*DON'T use words like 'extent' or 'volume'

[Neven]

Coincidentally, sofouuk, my comment resembles yours quite a bit (it received most thumbs up):

Thanks for glossing over the record smashing 2012 melting season. Will you peddle the same disinformation every year around March/April and then stay silent for the rest of the melting season?

Don't fall for it, folks.

[GreenOctopus]

Two quotes from two sage authors come to mind with respect to all of this:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain

[PatrickLogicman]

Well said, Bill.
Hello all. After an absence from blogging due to RSI I'm back, as someone or other famously said.
In case any of you missed these:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22271972
http://o.canada.com/2013/05/16/melting-glaciers-in-canadas-arctic-stoking-sea-level-rise/

I'm getting back into the swing of writing again at science20.com - I may even write something Arctic themed. Meanwhile, I expect a very rapid loss of ice once the sun gets busy on all that smashed up 1st year ice. Yes folks, Arctic open water is recovering nicely. ;-)

[PatrickLogicman]

For some unfathomable reason, Yahoo has me down as PasserBy. I am logicman, also known under my top secret matrix name of Patrick Lockerby.

[Neven]

Good to see you, Patrick! That is, I presume it's you. Drop a line when you have something up at science2.0.

BTW, now that we are talking lost&found, has anyone seen A-Team lately?

[Steve Bloom]

Neven, he said he'd be off-line for a month or so, off hiking in the wilderness.

[logicman]

Just confirming it was me commenting as PasserBy. I'd mislaid my passwords list, so logged in via an old Yahoo account.

I have posted a few articles recently, but not strictly about climate. I just posted an article about Wilhelm Sinsteden, unsung inventor of the lead-acid battery. It struck me that there is a connection to global warming. Arrhenius was first to analyse both atmospheric CO2 and electrochemistry in great depth.

Given that the exact electrochemical nature of the lead-acid battery is still not fully understood, shouldn't all those 'wait until the facts are in' people stop using batteries and start their engines with the fully understood cranking handle? Just a thought.

http://www.science20.com/chatter_box

[A-Team]

Patrick says, "After an absence from blogging I'm back, as someone or other famously said."

Well, that would be the Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgPePk3kGZk

I'm back too, though like a T-800 droid at the end of the movie, somewhat the worse for wear and not fully operational.

The smoking gun points at open water on the 15 May 13 Jaxa image. And I do mean open water all-liquid-phase watery wet water. It's real easy to measure its daily area -- and more nuanced compositions -- with a click of the mouse so we hardly need an external product for that.

In fact, I have a long list of grievances with 'extent' and whether we should even be lending credence to the concept with blog mention.

First up, why do we have a daily albedo product for Greenland but not one for the Arctic Basin -- what's preventing us from cloning over the method of Jason Box? That is, extent gives nothing but abuse after freeze-up yet serves as a mediocre proxy for heat balance during isolation season.

Second, it's better to focus on just the Arctic Ocean and put aside the ice east of Kamchatka and at mouth of Saint Lawrence River (same latitude as Paris) etc. Check out the mid-winter NSIDC extent map to see what all they're including. I'll put out a couple of options for defining Arctic Ocean boundaries shortly (as masks for the common types of satellite imagery).

Third, I have the distinct impression that very few blogging away on sea ice extent know how extent is operationally determined, in the sense of being able to replicate its computation.

By replication I do not mean writing someone for the code, compiling it on your platform, and repeating the calculation on the same data.

Replication means starting with how 'extent' is defined, writing an algorithm appropriate to that from scratch, applying it to your favorite applicable satellite imagery, and coming up with more or less the same answer. We can't just take other people's products at face value -- we have to pick them apart like Wipneus and Chris did with Piomas.

The tricky part is the "15% ice" rounded up to 100% (because NSIDC says it "might" be ice covered by water) that differentiates extent from area. What exactly does that mean when a single structureless NSIDC extent pixel is 25 km on a side?

While 625 sq km of area is suitably small relative to the 14 million sq km freeze-out (note the Arctic Ocean relevant to climate change is much smaller), it's still a really big pixel -- 11 times the size of Manhattan Island (58.79 sq km) -- relative to intrinsic dimensions of sea ice features such as ridges, fractures and floes.

Unreplicable products are the curse of climate science; after some time goes by, no one has the slightest idea any more what physics was considered or wasn't, what simplifying assumptions were made and why, whether the product is still applicable at the end stages of ice loss.

Yes, if you had full text of all the citations in all the citations of all the citations of all the initial citations, this all might be spelled out somewhere but no one has time or text access to routinely pursue that.

For example, the 15% was intended for ice edge, yet perimeter will become vastly more extensive in coming near-terminal melt years -- is the TB (passive microwave emission brightness temperature) prescription still applicable?

In summary, I favor migrating out of products we cannot replicate into in-house products on a programmatic (blogwide) basis. We've seen from buoy data that it is rather easy to do this for volume, while extent and area are just mouse clicks and albedo is like Greenland. If 38V is all they're using for Greenland daily melt, we can three channels on the sea ice.

Some products we can do faster and others better. Better because we are free of the constraint of tying back into 1979 ice: we can work with modern imagery that need not go too far back.

1979 is flogging a dead horse to begin with -- you can't radically change the chemical composition of your planet's atmosphere without there being consequences, not when it starts filling an infrared band gap. So let's get out of reactive mode and look more towards predicting the future.

[Rob Dekker]

Sorry Bill,

Here is a scaled version of the graph which should fit in the window.

Also note that this is not my graph.
Tamino made it, and if you click on it, you will be directed to his blog post.

What's really cool is that many of the Tamino readers followed his suggestion to post a comment on the original Financial Post blog where Solomon vented his nonsense, and there, they tore Solomon's post to shreds.

If anyone from the Financial Post is reading the comment section, they will have to think twice before they let Solomon post anything else.

Unless of course the Financial Post has a financial interest in letting Solomon spout climate change denial nonsense on their site....

[sofouuk]

yes I was going to mention that the other day. the comments section is a great read now :)

[sofouuk]

and welcome back A-team, you have been missed. nice to see you're not hoping to play the good guy in this years instalment of the franchise, as well :o)

[Neven]

Third, I have the distinct impression that very few blogging away on sea ice extent know how extent is operationally determined, in the sense of being able to replicate its computation.

OK, you got me... :-P

[Kevin McKinney]

Speaking of silent blogfriends, anybody know what's up with Tamino these days?