Tricks Used by David Rose to Deceive

Psychology, , , , , , , , , , ,

Regular readers of our so far somewhat surreal reporting from up here in the penthouse suite at the summit of the Great White Con ivory towers will no doubt have noticed that we like to concentrate on the facts about the Arctic, whilst occasionally naively exploring assorted psychological aspects of journeying through the “denialosphere”.

Today, however, we’re branching out in a different direction with the aid of our first ever guest post. It has been carefully crafted by Sou Bundanga of the HotWhopper blog, on the topic of the “journalistic tricks that professional disinformers use”. It covers some of the same ground as a recent post of our own, albeit from a rather different angle. If you would like view the original version on Sou’s blog please click here. Alternatively, please continue below the fold:

This is just a short article to show the journalistic tricks that professional disinformers use. It consists of excerpts from an article by David Rose, who is paid to write rubbish for the Mail on Sunday, a UK tabloid of the sensationalist kind. He’d probably claim that he’s just “doing his job”. His job being to create sensationalist headlines and not bother too much about accuracy, but to try to do it in such a way as to stop the paper ending up in court on the wrong end of a lawsuit. Just. (The paper probably doesn’t mind so much getting taken to the Press Complaints Commission. )

Here is what David Rose wrote last weekend:

The Nasa climate scientists who claimed 2014 set a new record for global warmth last night admitted they were only 38 per cent sure this was true.

First of all notice the use of the word “admitted” – as if it was something that the scientists were forced into, whereas in fact they provided all the information in their press briefing. Notice also that David has taken one number and used it out of context.  The 38% number is the probability that 2014 is the hottest year compared to the probability that 2010 and other hot years are the hottest. 2010, the next hottest year, only got a 23% probability by comparison. Here is the table showing out of 100%, what the different probabilities are:

 

You can see how David misused the 38% number. In fact the odds of it being the hottest year on record are the highest of the lot.

What is David’s next atrocity:

In a press release on Friday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’.

The claim made headlines around the world, but yesterday it emerged that GISS’s analysis – based on readings from more than 3,000 measuring stations worldwide – is subject to a margin of error. Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all.

See how David Rose distorts things. How he uses rhetoric, abusing words like “emerged” and “claim” and “admits”. He is also being “economical with the truth” about the “far from certain”. He just made that one up. It may not be “certain”, but it is much more certain than “far from”.  And it is more “certain” that 2014 was the hottest year than that any other year was the hottest year.

If David Rose were arguing that you beat your wife, even though you don’t, he’d probably write it up as:

The so-called scientist claims that he doesn’t beat his wife. He admits that he cannot prove he doesn’t beat his wife. However this journalist can show that it has emerged that his claim is subject to a margin of error.  95% of wife-beaters deny beating their wives.

And I doubt he’d add the confidence limits to the 95% number!

David Rose continues his deception writing:

Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much.

That section by David Rose contains the same journalistic tricks of rhetoric, as well as an error of fact. The margin of error of the annual averaged global surface temperature is described in the GISS FAQ as ±0.05°C:

Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. The error bars are about twice as big for seasonal means and three times as big for monthly means. Error bars for regional means vary wildly depending on the station density in that region. Error estimates related to homogenization or other factors have been assessed by CRU and the Hadley Centre (among others).

If the press release didn’t include any confidence limits, then where did David Rose get his numbers from you may ask? That’s a very good question. It turns out that NOAA and NASA held a press conference, during which they showed some slides and explained the confidence limits, among other things. So David Rose was being very deceitful, wasn’t he. Which isn’t a surprise.

What bit of deception does he swing to next? Well here it is. You be the judge:

As a result, GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent. However, when asked by this newspaper whether he regretted that the news release did not mention this, he did not respond. Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount.

More rhetorical tricks using words like “admitted”. More deception by David Rose. When and how and where did David Rose ask Gavin Schmidt the question? I don’t know. It looks as if it was via an accusatory tweet of the type “have you stopped beating your wife”, like this one on January 17th:


Yet Gavin Schmidt had already responded to David Rose’s tweets about “uncertainties” on January 16th:


 
That’s about it. I’ll leave it to you to decide who is the grand deceiver.

I’d not trust David Rose, denier journo, with a single fact.  It is alleged that he is a master of deception. He’d probably try to claim he is just doing his job.

Thanks very much for that article Sou, and by way of conclusion here’s yet another tweet from Gavin Schmidt, this time from January 24th:

Implausible Deniability of 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Predictions

Extent, , , , , , , ,

Further to the cessation of the brief hiatus in my continuing discussions with “Steve Goddard” about “global warming”, the debate has turned to predictions concerning Arctic sea ice metrics during the 2014 melting season.

Firstly here’s a few charts of assorted Arctic sea ice metrics, hot off the virtual presses:

CT-Area-2015-01-18
Chart from Cryosphere Today – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
IJIS-Extent-2015-01-18
Chart from IJIS – http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
DMI-New-2015-01-19
Chart from DMI – http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
DMI-Old-2015-01-19
Chart from DMI – http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

Here’s a table of the minimum value of some of those metrics for a selection of years:

Metric 2006 2013 2014
NSIDC daily 15% extent 5.74877 5.077090 4.98339
CT area 4.02978 3.55440 3.48317
IJIS extent 5.62505 4.80929 4.88412

 

Now here’s one of Steve/Tony’s predictions, in this case from August 1st 2014:

The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade.

And finally here’s the “discussion” (such as it is) over at the “Real Science” blog:
 

Us:

That’s not really how things turned out, is it?

 

Them:

That is exactly how it turned out.

Do you believe it was ice-free as Nobel Prize winner Al Gore predicted?

 

Us:

Perhaps this chart is clearer?

NSIDC-Extent-2015-01-18
Chart from NSIDC – http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

How do you define “exactly”, “likely” and “close”?

Regarding my views on Al Gore’s so called predictions, see:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2014/09/david-roses-apocalyptic-vision-of-al-gores-nobel-lecture/

In brief “Al Gore never ‘predicted’ that the Arctic would be ice-free by now!”

 

Them:

Well, he didn’t say ’22 years from now’, did he? No, he emphasized the most alarmist position he could find.

You can weasel out of this by stating that Gore did not make the prediction ,but he sure as Hell quoted and emphasized it, over any and all other predictions. And in front of the Nobel committee and entire world at that!

So have you confronted Gore over the failed prediction he parroted in Oslo? When you do, you will have a modicum of credibility. Get busy.

 

Us:

At the risk of repeating myself, “for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics a ‘projection’ is not the same thing as a ‘prediction’”

Getting back to Tony’s predictions, and using the NSIDC daily extent numbers for the moment, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?

 

Them:

Actually, no, your chart is less clear. Steve’s has all the years and it is clear his prediction is correct. Yours does not. Nor does yours have a legible legend. Another snow white lie.

 

Us:

Have you by any chance tried clicking on my chart? Does that help at all?

At the risk of repeating myself, would you say that 4.98339 is “exactly” 5.74877? How about “close”?

 

Them:

What bearing does 2013’s minimum have on goddard’s prediction for 2014? Are you a half-wit in addition to being a mentally ill stalker & transvestite?

 

Us:

What bearing does 2014’s maximum have on 2014’s minimum?

Are you blind?

 

Them:

You seem to think that some random number you came up with has some bearing on the subject at hand. Hint: it’s why we think you’re mentally ill.

 

Us:

Of course they’re not random numbers. To save you the bother of doing your own research please feel free to take a look at:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2015/01/implausible-deniability-of-2014-arctic-sea-ice-predictions/#Table

 

Them:

Stark, it’s not about random numbers, it’s about random harassment. This clown takes no issue with ridiculous ‘projections’ delivered by alarmist zealots on a world stage, instead he haunts this site moaning about near misses.

But you are right about the mentally ill bit.

 

Us:

The conversation about the non-random Arctic numbers has at last taken a statistical turn over at:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/arctic-sea-ice-extent-continues-near-a-decadal-high/#comment-483567

I note that you are still dodging the question there too.

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

Was 2014 Really “The Warmest Year in Modern Record”

Temperature, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I don’t usually get involved in debates about “the global warming pause”, but as you will eventually see there is an Arctic connection, so please bear with me. Personally I reckon “global heat” is more relevant than “global surface temperature”, but nevertheless NASA and NOAA issued a “news release” a couple of days ago stating that:

The year 2014 ranks as Earth’s warmest since 1880, according to two separate analyses by NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) scientists.

The 10 warmest years in the instrumental record, with the exception of 1998, have now occurred since 2000. This trend continues a long-term warming of the planet, according to an analysis of surface temperature measurements by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) in New York.

In an independent analysis of the raw data, also released Friday, NOAA scientists also found 2014 to be the warmest on record.

The announcement was accompanied by this video:

I figured our old friend David Rose would have something to say about all that in the Mail on Sunday, and I was not disappointed. Yesterday David reported, in bold headlines:

Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right

  • Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies claimed its analysis of world temperatures showed ‘2014 was the warmest year on record’

  • But it emerged that GISS’s analysis is subject to a margin of error

  •  Nasa admits this means it is far from certain that 2014 set a record at all

David Rose includes this NASA video in the online version of his article:

which finishes up showing the Arctic blanketed in red for the period 2010-14. In the body of the article David suggests that:

GISS’s director Gavin Schmidt has now admitted Nasa thinks the likelihood that 2014 was the warmest year since 1880 is just 38 per cent.

but for some strange reason David neglects to mention this NASA/NOAA “press briefing“, which includes the following figure:

2015-01-18-WarmProbs

or this January 16th “Tweet” from Gavin Schmidt:

all of which was discussed on the NASA/NOAA conference call last Friday, a recording of which is available from the NOAA website:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/advisories/011415-advisory-2014-global-climatehighlights.html

As you can see and hear, Gavin Schmidt’s “admission” was pretty public, and available for anyone doing their due diligence on this thorny topic to see well before the Mail on Sunday published David Rose’s article.  For still more from Gavin see also the second half of yet another video from NASA, which we’ve hastily made embeddable from YouTube since NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center don’t  seem to have done so themselves as yet:

[Edit – 23/01/2015]

By way of further elucidation of the NASA/NOAA table of probabilities above, here’s a new graphic courtesy of Skeptical Science:

WarmestYearNOAAasatJan2015graphic

The probability of 2014 being the warmest year (due to margin of uncertainty and the small differences between years) is almost ten times that of 1998. And the contrarians were very certain that year was warm!

Does that help make things clearer, for those who evidently have difficulty understanding statistics?

[/Edit]

I also figured that the likes of “Steve Goddard” and Anthony Watts would be jumping on the same bandwagon, so you can imagine my disappointment when I discovered that they have both, unlike Gavin, blocked me from their Twitter feeds! Venturing over to the so called “Real Science” blog instead I discovered that Steve/Tony does at least read Gavin’s Twitter feed, although apparently not NASA/NOAA press briefings:

 

Them:

Implausible Deniability

Gavin is playing his usual game, trying to cover his ass with “uncertainty” that wasn’t mentioned in the NASA press release.

They get the propaganda out there for the White House and major news outlets, then try to generate implausible deniability through back channels like twitter. None of this was mentioned in the NASA press release.

Us:

I take it you weren’t on the call either Tony? Have you by any chance seen this press briefing?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf

 

Them:

I’m amazed you have the gall to show up around here, after saying I should be jailed for accurately reporting and predicting Arctic ice.

Pathetic and quite psychotic Jim. And the NASA press release said nothing about uncertainty or satellites.

http://www.nasa.gov/press/2015/january/nasa-determines-2014-warmest-year-in-modern-record/

World class wanker

 

Us:

I’ll take that as a no then.

Since you mention it, how did your 2014 Arctic sea ice predictions work out in the end?

 

Them:

Almost spot on.

Goddard-DMI_new-2014-04-23

 

Us:

“The NASA press release said nothing about uncertainty”

I didn’t say it did. I did however answer Daffy Duck’s question for him. What precisely is “pathetic and quite psychotic” about that?

No answer to that question as yet, so……

That’ll teach me to get involved in debates about “the global warming pause”. I can feel another blog post or two coming on!

What do you make of this recent Arctic sea ice extent chart from your beloved DMI?

DMI-Old-2015-01-19
Them:

Sensor error. Happens quite often. maybe you should go blog about and call for people to be jailed.

 

Us:

For once I agree with you, about the “sensor error” in the most recent 2015 data at least.

Actually I was wondering how that data justifies your “almost spot on” claim for 2014 above. See for example:

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/my-arctic-forecast-4/

“The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade.”

That’s not really how things turned out, is it?

 

Them:

See “Implausible Deniability of 2014 Arctic Sea Ice Predictions” for further “debate” about Arctic sea ice. Meanwhile back to temperature…..

THE DATA ON WEATHER AND CLIMATE (NASA AND NOAA) CAN BE COMPARED TO THE STOCK MARKET ON WALL STREET, MUCH CORRUPTION AND ALTERING. WE ARE NOT GUARANTEED A CERTAIN TEMPERATURE EVERYDAY; ALTHOUGH, THAT IS WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE US THINK, JUST BECAUSE OF SEASONS IN GENERAL.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/2014-breaks-record-warmest-year-noaa-nasa-experts-say-n287551

 

Us:

What do you make of this bullish channel?
there-is-no-pause

 

Them:

Further to previous correspondence on similar matters, on January 27th 2015 I received the following email from the Personal Assistant to John Wellington, David Rose’s managing editor at the Mail on Sunday:

Dear Jim,

Thank you for your email.

I am afraid the best person to deal with your question is John Wellington who will reply on his return at the beginning of March.

Thank you for your patience.

Kind regards

Poppy Hall

 

Us:

CC: IPSO.co.uk

Dear Poppy,

Thanks for that information, but I am afraid my almost infinite patience in this matter is exhausted.

In John’s absence perhaps I might reiterate a question posed by Bob Ward of The Grantham Institute on Twitter yesterday:

Please would you ask whoever owns the desk on which the buck currently stops for the article entitled “Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record… but we’re only 38% sure we were right” by David Rose to communicate with me as soon as possible. FYI – Here it is:

https://archive.today/SUTA8

As I’m sure you must realise by now, unfortunately it includes some inaccurate and/or misleading statements which as far as I can ascertain have still not been publicly corrected.

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Post Script:

Bob Ward lodged a formal complaint with the Independent Press Standards Organisation about the Mail on Sunday article. Their conclusion?

The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required – N/A

Date complaint received: 13/02/2015
Date decision issued: 22/06/2015

Their “reasoning”?

The Committee noted that information about the margin of error had been made available by GISS, but that it was not in dispute that these details had been omitted from the press release. The article had made clear that this specifically was the basis for its criticism of Nasa, and the newspaper was entitled to present its view that this omission represented a failure on the part of the organisation. While the information had been released by Nasa, it had been released to a limited selection of people, in comparison to those who would have had access to the press release, and had not been publicised to the same level as the information in the release. The press briefing images referred to by the complainant were available on Nasa’s website, but were not signposted by the press release. In this context, it was not misleading to report that the information relating to the margin of error had emerged in circumstances where the position was not made clear in the press release. While these details of the margin of error may have been noted in a press briefing two days previously, rather than “yesterday”, as reported, this discrepancy did not represent a significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of the Code.

Mark Serreze and the Arctic Sea Ice Death Spiral

Extent, , , , , , ,

In his article about Arctic sea ice in the Mail on Sunday three days ago David Rose pointed out that:

The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by NASA.

He also stated that:

For years, many have been claiming that the Arctic is in an ‘irrevocable death spiral’, with imminent ice-free summers bound to trigger further disasters. These include gigantic releases of methane into the atmosphere from frozen Arctic deposits, and accelerated global warming caused by the fact that heat from the sun will no longer be reflected back by the ice into space.

Judith Curry, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, said last night: ‘The Arctic sea ice spiral of death seems to have reversed.’

All of which got me thinking. Why did David Rose speak to a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences when researching his article, rather than an expert on Arctic sea ice? Why, indeed, did he not speak to the man who originally coined the “Death spiral” metaphor? Seeking answers to these troubling questions amongst others, I called the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado. I enquired whether I might be able to speak with Mark Serreze,  who is currently director of the NSIDC. Shortly after that Mark called me back and I was able to ask him a number of questions.

My first question was whether David Rose or anyone from the Mail on Sunday had been in touch with the NSIDC recently. The answer was “No”. Next I enquired whether the “Death spiral” story was apocryphal or not. Mark told me he did recall saying something along those lines, but that he couldn’t recall the exact circumstances. Doing my own due diligence (unlike the Mail!) the earliest reference I could find suggested that “the circumstances” involved a telephone interview much like the one I was in the middle of. In an article dated August 27th 2008 the Reuters environment correspondent reported that:

This year’s Arctic ice melt could surpass the extraordinary 2007 record low in the coming weeks. Last year’s minimum ice level was reached on September 16, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Even if no records are broken this year, the downward trend in summer sea ice in the Arctic continues, the Colorado-based center said. Last year’s record was blamed squarely on human-spurred climate change.

“No matter where we stand at the end of the melt season it’s just reinforcing this notion that Arctic ice is in its death spiral,” said Mark Serreze, a scientist at the center. The Arctic could be free of summer ice by 2030, Serreze said by telephone.

Mark confirmed to me that he still stood by his 2030 estimate for the onset of a seasonally ice free Arctic, although “most models say more like 2050”.

Next I asked him whether he agreed that “The Arctic sea ice spiral of death has reversed.” He said that he agreed with the statement attributed to Dr. Ed Hawkins near the end of the Mail article, that “There is undoubtedly some natural variability on top of the long-term downwards trend caused by the overall warming“. However 2 years worth of data certainly didn’t constitute “a recovery”. It was more like “a one week retracement in the US stock market. The long term trend in extent is definitely downwards”.

In conclusion I asked Mark to offer his best estimate for Arctic sea ice extent at this summer’s minimum. He told me that even at this late stage some of that “natural variability” could affect the outcome, but that the NSIDC extent “will probably end up on a par with 2013”.

I have also had an email conversation with Andrew Shepherd, the British “expert in climate satellite monitoring” whose views about Arctic sea ice were reported in the Mail on Sunday’s article. He told me that:

Arctic sea ice cover is expected to continue to decline, with the possibility of ice-free summers in the next 20-30 years. Climate model predictions tend to be at the upper end of this range, whereas projections of past observations tend to be at the lower end. Once we are able to include direct measurements of thickness from CryoSat-2, I expect the accuracy of predictions will improve.

If nothing else changes, then the recovery in Arctic sea ice thickness will wind the clock backwards a few years, but there is no reason to believe this is anything other than a temporary reprieve due to one cool summer.

Finally, for the moment at least, I also called the Danish Meteorological Institute. Along with the NSIDC their Arctic sea ice extent figures were quoted by David Rose. Along with the NSIDC they told me that they had received no enquiries recently from Mr. Rose or anyone else at the Mail on Sunday.

Santa’s Secret Summer Swimming Pool Revisited

Concentration, , , , ,

Regular readers may recall that way back when in September 2013 we wondered why David Rose hadn’t seen fit to reproduce any visualisations of Arctic sea ice concentration in a previous article about Arctic sea ice, particularly when his source materials from the NSIDC contained some very nice examples.

Today we are pleased to be able to inform you that David has now followed our long standing advice, and his article in the Mail on Sunday  yesterday included two such “stunning satellite images”. Of course they are not really “photographic” images, any more than the visualisations of Arctic sea ice extent that David was so keen to show his loyal readers last time around were. Unfortunately David neglected to include a “stunning satellite concentration visualisation” for August 25th 2013 in yesterday’s article. We are pleased to be able to help correct that no doubt inadvertent oversight, albeit somewhat belatedly, with the able assistance of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Illinois and their Cryosphere Today web site:

Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice concentration on August 25th 2013
Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice concentration on August 25th 2013

Paraphrasing David Rose’s article yesterday, can you see all the yellow and green areas denoting regions where the ice pack is least dense?

Can you see “an unbroken ice sheet more than half the size of Europe stretch[ing] from the Canadian islands to Russia’s northern shores”?

Can you see Santa’s secret summer swimming pool, just a short sleigh ride away from his natty North Pole residence?

Answers on a virtual post card please, to the address below.

David Rose’s Apocalyptic Vision of Al Gore’s Nobel Lecture

Satire, , , ,

According to David Rose’s headline in his article about Arctic sea ice in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday:

Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7 million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago…despite Al Gore’s prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now

Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row.

In the first paragraph of his article Mr. Rose continued:

The speech by former US Vice-President Al Gore was apocalyptic. ‘The North Polar ice cap is falling off a cliff,’ he said. ‘It could be completely gone in summer in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.’

Those comments came in 2007 as Mr Gore accepted the Nobel Peace Prize for his campaigning on climate change.

But seven years after his warning, The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

Would it surprise you to learn that when it comes to reporting Nobel Prize acceptance speeches Mr. Rose has as much difficulty separating fact from fiction as he does when reporting on the state of the sea ice in the Arctic? What do you suppose Mr. Gore actually said in his Nobel lecture in Oslo in December 2007? It’s not hard to find out. Here’s a picture of the former US Vice-President at the time:

Al Gore delivering his Nobel Lecture in the Oslo City Hall, 10 December 2007.
Copyright © The Norwegian Nobel Institute 2007 – Photo: Ken Opprann

and here’s a video of the speech he gave:

Skip to 4:30 minutes into the video and you will discover that what Al actually said was:

Last September 21st, as the Northern Hemisphere tilted away from the sun, scientists reported with unprecedented alarm that the North Polar ice cap is, in their words, “falling off a cliff.” One study estimated that it could be completely gone during summer in less than 22 years. Another new study, to be presented by U.S. Navy researchers later this week, warns it could happen in as little as seven years. Seven years from now.

For those who, like David Rose, apparently have difficulty in understanding English I suppose I now need to point out that the “falling off a cliff” phrase should be attributed to some unnamed scientists, not to Al Gore. You will no doubt have noted that Mr. Gore didn’t actually say the words put into his mouth by Mr. Rose, and that the sentiment that “it could happen in as little as seven years” is not in fact “Al Gore’s prediction” at all, and should instead be attributed to some unnamed “U.S. Navy researchers”.

For the hard of hearing amongst you:

Al Gore never “predicted” that the Arctic would be ICE-FREE by now!

Would it surprise you to discover that David Rose has misrepresented the “new study” that Al Gore referred to in 2007 as well, by some strange coincidence at around this time last year? I refer you to our article on that topic from September 15th 2013, and reiterate for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a “projection” is not the same thing as a “prediction”, and that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski’s statement that “if this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by around 2013” is not at all the same thing as David Rose’s (mis)interpretation that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013”.

The obvious conclusion, or so it seems to me at least, is that Mr. Rose should stop pretending to be an investigative reporter and concentrate in future on his evident talent as a writer of speculative fiction.

[P.S. September 2nd 2014]

For some strange reason this post seems to have attracted a lot of interest over on Twitter. Here are the edited highlights!

Us:

 

 

Them:

 

 

 

Us:

 

 

 

We’ll keep you posted!

Has the Arctic Ice Cap Expanded for the Second Year in Succession?

Area, , , , , , ,

According to David Rose’s latest article in the Mail on Sunday it has. This came as shock news to me, because only a couple of days ago I was discussing with “Steve Goddard” how Arctic sea ice extent (using “Steve’s” patent pending personal “DMI 30% clone” metric) had actually decreased since the same time last year!

Before we delve deep into the data, and before the Mail on Sunday makes any “corrections” to David’s misleadingly purple prose, here’s how things look over there at the moment:

 

Them:

2014-08-31_MoS RoseMoS-20140831

As you can see, the Mail’s main claims are:

  • Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore’s warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row
  • An area twice the size of Alaska – America’s biggest state – was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice
  • These satellite images taken from University of Illinois’s Cryosphere project show ice has become more concentrated

not to mention that:

The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

For some strange reason David neglects to include any numbers for 2013, so….

 

Us:

A quick telephone call revealed that John Wellington doesn’t work at the Mail on Sunday’s, so I sent him an email instead:

Hello again John,

David Rose is at it again, hence so am I. According to his latest words of wisdom:

“The Mail on Sunday can reveal that, far from vanishing, the Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession”

I don’t suppose David and/or the Mail on Sunday can provide any data to back up that assertion can they?

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

Hello Jim,

I did wonder if we would be corresponding, again.
I will be in touch after the weekend.

Best regards

John

 

Us:

Hi Tessa,

I’m working on the assumption that you are still responsible for this subject. If not perhaps you can pass this email on to the relevant person?

David Rose is talking about the Arctic on the Mail Online again, so I’m attempting to comment again. Yet again I can’t see my comments (under the nom de guerre “SoulSurfer”) anywhere underneath the article in question. Can you look into it please, and let me know what the problem is?

To make things easier for you I’ve just commented for the third time this morning, as per the enclosed attachment.

Thanks,

Jim Hunt

2014-08-31_1347_MoS

Them:

In an email dated September 6th 2014:

Dear Jim,

Sorry not to reply sooner. The article relied on data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre comparing ice cover on the same date, August 25. In 2012 the figure was 3.91m sq miles, in 2013 it was 5.59m and in 2014, 5.62m. You may wish to note that the article did point out that the long-term trend is still downward.

Best regards

John

 

Us:

In an email dated January 24th 2015:

Dear John,

Sorry not to reply sooner. The PCC decided to laboriously mutate into something called IPSO right around the time of the 2014 Arctic sea ice minimum extent. Hence the brief hiatus. However David Rose is at it again, and he’s now even discussing tricky things like “probabilities”! IPSO do now seem to be getting their act together as well. Did you see their “open letter to publishers” last month?

No doubt I will have more than a few bones to pick with David’s article last weekend, not to mention the subsequent one by Victoria Woollaston. Is that one your responsibility too? For the moment though, perhaps we can pick up where we left off last summer?

Thanks for your information about the long term Arctic sea ice trend and the NSIDC extent numbers. However the article in question also states:

“Figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres”.

Where did David get those DMI numbers from? I asked the DMI, and even they didn’t seem to know!

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

In the absence of any response from John I called the Mail offices on January 26th 2015. It seems John is out of the office for the next two weeks. His PA is now looking into matters for me.

 

Us:

I sent a further email to John and Poppy on February 2nd 2015:

Them:

Dear Jim,

If you have a complaint about last Sunday’s article, you should set out exactly what it is. If you disagree with any opinions expressed you are welcome to write a letter that we will consider for publication.

You mention that you have sent us a number of inquiries recently. The only other, to my knowledge is that you wanted to know the source of some data that David Rose mentioned in an article some months ago. David Rose told me it came from the official website. Perhaps my colleague Poppy Hall can find it for you since David is probably unwilling to help after your insult.

Best regards,

John

 

Us:

Dear Poppy (and John)

Please would you ask David to let me know where exactly, and on which “official website”, he obtained the DMI extent numbers he quoted in his article last Summer?

FYI John, at Poppy’s suggestion I have also emailed the editorial team @MailOnline. They have yet to even acknowledge receipt of my email of January 26th.

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

Dear Jim,

David is unable to find the table with the numerical data. But he says that the graph here from the DMI website makes it clear that if you look at 30% concentration, the figures he gave were correct.

I hope this answers your query.

Kind regards,

Poppy

MailRoseDMI-001
 

Us:

Dear Poppy,

Just to clarify, the facts of the matter are that David Rose did NOT obtain the DMI numbers he quoted last summer from a “table with the numerical data” on an “official website”?

Best wishes,

Jim Hunt

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

Is Arctic Sea Ice Extent Up Because the Ice is Thicker?

Thickness, , , ,

Over on the (un)Real Science blog this morning Steve/Tony proudly explains “Why Arctic Ice Extent Is Up Over 60% In The Last Two Years“.

Needless to say we are unimpressed by the following explanation:

Them:

The Danish Meteorological Institute shows a 63% increase in Arctic sea ice extent since the same date in 2012, and an increase of 76% since the 2012 summer minimum. Current extent is 4.4 million km², up from 2.7 million km² on August 28, 2012.

icecover_current_20140829

My methodology is similar numerically to DMI’s, I used maps from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency to generate the map below. Green shows ice gain since the same date in 2012, and red shows ice loss. My calculation shows a 64% increase in ice, almost identical to the calculations from DMI.

screenhunter_2359-aug-27-19-30

A favorite comment from alarmists is “the increase in ice extent is meaningless, because the ice is getting thinner“

They have it exactly backwards. The reason why ice extent is up, is because the ice is thicker.

Us:

At the risk of repeating myself:

Where’s your evidence that “the ice is thicker”? Thus far such evidence is conspicuous only by its absence in these hallowed halls.

 

Them:

Where’s your evidence that it isn’t?

 

Us:

At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself:

Mind you I’m not the one proudly proclaiming “ice extent is up, because the ice is thicker.”. Steve/Tony is, but for some strange reason he provides visualisations of extent and age but not thickness!

 

Them:

Lets put it another way. Age of the ice is a proxy for ice thickness. But, if you don’t believe in proxies, just tell us.

 

Us:

Les – If you believe in proxies then PIOMAS Arctic sea ice volume for April 2014 was less than April 2012.

If instead you prefer the evidence of your own eyes then perhaps you can explain where all that red stuff in the Beaufort Sea in Steve/Tony’s animation has gone?

CTBeaufort-20140829

If “older, thicker ice is moving towards Alaska” then it looks like it’s melting there, not “accumulating”.

 

Them:

Mr. Hunt’s evidence…..

“NRL does not warrant or represent this INFORMATION is fit for any particular purpose,”

 

Us:

Anything/Gail/Sophie – Do you have any idea what this is?

HycomVol

 

Them:

Here’s a quick summary for people who aren’t following.

SG makes a post comparing 2012 and 2014. Jim argues with SG’s claim of thicker ice by comparing 2013 extent to 2014. When that gets called out, he shows the same silly 2014 plot that has no 2012 plot to compare to…still no valid comparison. After some back-and-forths and tangents, he brings up PIOMAS. When asked to compare thickness in PIOMAS 2012/2014, he avoids the question (twice).

Is there a single metric out there showing 2014 to be worse than 2012?

– Scott

 

Us:

Here’s a quick summary for you Scott:
 

2014-08-28-Beaufort

Where’s all the “older, thicker ice in the western Arctic” that SG keeps referring to hiding?

 

Them:

Nice image, Jim. You have chosen a metric. So that’s half the story. Where’s the 2012 equivalent of that image so we can see if SG is wrong about 2014 vs 2012?

-Scott

 

Us:

Thank you for your kind words Scott.

I haven’t “chosen a metric”. I have nonetheless already shown you one comparison with 2013, using TH’s very own “metric”. To complete the story, and at the risk of repeating myself once again, perhaps you can explain where all the “older, thicker ice accumulating on the Pacific side” that TH keeps referring to is hiding?

 
Them:

We’ll keep you Posted!

David Cameron Practices for Big Wave Surfing Contest

Satire, , , , , , ,

Shock News! It has recently been brought to our attention by the online version of the Western Morning News (WMN for short), our local daily newspaper, that the once Great Britain’s current Prime Minister (GBPM for short) has been secretly training for next week’s Arctic Basin big wave surfing contest just down the road from here in North Cornwall! According to the WMN:

David Cameron let criticism of his Cornish holiday wash over him today as he hit the waves. Today he spent the afternoon riding the waves on the beach at Polzeath, surrounded by ordinary holidaymakers. Mr Cameron took to the water in a three quarter-length wet suit and brightly-coloured bodyboard. He was accompanied by a detective who kept a discreet watch on him from the shallows.

Despite the discreet detective an intrepid paparazzo braved the pounding Polzeath surf and managed to grab this shot of Mr. Cameron in action:

DaveSponging

The next obvious question, to us here in the Great White Con Ivory Towers at least, is whether Dave would prefer to wear neoprene or fur for the competition next week. Which do you think suits him best?

In the meantime the surf on Barrow beach is building:

and even as we speak a pulse of swell has blasted past Point Barrow and is currently heading straight for the Beaufort Sea Marginal Ice Zone.

alaska.hs.f009h-20140824

Censored Arctic Shipping Update

Censorship, , , , ,

Our headline for today is only partially plagiarised from today’s “Arctic Shipping Update” article on “Steven Goddard’s” (un)Real Science blog. This morning Tony Heller posted the following ACNFS Arctic sea ice concentration visualisation:

icen2014082118_2014082900_039_arcticicen.001

 

Them:

Climate experts say that Northeast and Northwest Passages are open for business, but neither will open up this year.

Us:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 23, 2014 at 12:37 pm

At the risk of repeating myself:


 

not to mention:


Time passes….


Whilst we wait for Steve/Tony to do the decent thing, I thought I might take this opportunity to point out that currently there are 555 vessels with official “Permission for navigation on the water area of the Northern Sea Route” this year.

One of them is the Hapag-Lloyd cruise ship MS Hanseatic, which is currently wending its way through the New Siberian Islands:

2014-08-23_Hanseatic

The Hanseatic also carries a webcam. Here’s what it reveals at the moment:

Hanseatic_2014_08_230410

It’s currently pretty plain sailing on that section of the Northern Sea Route by the look of things!

Us:

By the morning of Sunday August 24th (UTC) my dissenting comment had been released from limbo, although it had remained there the previous evening.
Them:

Somebody is telling a story aren’t they? Perhaps you’d like to tell us where the ship is. On the one hand I see a ship with the name Silver Explorer stuck in the ice, and then on the other I see your picture with green ice free waters. Everybody is going to be looking for this vessel now. Anybody with a satellite phone? Maybe they will wait it out till the ice thaws, like they did at the other pole. I will be saving that pretty picture of green, just in case you told us so.

 

Us:

Are you aware of the difference between the Northwest Passage and the Northern Sea Route, which is sometimes referred to as “the Northeast Passage”? That “pretty picture of green” is of the latter. Here’s the current position of the cruise ship MS Hanseatic in the Laptev Sea, coloured green on the map above:

 

You will note that my comment above was “stuck in Steve’s moderation queue” for many hours, which does rather spoil the flow of the conversation!

 

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!