Grasping at uncorrected straws

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partake in the discussion because I knew what it was about and the reason the DMI removed that graph was because it had been replaced by another graph months ago, accompanied by the announcement that it at one point would be removed.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wrong with the old graph, and the logical explanation was that no one at DMI was correcting it because it had been replaced by the newer graph.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):

data does not correspond to the pet theory of funding institutions -> adjust the inconvenient data and ditch the rest (borrow Mike’s trick if necessary), do not try to come up with an scientific explanation.

How's that for conspiracy ideation, eh?

Watts voices the same 'concern':

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.

And so I decided to bundle a bunch of arguments to show that it's highly probable that it’s the old DMI SIE-30% graph that is incorrect:

1) The graph looks weird. There are two black trend lines, and a horizontal black line. There is no 2016 in the legend. The 2015 trend line contains strange dips that haven’t been corrected.
2) The trend line is much, much higher than all the other trend lines. Okay, if it was just a bit, but it’s way out there.
3) There is no SIE or SIA graph out there that looks remotely similar to the old SIE-30% graph.
4) Sea ice concentration maps, regional maps, satellite images, radar images, all show that sea ice cover is very low at the moment. There is no way it can be as high as the old SIE-30% graph suggests.
5) We know that DMI replaced this graph with the SIE-15% graph quite a while ago, and so there probably is no one to correct the old graph (like happened regularly in the past; I know, because alarmists would jump at the strange, steep dips). The graph is discontinued as announced many months ago.

That's the end of the story. It is highly, highly likely that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is incorrect, showing something that isn't even possible. Climate risk deniers are just too dumb/ignorant/dishonest to grasp this. First they jump on an incorrect graph that shows what they want to show, namely that Arctic sea ice is record high, and then they jump on the fact that the graph is removed by the organisation, as announced months ago, suggesting it is all a big conspiracy.

Mind you, Watts takes the time to highlight this nonsense, but he hides from his readers that new minimum records have been set last week for both Global sea ice area and extent, and the Arctic sea ice maximum record could very well be broken too in the coming weeks. None of that on WUWT. These things simply don't exist in the world of climate risk deniers.

If you find all this convincing enough, you can stop reading now. But below I will continue to explain the details by quoting extensively from my discussion with a couple of climate risk deniers on the NALOPKT blog. The difference between the 15% and 30% thresholds is quite an interesting thought experiment. Continue reading if you're interested, or spend your time more wisely. ;-)

---

Ron Clutz of the MASIE annual average recovery business then said something clever (he's not dumb):

Why is DMI’s 30% extent data the highest in 10 years, while their 15% extent is only average or lower? It may be that one or the other is in error, or maybe the drift ice is quite strong this year.

This seems to be the crux of the matter. Either one of the two graphs is in error, or they are both correct and for some unexplained reason show a massive disparity, because SIE-15% is currently lowest in the record, and SIE-30% is highest by a large margin. In this context, I'm quoting two more remarks by Anthony Watts:

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.

(...)

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 bee seen, that may be a precursor to change at the 15% concentration level.

Of course, Watts is just guessing from his gut, which is his speciality, and he clearly thinks that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is correct. He also clearly lacks the knowledge about Arctic sea ice to realize how nonsensical his statements are. For that you need to know what the difference between a 15% and 30% threshold is, and I must admit it requires a bit of thinking and logic.

So, what does that threshold thing mean? The NSIDC has a good explanation on its terminology page, but here is how I explained it over on the NALOPKT blog:

The Arctic is divided into grid cells. The size of these cells depends on the resolution (for instance, resolution for Cryosphere Today SIA is 25 x 25 km, for JAXA SIE it’s 6.25 x 6.25 km). A threshold of 15% means that when the total area of the grid cell that is covered with ice (in other words, the sea ice concentration), is 15% or higher, the total area (ie 100%) of the grid cell is counted. With a threshold of 30%, total ice-covered area being 30% or more, means that the entire grid cell is counted. A grid cell’s area isn’t counted if the sea ice concentration is less than the threshold.

What’s so counter-intuitive about the threshold business, is that a 30% threshold actually results in a lower number! Imagine you have a grid cell with a sea ice concentration of 25%, ie something between 15% and 30%. SIE with a 15% threshold will consider this grid cell to be 100% ice-covered. For SIE with a 30% threshold, however, the grid cell will not be counted.

See this nice diagram from the aforementioned NSIDC terminology page:

We know that the old DMI SIE-30% is highly likely incorrect, bordering on certainty, but let's assume that both graphs are correct, and for some reason the large disparity between the two is real. That's the line of thinking I then took to see where I would end up:

A large disparity would occur if there were many, many grid cells with a sea ice concentration between 15% and 30%, right? This would mean that those grid cells would be counted for SIE-15% and it would go up, but the SIE-30% trend line wouldn’t go up because those grid cells wouldn’t be counted.

But hold on, in this case it’s the SIE-15% trend line that goes low, and the SIE-30% trend line is high! It’s the other way round! Now, I’m confused.

So, let’s turn it around. What would happen if there were very, very few grid cells with a sea ice concentration between 15% and 30%? Well, they would be counted for both SIE-15% and SIE-30%. So, that doesn’t work either.

(...)

So, unless someone can come up with a hypothetical situation that could explain the large disparity, we have to conclude that one of the graphs is in error, as Ron suggested.

Luckily, one commenter (my guess he's a climate risk denier too, but not as outspoken as the others) Jaime took up the challenge and came up with such a hypothetical situation:

Using these graphs, we can only really compare one year to the next for the specific SIE being analysed. So what DMI are telling us is that the 30% more consolidated area has expanded in relation to previous years. They also tell us that the larger extent of sea-ice encompassing much of the penumbra of free-drifting ice at the fringes has not expanded much, if at all, maybe even shrunk a little bit, in comparison to other years where the 15% SIE has been measured.

(...)

So I’ll give you a hypothetical situation: 30% SIE has increased relative to recent years and 15% SIE has not. This is made possible by the fact that the smaller 30% SIE EXCLUDES a whole chunk of fractured sea ice area which is included in 15%. So the more consolidated core has grown whereas the larger extent including most of the penumbral, more fractured ice, has not. This can only mean that the 15-29% sea ice area has been ‘squeezed out’ in the process. Hence a significant increase in 30% SIE but no change – even a slight decline – in 15% SIE. As mentioned above, there may be sound geographical/meteorological reasons why this could be so.

Jaime rightly maintains that it's about a change between the relative disparity between the two calculations for the 15% and 30% thresholds from one year to the next, and I gladly go along with him on this route:

Jaime, thanks a lot for thinking along with me on this. I’m slowly getting tired of hypothesizing about this, and was hoping someone would make the effort of thinking about this.

So, you’ve come up with a hypothetical situation where SIE-15% stays the same and SIE-30% goes up. That’s great. Somehow I couldn’t get my head around it, but it makes sense now. Thanks for the explanation.

I’ve made this simplified illustration that probably won’t be posted here as the comments get narrower, so here’s the link. It’s showing two circles, equal in size, depicting two successive years. One has a core of 100% SIC and a band of 15-29% penumbra ice, as you call it, around it. The other – a year later – has a sea ice concentration of 30-100% everywhere:

From one year to the next, SIE-15% will remain the same as it doesn’t ‘see’ a difference between the core and the penumbra. But SIE-30% will go up because the second circle is much larger than the core of the previous year.

This is what you mean, right?

So far, so good. Basically what we’re talking about here, is what scientists call compactness. On the Arctic Sea Ice Blog I use a crude compactness measurement during the melting season which consists of dividing Cryosphere Today sea ice area by JAXA sea ice extent numbers. During the melting season it can give an idea of how many melt ponds there are on the ice pack and/or how compact the ice pack is, compared to other years (example).

Okay, so let’s have a look at other sources to see if we can see evidence of these geographical/meteorological reasons. Remember, we are looking for a band of penumbra ice, zones with 15-29% sea ice concentration. There needs to be less of that now than in previous years. In other words, other years need to show large bands of marginal ice with relatively low concentrations, and this year has to be super compact.

Here’s a comparison for of today’s Uni Bremen sea ice concentration map with those of other years in March 1st (sorry for the time difference, I don’t have time to manually retrieve all the SIC maps for Feb 21st). We’re looking for zones with light blue coloured ice, which stands for 25% according to the legend.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not seeing any great differences between this year and previous years that could explain the large disparity between SIE-30% going up and SIE-15% staying level. In fact, I’m seeing a couple of these zones in the current map (in the large version), in the Sea of Okhotsk, but also in the Barentsz Sea, and quite a lot (relatively speaking) off the coast of Newfoundland.

Also the compactness graph I mentioned above shows that this year isn’t extraordinarily more compact than usual. For that the 2016 trend line would have to be way above the others, near 100%, whereas it’s moving at the lower side of the pack.

The situation you describe might occur during summer (under extreme conditions for such a large disparity to occur), but it simply can’t happen during winter, I believe. Do you agree?

If yes, this would mean that we both agree that one of the graphs has to be incorrect.

But Jaime didn't agree and still believed his hypothetical situation could come about in real life:

It’s very difficult to just eyeball these maps and make a judgement as to whether the area of low concentration relative to more compact ice has decreased. 

(...)

There’s plenty of open ocean on the Pacific side and likewise to the west of Greenland over to Scandinavia and Russia. Vast swathes of this open ocean were once regularly frozen over in winter before sea-ice started to decline. It doesn’t seem beyond the bounds of possibility that in these areas, in winter, previous years have seen a greater extent of scattered ice flows, which this year are much diminished but, at the same time, the area where ice is more consolidated (>30% concentration) is, compared to previous years, greater. This suggests an expanding inner core of sea-ice whose open water edges are, paradoxically, sharper and more devoid of an outer halo of less concentrated sea-ice. I don’t know whether there is a viable meteorological/oceanographical explanation for this, but as I say, I would not dismiss the possibility out of hand. It may be the case that ice has been dispersing much more quickly at the fringes this winter for some reason; maybe storm systems/ocean currents, I don’t know. Really, as Paul rightly says, we need DMI to tell us if there is a good technical reason to doubt that their >30% concentration data is faulty or whether they have just withdrawn the graph because it is ‘confusing’ people. We are just speculating on here, but thanks at least for agreeing that it is technically possible at least that both graphs could be correct.

So, I gave it another try and argued from another angle that his hypothetical situation is not what is causing the large disparity between the old DMI SIE-30% and new SIE-15% graph:

It’s not difficult to eyeball at all. Here’s the SIE-30% graph that was posted earlier by Pethefin:

The difference with the other black line (which I assume is for 2015) is approximately 1 million km2.

As we have noted already, there is no difference with last year on the DMI SIE-15% graph (and all other SIE and SIA graphs). In fact, this year is even lower than last year, but never mind. For the sake of simplicity we say it’s the same.

Now, remember the visualisation I made for your hypothetical situation? Two years, two identical circles, one with a core of 30-100% sea ice concentration and a penumbra zone of 15-29%, and the other with only 30-100% SIC everywhere.

From the perspective of a 15% threshold nothing changes from one year to the next (because the 15-29% penumbra SIC was counted anyway). Just like this year and last year which are practically the same.

From the perspective of a 30% threshold there is a change, namely that the entire 15-29% SIC zone has become 30-100% and thus is counted.

This means that compared to this year there had to be a total of approximately 1 million km2 of 15-29% SIC zones last year, right? They weren’t counted last year because 15-29% doesn’t surpass the 30% threshold. But this year they aren’t there, they have become 30-100%, and so the trend line on the old DMI SIE-30% shoots up.

Now, we can go to the Uni Bremen SIC archive and retrieve the SIC distribution maps for February 17th 2015 and 2016. These images are quite large (1517×2321 pixels), so it should be easy to see the 1 million km2 of 15-29% SIC zones in 2015 that aren’t there this year.

The blue/green of around 25% sea ice concentration according to the legend should really stand out on the 2015 map, but there is very little to be seen. In fact, the ice seems to be much more dispersed this year, with more blue/green in the Sea of Okhotsk and east of Svalbard.

Your hypothetical situation is interesting, but it can’t be applied to the current situation.

If this still doesn’t convince you, then think about Arctic sea ice area measurements for a minute. Instead of counting everything above a certain threshold as 100% ice cover, sea ice area is the total of percentages in all grid cells. Imagine, like you say, that last year there was a total of approximately 1 million km2 of zones with 15-29% SIC. This would mean that sea ice area would have been much, much lower than this year. But actually, this year SIA was 585K lower than 2015 on February 17th, according to Cryosphere Today!

I’m looking at Arctic sea ice every day. There isn’t a viable meteorological, geographical or oceanographical explanation for this, not this year, and not during winter, I don’t think. And I’m not sure if it could happen during summer either. Not this much. A small relative disparity, perhaps, who knows, but not this big. And for your theory to work the ice at the fringes would have to converge/compact a lot, not disperse.

No, both graphs can’t be correct at the same time. One of them is wrong, and it is highly, highly likely that it’s the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph.

I'd like to leave it at that. :-)

A lot of words for just one paragraph of conspiracy ideation and the belief that there is a lot of ice in the Arctic right now that is invisible to satellite sensors. But alas, that's how it goes. A lie goes halfway around the world and so on...

 

Comments

[Jim Hunt]

Having taken part in the "DMI debate" orchestrated by Paul Homewood I'm impressed that you put up with it for as long as you did Neven!

Did any of your comments end up on the NALOPKT cutting room floor, because lots of mine certainly did.

Much the same story at WUWT, although that is of course "par for the course" over there.

As soon as we have a spare 5 minutes rest assured that "Snow White" and I will also be putting our thoughts down on virtual paper concerning the latest WUWT storm in a transatlantic teacup.

First of all though, I have to write up the interview I just did with Walt Meier from NASA.

[Neven]

Did any of your comments end up on the NALOPKT cutting room floor, because lots of mine certainly did.

No, most of my comments appeared, and those that didn't (just two) were because of too many links. But I focussed on the matter at hand entirely. Oh, that's not true. I had a go at Ron Clutz because he spouted too many untruths as fact in one comment. ;.)

Looking forward to your interview with Walt Meier! He's the best (okay, maybe after NASA's Tom Wagner).

[Magma]

Mind you, Watts takes the time to highlight this nonsense, but he hides from his readers that new minimum records have been set last week for both Global sea ice area and extent, and the Arctic sea ice maximum record could very well be broken too in the coming weeks. None of that on WUWT. These things simply don't exist in the world of climate risk deniers.

That's not surprising with unwanted facts and data. For example, Tony Watts has gone three years with barely a mention of his home state's record drought, only bringing it up when it looked as if El Nino rain and snow was about to end it. (At this point, that optimism seems premature.)

[Neven]

Watts, however, immediately snipped my first comment. I was surprised it got through, as Watts likes to make things disappear, and unlike the DMI, unannounced.

In my second comment I replied to his first reaction:

Show me one place there’s the word “conspiracy” in this post. Yet, you use the word where I have not.

Anthony, you agreed with Paul Homewood when he said that this graph has been withdrawn simply because it gives the “wrong” results. So, the graph is correct, but has been suddenly removed (not as announced months ago) because it doesn't fit the AGW narrative. And then you say it may be skullduggery. As a non-English native I had to look that word up and apparently it means "underhand, unscrupulous, or dishonest behaviour or activities". So basically you're saying it might very well be a conspiracy to hide an inconvenient sea ice graph.

Then show us where DMI has made this claim that the science behind a 30% concentration graph is flawed, but somehow the 15% concentration graph take from the very same satellite data is not.

There is nothing wrong with the science behind a 30% SIE threshold, there's clearly something wrong with the way the data is automatically processed for that graph, but no one is correcting it, because the graph is discontinued (people at DMI are probably paid to do other stuff).

I think you are just simply projecting your own bias onto what you think might be true, but isn’t actually supported by the science.

On the contrary, the fact that Arctic sea ice is currently very, very low and may well break the lowest maximum record, is supported by a lot of the stuff on your very own Sea Ice Page, just after the Global sea ice area and extent minimums were broken last week.

Your ridiculous claim doesn’t hold water (or ice for that matter).

I'm afraid you won't have the time or the inclination, but in the comment section of Paul Homewood's blog you can read my explanation why the old DMI SIE-30% graph is wrong (or a slightly shorter version on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog). Here is my argument:

1) The graph looks weird. There are two black trend lines, and a horizontal black line. There is no 2016 in the legend. The 2015 trend line contains strange dips that haven’t been corrected.
2) The trend line is much, much higher than all the other trend lines. Okay, if it was just a bit, but it’s way out there.
3) There is no SIE or SIA graph out there that looks remotely similar to the old SIE-30% graph.
4) Sea ice concentration maps, regional maps, satellite images, radar images, all show that sea ice cover is very low at the moment. There is no way it can be as high as the old SIE-30% graph suggests.
5) We know that DMI replaced this graph with the SIE-15% graph quite a while ago, and so there probably is no one to correct the old graph (like happened regularly in the past; I know, because alarmists would jump at the strange, steep dips). The graph is discontinued as announced many months ago.

The difference between the 15% and 30% thresholds (see NSIDC explanation) simply cannot account for such a large disparity. One of the graphs is wrong, and it's highly likely, bordering on certainty, that it's the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph.

But, of course, Brave Sir Robin, I mean Anthony had to replace that with:

[snip – after your claim of “conspiracy ideation” (see the screencap upthread) I’m not obligated to provide you a forum here until you post my update explaining that I don’t believe there is one on your blog in it’s entirety. I’m happy to entertain valid comments about the science, but I am not obligated to take abuse from you – Anthony]

What a convenient way of not having to deal with valid comments about the science!

I told him he's making an ass of himself. I don't think he'll let that one through either. ;-)

[Neven]

If you want your comment to go through, a trick is to say 'you probably won't let this through', and so Watts did let the comment pass, but not without an addition, of course:

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]

And so I've upped the ante:

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.

Let's see if he dares. I don't think he will! ;-)

edit: And he let it through. Good. Now he should do the right thing and update his blog post to let his readers know that the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph is most probably incorrect.

I dare him to!

[Neven]

BTW, I hope I'm not putting off readers with this belligerence. I know it's more or less useless, but I just can't stand it if people lie about Arctic sea ice.

[Neven]

And also if someone here thinks that somehow both graphs can be correct (along the lines of Jaime's hypothesis), I'll be very glad to hear it. The fact that I think there's nothing there, doesn't mean there isn't.

And there are a lot of brighter minds here when it comes to Arctic sea ice.

[Neven]

Just for reference...

Watts:

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.

Neven (as of yet unposted):

I haven't posted here - or tried to - for quite a while, so that should tell you that I'm serious about the gist of your blog post being in error. Don't worry, I won't be commenting here often, as long as you don't spread misinformation about anything related to Arctic sea ice.

Watts knows he's wrong. He completely buried the DMI conspiracy post with two other posts. He jumps on the conspiracy part, so that he doesn't have to talk about how wrong and misleading the whole premise of his post is. But that's nothing new in his line of business.

[jdallen_wa]

Neven - I've taken the occasional crack at Mr. Watts in the past, with little success. However, I didn't have the back up of a substantive and well documented blog.

I completely agree - I think it an absolute necessity to point out both sins of commission and sins of omission. I think we've let things like this go on far too long, and may end up paying the piper as a result.

I consider much of what Anthony Watts argues to be the fruit of cognitive dissonance. Given incontrovertible evidence, rather than rethink, my view is that he insists on scraping together thinner and thinner evidence to support his claims. He will fail, but no one will be the better off for it, for the damage will already have been done.

[Jim Hunt]

The first part of my evening's work is now complete:

"DMI, MASIE and the Sea Ice Index - An Interview With Walt Meier"

Regarding DMI, the issue seems quite simple. The 30% plot is an older version that they stopped supporting as they transitioned to the 15% plot.

[Neven]

Watts gets the final word, and I'm fine with that:

[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]

Again, the title of his erroneous blog post: DMI disappears an inconvenient sea ice graph.

Enough said.

[Diablobanquisa]

Obviously, the old DMI graph was plainly wrong since last autumn.

Some time ago, I took the graph and extracted the extent values for 2014/12/31 and 2015/12/31. The graph was showing a 700.000 sq. km higher extent for the latter date.

I looked at the source data (ftp://osisaf.met.no/archive/ice , 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 ) and made a comparison between the ice type charts for 2015/12/31 and 2014/12/31: https://diablobanquisa.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/2015vs2014type.gif

In 2015, there is a little more ice at Bering and Baffin, but clearly less ice at Barents, Kara and Greenland Sea.
Extra ice in 2015/12/31 (Bering, Baffin) vs. extra ice in 2014/12/31 (Kara, Barents, Greenland sea): https://diablobanquisa.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/2015vs2014.gif

I'd say there is clearly more extra ice in 2014 than in 2015. However, the old DMI graph was showing a 700.000 sq km. higher extent in 2015 (!). From the source data, that is simply impossible.

(I did the second comparison using Ice Concentration data because it's easier to use, but I previously checked that the Ice Type and the Ice Concentration charts matched almost exactly: https://diablobanquisa.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/2015vs2015_type_conc.gif and https://diablobanquisa.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/2014vs2014_type_conc.gif )

[Kevin O'Neill]

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:”

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.”

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.

[Kevin O'Neill]

BTW Neven, if Anthony isn't a conspiracy nutter he sure has a strange way of showing it. He promotes every conspiracy nutter theory around on his blog and his own statements reinforce the notion.

His explanation that *this* isn't a conspiracy because he believes it's the work of one man is laughable. One man? And no one else at DMI noticed or asked questions? Oh c'mon. Get real.

AW just doesn't like being categorized as a conspiracy nutter even though that's what he is. Just like science deniers don't like being called that even though that's the label that fits.

I suspect he's cranky cuz his life's work - his surface station heatsink theory- is going nowhere fast. Hausfather et al's comparison of USHCN (ClimDiv) to USCRN pretty much shot his whole AGU 2015 poster/paper out of the water before it ever saw print.

[P-maker]

Jdallen:

”cognitive dissonance” was my key phrase.

Honestly, I don’t know why Jim “the Huntsman” and Neven “ the Saviour” keeps on the palaver with these guys over on the black side of sanity.

I used to work at DMI. In those days, there were climate risk deniers, climate septics and outright liars. I am not sure that lengthy blog posts about the details of 15 versus 30 % ice cover is worth the effort. Somehow I get the feeling that the timing is essential. In this respect I also refer you to the splendid talk of Kevin Anderson (try this at home with your kids: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T22A7mvJoc ).

The timing issue is essential, if you want to understand why one particular DMI person has decided to pull the trigger on the 30 % graph. This guy is not stupid and (s)he has all along been aware that this day would come, that both Arctic and Antarctic sea ice extent would hit rock bottom. Call it conspiracy or not, the fact is that the removal of the 30 % graph is not a coincidence. It is very well timed to create the impression that a “conspiracy” is about to unfold at the same time as the globe shit hits the fan.

[Colorado Bob]

Colorado Bob, how big a voice is this Kevin Anderson in the debate?

Fron the last thread -

My question comes from the point of view that governments are not individually refocusing their efforts toward a 1.5 degree target and the only reason I can think of is that it would induce panic as the talk is all about how that target is I achievable.

What do you say?

Posted by: AbbottisGone

As the Scribber said today -

“Hell is empty… all the devils are here.” William Shakespeare — The Tempest.

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/02/22/a-monster-2016-arctic-melt-season-may-have-already-begun/#comment-69313

[Colorado Bob]

Neven -
According to Climate Reanalyzer, the average temperature departure in the Arctic today was +7.06 deg C.

"Never wrestle a pig, you get muddy , and the pig enjoys it."

That said, give em' hell it's appeared in the Arctic.

[Jim Hunt]

You couldn't make this stuff up. Nobody would believe you.

Skip past update 1 concerning "The typical haters, such as Neven Acropolis" and then take a look at update 2, which is courtesy of "Commenter “pethefin”" fresh from NALOPKT:

https://archive.is/g02vZ#selection-849.0-849.142

The small print Mr. Watts so proudly portrays states:

The maps are additionally overlayed with the corresponding multi-year monthly mean of the periods 1978-2014

Have a play and see if you can persuade them to display any data from 2015, let alone 2016.

[Jim Hunt]

P-Maker - I refer you to one of my few comments which did manage to make it past the NALOPKT red pencil:

https://archive.is/0yexO#selection-2107.0-2119.28

As regards timing, perhaps you would care to peruse this:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32810887

and maybe also this:

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/701782173465104385

Capiche?

[Kevin O'Neill]

Jim, regarding AW's UPDATE 2 and the 1978 - 2014 data. I mentioned that a few comments upthread and posted my reply at WUWT. It appears to have gone through moderation.

Meanwhile we have another gem of a conspiracy comment following mine. This by Eliza:

"“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 [sic]

Conspiracy nutters are alive and well at WUWT.

[Colorado Bob]

Jim Hunt -

You couldn't make this stuff up. Nobody would believe you.

Only if you had the attention of gerbil. Only if you didn't have a date for the prom. Only if there was lead in your drinking water when you were 3.

[Jim Hunt]

Sorry Kevin - As you may have gathered I didn't read that far back.

If you got that past WUWT "moderation" very well done, because that's more than I have managed to achieve!

[Jim Hunt]

What with one thing and another I've only just pressed the "publish" button on my second DMIGate article of the evening:

"Watts Up With DMI Arctic Sea Ice Extent?"

I must be going stir crazy, because amongst other things I wrote:

Mr. Watts is evidently a big fan of William Burroughs, and has used his celebrated “cut-up” technique to transform “Skulduggery going on in the climate establishment” into “magnets cued she got on the inimitably ginger skull” which is obviously not even slightly conspiratorial.

[Neven]

I'd say there is clearly more extra ice in 2014 than in 2015. However, the old DMI graph was showing a 700.000 sq km. higher extent in 2015 (!). From the source data, that is simply impossible.

Thanks a lot for checking this, Diablo. This is one of those things that no fake skeptic could ever do, or would want to do.

I am not sure that lengthy blog posts about the details of 15 versus 30 % ice cover is worth the effort.

Me neither, but like I said, I do get something out of the discussions/thought experiments, just like Ron Clutz' MASIE average annual nonsense has taught me many useful things. Sometimes researching the background of erroneous statements or analysis hones your skills and increases your knowledge, if you go deep enough. But it costs (a lot of) time.

[Pjie2]

They didn't just remove the 30% graph, they corrected it. Look here:

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

The latest line (pale purple) goes all the way to the end of 2015. If you compare it to the previous version on the broken graph (black line), you can see they start to diverge around the 1st of November.

Looks like they've sorted out the bug, corrected the data up to the end of 2015, and then officially retired the graph.

Anyone wanting to witter on about 30% versus 15% or any other such horseshit needs to account for why the final validated version of the 30% graph now shows 2015 as being no different from the rest of the pack right up until the end of December.

[Neven]

That's interesting, Pjie2. I hadn't even noticed that yet.

[Bill Fothergill]

In his dystopian novel, 1984, Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) introduced us to the term "doublethink". This is the situation wherein someone contrives to hold two mutually contradictory views - yet somehow manages to simultaneously believe both to be true. (In many ways this is virtually the direct opposite of cognitive dissonance.)

In the context of climate change denial, my first exposure to this appeared in the pages of the local parish church magazine. The writer was a person who had spend her entire working life in academia - in a maths department no less.

In the magazine article (written around Easter 2010), she stated that the decline in Arctic sea ice seen between 1979 and 2007 was merely part of a 60-year cycle, and that 30 years, or so, was simply too short a measurement period to allow any meaningful conclusions to be drawn. In a different paragraph, she argued that the September extents seen in 2008 & 2009 "proved" that the Arctic had entered the upward half of the cycle. (The irony of someone proudly proclaiming themself to be a sceptic, whilst being prepared, nay eager, to accept the cyclicity meme at face value was entirely lost upon her.)

Moving from a personal example to stuff given wide publicity on the web, many readers may be aware that Steve Goddard produced a hilarious piece of nonsense in 2014 claiming to demonstrate that Arctic sea ice had indeed climbed dramatically over the period approximately 1950 (-ish) to 1979. For no real reason other than personal interest, I wrote an extensive riposte debunking everything Mr Goddard claimed, and asked Neven if he wished to use this as a guest post. After some internal debate, Neven took the understandable step of not even bothering to give any publicity to Goddard's musings.

Last year, there was some amusement on this blog when David Whitehouse of the GWPF penned an article claiming that there was a pause in Arctic sea ice decline.
http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-decline-a-new-pause/

One of the most hilarious parts (and there were many to choose from) was the fact that he had used a CT Area map whilst talking about sea ice extent. Mr Whitehouse has a background in astronomy, and getting area and extent confused would be roughly analogous to an astronomer confusing absolute magnitude with apparent magnitude.

More interestingly, Mr Whitehouse claimed that ...
"... When satellite observations of Arctic ice extent began in 1979 it was obvious that a long-term decline was already underway."

(Let's simply ignore the fallacy - or should that be phallusy? - concerning the commencement of satellite observations.)

So, in the red corner, we have Mr Goddard saying that Arctic sea ice was growing prior to 1979, whilst in the blue corner, we have Mr Whitehouse claiming that it had been declining prior to 1979.

Whether this represents some weird "groupthink doublethink", or a schism in the wonderfully wacky world of climate change denial, who can tell?

Bloody onanists.

[Jim Hunt]

Mornin' Bill.

Snow White asked me to say that if you would ever like to write a guest post then please do not hesitate to ask!

I hesitate to add the following, but Ms. White insists:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/tag/steven-goddard/

Reggie Perrin described the psychological condition you describe as "Wingnut Alternate Reality" (or WAR for short).

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000035525134]

"I suspect he's cranky cuz his life's work - his surface station heatsink theory- is going nowhere fast. Hausfather et al's comparison of USHCN (ClimDiv) to USCRN pretty much shot his whole AGU 2015 poster/paper out of the water before it ever saw print."

yup..

[Bill Fothergill]

Evenin' James,

I've been out playing with the old chainsaw until it got dark, and, I'm glad to say, can still count all the way up to 21. (Or at least 20 and a half.)

In the next few days, I'll drop over an email with some ramblings for your perusal.

Now if I can just manage to wedge my thumb into that gushing femoral artery...

[Pjie2]

Actually, I was wrong, the final/locked version of the graph appears to be mislabelled. Specifically, on the latest version, there is no dark green line for 2014. Instead the pale purple line (labelled 2015 in the key) follows the trace that was labelled as 2014 in the bugged version.

[Bill Fothergill]

@ Neven in the OP

Hi Nev,
Just a quick comment or two, if I may be so bold ...

RE: WTFUWT
Mr Watts is keen to engage in some ludicrous pedantry over the use of the words such as "skullduggery" (the number of "L"s is somewhat arbitrary) and "conspiracy".

It is educational to look at the online Oxford English dictionary definition...
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/skulduggery

(Note that I've even used the Americanised version - something I am not prepared to do as a matter of course!)

In the usage examples, a particularly illuminating case was ...

"Do note, however, the snide tone of the remark, and the imputation of dishonesty and skullduggery among scientists."

The key word is, of course, "among" - in other words, a form of conspiracy.

RE: Jamie
Your pal seems to have some difficulty with, amongst other things, the use of Venn diagrams. Does he fail to grasp that the value for 30% extent must be between the 15% level and the value for area?

Has he still failed to grasp that if area is down, and the 15% level is down, then's its pretty hard for the intermediate 30% figure to go spectacularly in the opposite direction? Has he heard of Occam's Razor?

[Jim Hunt]

Bill - It would seem that the poor unfortunate fellow is much more familiar with the tale of Giordano Bruno than that of William of Ockham?

Heretical scientists? Burn 'em at the stake!

[DavidR]

The sole purpose of Climate Change deniers is to waste time, particularly the time of scientists and others who have to refute their nonsense.

If they say X and you demonstrate that X is wrong they will say but what about Y?. When you demonstrate that Y is wrong its What about Z? and they can go on through several alphabets.

I prefer to avoid places where the debate is meaningless and WUWT is one of those places.

[Neven]

Just for reference, DMI has now issued a statement explaining that the old graph was incorrect, why this was and why the switch to the 15% SIE threshold was made. They even went so far to apologize for the confusion that was whipped up to great heights by fake skeptic hysteria.

Nothing surprising there. I and others have said from day 1 that the graph wasn't reliable and that there wasn't a conspiracy.

What's also unsurprising, is that Anthony Watts has 'graciously' accepted the DMI's apologies. He wants me to apologize as well for suggesting that he was suggesting that it was a conspiracy to 'disappear an inconvenient sea ice graph'.

The DMI and I caused him to do it. A bit like wearing a short skirt, getting raped and then having to apologize to the rapist. Pretty insane, but apparently minds can work that way. No shame whatsoever.

The sole purpose of Climate Change deniers is to waste time, particularly the time of scientists and others who have to refute their nonsense. If they say X and you demonstrate that X is wrong they will say but what about Y?. When you demonstrate that Y is wrong its What about Z? and they can go on through several alphabets. I prefer to avoid places where the debate is meaningless and WUWT is one of those places.

You're absolutely right. The reason I engaged this time, was to work out so to speak, seeing it as an exercise and though experiment.

The other reason is that it is my sincere hope that when someone new to the AGW or Arctic sea ice loss discussion, even if it's just one person, reads the WUWT piece and this blog post, and then concludes that Watts, his website and his commenters are as unreliable as that old, uncorrected DMI graph.

I mean that's how I found out that AGW was a real problem. By going to WUWT and seeing all the misrepresentations, half-truths and unmitigated lies.

[Jim Hunt]

Obviously it was "Snow White's" short skirt that led Mr. Watts to censor all "her" erudite comments.

I hereby apologise for suggesting that he might be a student of William Burroughs, and for my fevered imagination putting the words “Skulduggery going on in the climate establishment” in his mouth.

Meanwhile all the usual suspects (except Mr. Watts) have been hard at work at Climate Etc. Over there Judy's moderator(s) seem to be very sparing with their red pencil!

http://archive.is/lqA0z#selection-8317.0-8321.128

A nice quote from a certain Steven Mosher:

Anyone who has worked with satellite data, especially Arctic satellite data, and ESPECIALLY data that requires a land mask ( hint guess what I am working on today ) wasn’t the least bit confused or in question about the 30% data. And we were not “awaiting” an explanation.

The only people waiting for an explanation were:

1. People who never have worked with this kind of data.

2. People who believe in conspiracies.

[Jim Hunt]

I hereby withdraw my somewhat tongue in cheek "apology" of last night. Watts is at it again:

http://archive.is/Nl2uj

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.

Meanwhile Lawrence Martin(ez) explains that:

Watt’s flushed all my comments and all comments that referred to them down the memory hole, so much for that pseudo-science echo chamber being anything more than the North Korea of the blogosphere.

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-dmigate-dodo-is-pushing-up-the-daisies/#comment-213607

Even the part where my old sparring partner "Bit Chilly" explained to Anthony that "Jim Hunt is a nice man" has been flushed down the memory hole too!

[wayne]

Jim,

I think its good to point out that WUWT misinformation maniacs are at it again, but I am far more interested in discussing the science.

I got a good one 4 you, have you ever noticed a diurnal warming of the sea water column under the ice during twilight or darkness?
I have found something I can't explain, but I believe there may be some corroborative evidence , and you may be one of the few who would know....

I read some buoy data and it seems that sea water temperatures are rock solid steady during the dark season... But I have not seen all of the data.

[Jim Hunt]

Perhaps we should discuss that on a "science" thread rather than on the "Wingnut Alternate Reality" thread though Wayne!

How about this one?

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/an-exceptional-exception.html

[NeilT]

Bill,

Following on from your "doublethink" I am inclined to rename the majority of the drivel on WUWT from BS to DS.

After all the biggest indicator of the kind of commenters on the site is a point I have posted there more than once.

Namely that many of the commenters propose diametrically opposed reasons for their pet theory, to which everyone agrees that they could be right. If you took all the BS opinions on WUWT and subjected it to rigorous logical analysis, you would generally find that the net sum of all the hot air would be exactly nothing. Because they contradict each other so many times that they cancel each other out.

It would not be so bad if were to self police by commenting when a conflicting opinion has been published. But, in fact, they do the opposite. Where if the opinion meets the political ideology of another poster who is proposing something totally opposite and incompatible, they agree that both "could" be right, when, in fact, one must certainly be wrong.

So not BS. DS. Where the same old garbage is excreted out to the forum where it is consumed and excreted out in a different and conflicting form.

I stopped commenting there a while back but I have made this same comment on inconsistency at least 3 times there. The lights are on, the music is at max, but nobody is home.

[NeilT]

I have succumbed to responding to Anthony's latest post which links the last one.

Given my post above he may, or may not, choose to post it.

We'll see. If he doesn't I can put the text here if you care to see it... I've saved the text in a word document.

[Lawrence Martin]

Jim, I didn't realize there was a Wingnut Alternate Reality (WAR) thread. I can't think of a better reason to finally introduce myself after many years of lurking.
Willard/Tony may have shot himself in the foot early this morning and no matter how he spins it, WUWT and himself are the big losers.
The discount viscount Monckton's constant need of protection and cover-up may be one the internet's best kept secrets. The upcoming U.S. presidential election may be the first ever where Climate Change will be an issue. In a perfect world, the wingnut astro-turf climate change spin machine may finally be exposed.

[Lawrence Martin]

I was moved by this video of Larry Audlaluk, 65, a hunter and leader from Grise Fiord, Nunavut. He asks the prime minister what is the government’s plan to deal with the direct impact climate change has on Canadians in the North.

http://bit.ly/1QCfEIQ

The native people of the far north have a multi-generational knowledge of ice dynamics and climate that has so far been ignored but are most likely much more relevant than ship logs and pictures of submarines.

[NeilT]

Well it was posted. I hope that I got my point over.

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000035525134]

"I read some buoy data and it seems that sea water temperatures are rock solid steady during the dark season... But I have not seen all of the data."

When we were doing our global product one of the things I puzzled over was this.

Global products are a combination of SST and SAT.

But then there is ICE? What to do?

A) estimate SAT over ice ( treat the ice like "land"

B) Estimate the SST under ice.. Treat the ice like frozen water.

In the end we did things both ways, but in estimating the SST under ice we just used a constant ( so the effect on the global trend is slightly downward )

In any case, if I got a pointer to some data to look at I would appreciate it...

Not that any differences will have a "impact" on the science. This is just one of those details..

[Jim Hunt]

You look a lot like Steven Mosher using a nom de guerre? Welcome to the ASIB.

You do realise that this is the "Wingnut Alternate Reality" thread? The under ice water temperature conversation continues over at:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2016/02/an-exceptional-exception.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d1a4b17c970c#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b01b8d1a4b17c970c

[Jim Hunt]

Neil,

The boy done well! Not content with blocking me on WUWT, Watts is now taking pot shots at me over at Judy Curry's for good measure.

A couple of my witty ripostes are now lying on Judy's cutting room floor, with no explanation forthcoming as yet:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-dmigate-dodo-is-pushing-up-the-daisies/#comment-213621

[Lawrence Martin]

Jim
There is nothing sinister regarding the missing posts at Judith's, a few of mine got flushed down the memory hole when she cleaned up the mess after our name-jacking. She was very prompt with the cleanup and unfortunately she deleted a few genuine comments. I exchanged emails with her and am impressed by how well she handled the whole situation, especially considering the controversial content of my posts at her site.
You may get a chuckle from my latest comment at her blog
http://bit.ly/1KS03ZH

[Jim Hunt]

Lawrence,

I lost a few in the "name-jacking" incident you refer to as well. Someone even impersonated my dear departed Mother.

However the comments I am referring to date from both well before as well as shortly after that "brief hiatus".

Perhaps you could pursue the matter with Prof. Curry on my behalf?

[NeilT]

Jim, there is a technique to saying something when both parties are in dispute and one is inclined to censor. It is not immediately satisfying but it can make your point effectively.

Whilst I love some conspiracy theories and believe that there is a kernel of truth in quite a few, the only conspiracy going on in the climate side is on the denial side, IMHO.

So I find I can only take it in small doses these days. So if you'll excuse me I'll not go in for any mud wrestling on Prof Curry's site thanks...

[Jim Hunt]

Neil,

You're excused, but nonetheless the "conspiracy" to "censor" the "inconvenient truth" revealed by the data continues:

Gross Deception About MASIE and the Sea Ice Index

[Bill Fothergill]

@ the man with no name

"When we were doing our global product one of the things I puzzled over was this.

Global products are a combination of SST and SAT.

But then there is ICE? What to do?"

I may be trying to teach you how to suck eggs, but ...

Richard Mueller et al had a similar dilemma with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. Their solution was to present their data using both techniques.

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Land_and_Ocean_complete.txt

If you read the preamble at the top of the file, that refers to the first approach, but if you scroll down to the halfway mark, the alternative approach has been employed.

[Jim Hunt]

Er Bill,

Steven Mosher (AKA @ the man with no name) works with Richard Mueller at BEST, so I guess he counts as one of the et als?

[Bill Fothergill]

Oops,

so it's egg on face time again.

I'll just crawl back into my shell then.

Next thing, you'll be telling me that you're really Snow White.

Apologies to Mr Mosher, but that's why I had the caveat about "teaching you suck eggs".

[Jim Hunt]

Bill,

Only marginally off topic I've only just discovered this local event on March 5th at Exeter University:

http://wamfest.co.uk/

The evening will feature a wonderful opportunity to come and hear one of Britain’s most exciting and engaging science communicators, Helen Czerski, as well as put your questions to our panel of eminent scientists, including Prof Dame Julia Slingo OBE FRS, Chief Scientist of the Met Office, during our Climate Change Question Time panel event.

Not to mention Richard Betts too. I shall be there. How about you?

[Colorado Bob]

Toward Quantifying the Increasing Role of Oceanic Heat in Sea Ice Loss in the New Arctic

Abstract

The loss of Arctic sea ice has emerged as a leading signal of global warming. This, together with acknowledged impacts on other components of the Earth system, has led to the term “the new Arctic.” Global coupled climate models predict that ice loss will continue through the twenty-first century, with implications for governance, economics, security, and global weather. A wide range in model projections reflects the complex, highly coupled interactions between the polar atmosphere, ocean, and cryosphere, including teleconnections to lower latitudes. This paper summarizes our present understanding of how heat reaches the ice base from the original sources—inflows of Atlantic and Pacific Water, river discharge, and summer sensible heat and shortwave radiative fluxes at the ocean/ice surface—and speculates on how such processes may change in the new Arctic. The complexity of the coupled Arctic system, and the logistic and technological challenges of working in the Arctic Ocean, require a coordinated interdisciplinary and international program that will not only improve understanding of this critical component of global climate but will also provide opportunities to develop human resources with the skills required to tackle related problems in complex climate systems. We propose a research strategy with components that include 1) improved mapping of the upper- and middepth Arctic Ocean, 2) enhanced quantification of important process, 3) expanded long-term monitoring at key heat-flux locations, and 4) development of numerical capabilities that focus on parameterization of heat-flux mechanisms and their interactions.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00177.1

[www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000035525134]

"Apologies to Mr Mosher, but that's why I had the caveat about "teaching you suck eggs"

haha, no apologies required.

@Jim Hunt, thanks for the link. I lurk at neven's place. So much to learn I just keep my mouth shut.

I was kinda surprised that folks haven't "taken" to the approach of using SST under the ice.
Anyway, this whole DMI escapade just makes me angry. Months back a commenter on Lucia's Rank Exploits pointed me to the chart and demanded an explanation ( as if it were my data). It was pretty clear that the chart was broken, but I didn't even think to give any one a head's up. That won't happen again.

[AbbottisGone]

Congrats Jim: I feverishly anticipate your findings.

Otherwise, just enjoy! Um, wait.... that's possibly not the most appropriate comment?!!?

[Jim Hunt]

AiG,

Yesterday's event at Exeter University was most interesting, and I even learnt a few snippets of new (to me) science. With his permission I'll even be able to share with you a picture of Bill pretending to be a snowflake!

Sticking at least vaguely to the topic of this thread, during the final panel session Dr. Helen Czerski and the assembled audience discovered the back story behind this episode of the BBC's Newsnight programme:

Antarctic sea ice at record levels despite global warming

Helen told the audience she wondered which climate scientist had failed to turn up to the subsequent studio interview. Whereupon Dame Julia Slingo revealed that she was in actual fact the "guilty" party.

Despite repeated requests it wasn't until she was already on the train to London that the BBC informed Dame Julia that she would be expected to "debate" the expansion of Antarctic sea ice with the world famous "coal baron" Matt Ridley. She refused, and Tamsin Edwards stepped in at the last minute to fill the void. Dame Julia told us that the BBC told her that Matt Ridley had been informed of Newsnight's cunning plan the previous day.

Pending Bill's permission, here's a picture of Helen Czerski spinning her inflatable globe. Plus an Argo float:

Click the image for a larger version.

[Jim Hunt]

The latest "In a nutshell" guide to the the denialosphere:

"DMIGate Skulduggery In a Nutshell"

In view of the incontrovertible evidence why would anyone believe anything Paul Homewood, Anthony Watts and Judith Curry claim about “Climate Etc.” ever again?

[Bill Fothergill]

@ Jim

Permission granted. It can't be any worse than my passport photo.

Or can it?

[Lawrence Martin]

I owe an apology to the 57 ASIB readers who clicked my link to Judith Curry's blog only to find that comment joining Jim Hunt's in the memory hole. Apparently Judith defiantly desires her fifteen minutes of fame and #snipgate will definitely accomplish that for her.

[Neven]

I didn't know Curry deleted comments on the blog (given the fact that she tolerates so many loonies). Does she do it transparently, at least?

[Lawrence Martin]

I cNNOT

[Jim Hunt]

In brief Neven, no. By way of just one example, see if you can find this comment:

https://archive.is/IMOzi#selection-10929.0-10937.3

in later versions of the archived page, or an explanation for its absence.

[Lawrence Martin]

Schrodinger the cat decided to take a walk across the keyboard as I was tying my reply. This is a purrrfect example of when a snip is an appropriate action.
Getting back to Ms Curry and her use of the red pencil, certain inconvenient truths were vanished without a trace. From this shameful incident it has been proven beyond doubt that the climate change deniers will go to great lengths to protect fellow travelers even it requires resorting to stealthy moderation. What I don't understand is why she didn't realize that this was going to place her front and center stage at #snipgate and #DMIgate.

[Jim Hunt]

Here you go Bill:

For the uninitiated amongst us, Bill is depicted simulating a grid cell in a model in a Met Office supercomputer, under the watchful eye of Professor Liz Bentley, Chief Executive of the Royal Meteorological Society.

[Bill Fothergill]

Re: Schrödinger (with or without the umlaut)

Dammit! So, I was wasting my time trying to decipher "I cNNOT".

;-)

[Jim Hunt]

The usual #TwitterTrolls have fallen remarkably silent on the topic of #DMIGate recently!

https://twitter.com/GreatWhiteCon/status/708235986275332096

Cat got your tongue @shubclimate? Testifying before @SenTedCruz on a topic you admittedly know little about is OK with you?

[Lawrence Martin]

Bill Fothergill, Neven
What I was attempting to type BC (before cat)....
I cannot say definitely whether or not Ms Curry routinely plays dishonest games with the timeline of the comments at her blog because that is knowledge I do not possess. What I can say is that on the one instance I have visited her site in the last four years she has been dishonest and disingenuous in her zeal to protect the #wutz.
Psychic detective Jim Hunt as usual was one step ahead and answered Neven's question making my first attempt superfluous.
Jim I bet Mosher could help us with the algoreithm, he may have just the right sense of humour, nudge...nudge

[Jim Hunt]

The pre-publication draft of Bill's learned article on the temperature of the lower troposphere is now available for comment at:

How to Make a Complete RSS of Yourself (With Sausages)

The February TLT value from RSS seems to have produced the conditions under which certain allotropes of the fabled element known as Moncktonite will spontaneously evaporate.

If Mr Monckton’s sausages leave an awfully bad taste in the mouth, it could be due to the fact that they are full of tripe.

[Jim Hunt]

An agent of the 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has emailed us the Good Lord's detailed "rebuttal" of Bill The Frog's article about the scandalous methods employed by the Brenchley sausage factory.

However he refuses to allow us to publish it:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/03/how-to-make-a-complete-rss-of-yourself/#comment-213909

Personally I don’t have much hope for a productive exchange given the tone adopted by Patrick Moore and the Clerk to His Lordship.