Tag Archives: Extent

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con

February 4, 2016SatireBBC, Bob Ward, Extent, GWPF, GWPFAAA, MASIE, Nicholas Stern, Nigel Lawson, Paul Homewood, Ron Clutz, Walt MeierJim Hunt

You may possibly be aware that here in the United Kingdom the charitable status of the so called “Global Warming Policy Foundation” was challenged in 2014. As the BBC reported in 2014:

Lawson’s climate-sceptic group hit by charity status row

The climate-sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation is to relaunch in September, after a complaint about its charitable status.

The Charity Commission has forced it to divide into a charitable educational arm and a separately funded political arm.

The change follows a charge that the main purpose of the foundation is political, not charitable.

The foundation said its new structure would make it even more effective.

It aimed to continue to promote debate about the costs of tackling climate change, it added.

But the complainant had argued that its information was often misleading.

The Charity Commission will issue a formal statement on the changes in the coming weeks, but a spokesman told BBC News: “Some of the the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s activities breached what is expected of an educational charity, namely that the material lacked balance and promoted a particular line of opinion. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political.”

The Charity Commission investigated the Global Warming Policy Foundation following a complaint by Bob Ward, a science communicator who works with Lord Stern’s climate change team at the LSE.

He also complained that the foundation breaches charity rules by “continually disseminating inaccurate and misleading information”.

As a consequence of all that brouhaha yet another organisation with an identical acronym was set up. The Global Warming Policy Forum (or GWPF for short). Would it surprise you to learn that the new “political” GWPF is “disseminating inaccurate and misleading information” about the Arctic? If so then please read on.

In an extract from an article by Ron Clutz dated 28th September 2015 and headlined “Arctic Ice Recovering – MASIE Proves Yearly Arctic Ice Recovering” the GWPF prove nothing of the sort. Mr. Clutz claims that:

You will be hearing a lot about 2015 having the fourth lowest minimum Arctic ice extent ever recorded. Here is what they are not telling you:

MASIE has very helpfully provided their records for the last ten years. Since stormy weather can affect both maximum and minimum ice extents, emphasis on March and September averages can be misleading. From a climate change perspective, a better metric is the average ice extent over the entire year. By that measure we gain a realistic perspective on the last ten years of Arctic ice fluctuation.

Actually we don’t Ron, for a number of reasons. For example Chris Reynolds summarises your “better metric” as follows:

Claims that there is no ongoing deterioration in Arctic sea ice are totally unfounded, and it is safe to ignore those making such claims as being unreliable due to their lack of grasp of the subject.

whilst “Tamino” points out that:

The data used, from MASIE, doesn’t start until 2006. Which makes it downright bizarre to use this for studying climate, for two reasons. First, we have data (passive microwave from satellites) covering quite a bit more time — starting in late 1978. Second, the MASIE people themselves tell you that their product isn’t the best for climate studies, instead you should use that passive microwave data from satellites.

If you download the data that “MASIE has very helpfully provided” and plot the self same graph so proudly displayed by the GWPF you will see something that looks a lot like this:

Amazingly enough this graph is taken from a more recent article by Ron Clutz, also reproduced in part on the Global Warming Policy Forum’s web site. This one is dated 2nd January 2016 and entitled “Happy Arctic Ice Year!“. Ron claims that:

Arctic ice declined in the decade prior to 2007, but has not declined since. What we have seen in the last decade is a plateau in Arctic ice extent, analogous to the plateau in surface temperatures. This year end report shows there is no reason to worry about Arctic ice melting.

For some strange reason the GWPF have thus far not corrected the extract from Ron’s earlier article on their web site, and neither has Mr. Clutz. For some other strange reason he hasn’t gotten around to publishing my comment to his article pointing him and his loyal readers to this graph which is also derived from the MASIE data, and neither have the GWPF:

It’s not as though I haven’t tried! See for example:

I’m not the only one to have my constructive criticism censored by Ron Clutz recently. Neven, proprietor of the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, reports over there that:

He’s deleting my comments again (and his own comments to wipe out traces of the fact, which is a cowardly act), so I’m just posting the comments here for reference.

I’ll conclude for the moment with some more words from Chris Reynolds. Someone who, unlike Ron Clutz and the other GWPF Arctic article authors (GWPFAAA for short), has a grasp of physics:

Ice state in the Peripheral Seas region is a critical metric in determining whether the Arctic Ocean’s ice pack is indeed stabilising or recovering.

Here is a plot of compactness for late summer in the Peripheral Seas from 1979 to 2015, where late summer is the seven day average centred on 31 August.

Here’s the accompanying graph:

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con. #Arctic #GWPFAAA #NulliasInVerba!!! https://t.co/rHsPrkQi1H @thegwpfcom pic.twitter.com/KYsyIVvn1c

— Snow White (@GreatWhiteCon) February 4, 2016

Nullius in verba, as the GWPF don’t put it.

[Edit – February 18th 2016]

I have recently exchanged a few emails about this issue with Dr. Benny Peiser, who is Director of the Global Warming Policy Forum. However Benny has suddenly gone strangely silent, so here is a transcript of the “debate” thus far:

Us:

Hello Benny,

Thanks for your time in our telephone conversation just now.

In brief, here are my alter ego’s initial quibbles about the GWPForum’s recent Arctic coverage:

The Great Global Warming Policy Forum Con. #Arctic #GWPFAAA #NulliasInVerba!!! https://t.co/rHsPrkQi1H @thegwpfcom pic.twitter.com/KYsyIVvn1c

— Snow White (@GreatWhiteCon) February 4, 2016

and

A #SeaIce infotoon worth 1000 words? @Cartoonsbyjosh @jim_hunt @Trendshed @richardabetts @afneil @DavidRoseUK pic.twitter.com/9POXchWKDt

— Snow White (@GreatWhiteCon) February 9, 2016

Please do not hesitate to ask if you require any additional information!

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I wonder whether you have any comments regarding the latest PIOMAS data which appear to show a pause in the Arctic sea ice melt in recent years?

With best regards

Us:

Hello Benny,

All in the fullness of time. First of all though, I am waiting to hear your comment(s) on the points I raised in my original email. Here’s where those “Tweets” finish up:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/the-great-global-warming-policy-forum-con/

To reiterate, as numerous people pointed out to Mr. Clutz following his first article, MASIE is not fit for the purpose to which he (and hence the GWPF) put it.

To add insult to injury the first MASIE based graph he (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

I still eagerly await your comment(s) on this matter,

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

If I understand you correctly you claim that

1. MASIE is not fit for the purpose to assess Artic sea ice extent, and

2. Arctic sea ice has actually decreased since 2007 — contrary to claims that Arctic ice has not declined in the last 8 years.

I have looked into your first claim and cannot find any information that undermines the reliability of MASIE data for Arctic sea ice analysis.

Regarding your second criticism, the latest PIOMAS data appear to confirm Mr Clutz’s main point, i.e. Arctic ice has remained fairly stable since 2007.

Yours sincerely

Us:

Hello again Benny,

Thank you for your swift response to my most recent email. I fear that you totally misunderstand me. Regarding your numbered points:

1) Did your due diligence include reading this section of the NSIDC web site concerning MASIE?

https://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g02186_masie/index.html

Can you see the parts where it says?

MASIE may look like several other sea ice products distributed at NSIDC and elsewhere, but its source data and intended uses are different.

Operational ice charts meet the needs of those going into the ice and provide general situational awareness, such as the extent of fast ice or of ice of any concentration greater than zero percent.

If one is interested in long-term trends in sea ice or how it responds to changing climate forcing, generally, it is best not to use an operational product, but rather one that is consistently produced and retroactively quality controlled.

Do you understand what that means? If not please do not hesitate to ask!

2) Where on Earth did you get that idea from? Here’s what I said once again:

The first MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published is wildly inaccurate and misleading, and has still not been corrected.

To see what I mean all you have to do is compare it to the second MASIE based graph [Ron Clutz] (and hence the GWPF) published.

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

I’m afraid you have not addressed my points.

There is nothing wrong with the MASIE data, in particular not when it comes to short-term data sets (although I agree that it should not be used for any trend analysis).

You did not answer the key question: where is the evidence (as suggested in your graph) that Artic sea ice has declined since 2007?

Yours sincerely

Us:

Hello Benny,

I’m afraid that in actual fact it is you who have not addressed my points. Let me take you through them slowly once again. Once you’ve understood the first two rest assured there are more.

1 a) According to the NSIDC, MASIE is not a “short-term data set”, it is an “operational ice chart”.

1 b) In addition, please feel free to search the NSIDC web site for any graph based on the Arctic Ice Annual Average of any metric whatsoever, and let me know what you discover

2) Let’s play “Spot the difference” shall we? Please let me know what differences (if any) you can find between this graph:

and this one:

Thanks in anticipation,

[Edit – February 19th 2016]

Us again:

Not having heard from Benny for a while we thought it polite to enquire after his health this morning:

Dear Benny,

I’ve received nothing back from you since your email of 15:22 on the 16th. Are you OK? If there’s anything we can do to help please do get in touch.

We have some interesting news about which we’d love to know your opinion, as soon as you feel up to it of course. First of all, the NSIDC’s global sea ice extent metric fell to the lowest level *ever yesterday:

Secondly, are you aware that the February 13th article on the GWPF web site by Pierre Gosselin entitled “Arctic Sea Ice Trend May Have Turned The Corner As Ice Volume Picks Up Over Past 5 Years” currently looks like this?

Get well soon,

Them:

Dear Mr Hunt

Thank you for your latest concern about global sea ice extent

I suggest to monitor global sea ice extent in the next 12 months to see whether the usual recovery fails to materialise (see graph below).

Us:

Dear Dr. Peiser,

I’m delighted to discover that you are evidently in fine fetttle!

I am however afraid that your image is invisible at this end, although it appears to emanate from somewhere on the WUWT sea ice page.

First of all can you possibly resend it?

Secondly I highly recommend that you peruse the GWC sea ice resources instead of Mr. Watts’ in future.

Thirdly will you please fix the wide variety of gross inaccuracies concerning Arctic sea ice that still exist on the Global Warming Policy Forum web site, even after they have been brought to your attention on numerous occasions. For your further information please see also:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/global-sea-ice-extent-at-lowest-ever-level/#comment-213484

Best wishes,

[Edit – February 23rd 2016]

Us:

Good day Benny,

I trust that you had a pleasant weekend?

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not corrected even the most egregious of Ron Clutz’s errors republished on the GWPF web site in the following article:

http://www.thegwpf.com/arctic-ice-recovering/

I further note that you have also now republished this article authored by Paul Homewood:

http://www.thegwpf.com/maisie-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-remaining-stable-in-february/

which amongst other errors contains the following insinuation:

“MAISIE, of course, only goes back to 2006, whereas the sea ice index dates to 1979. It is, however, easy to see why NSIDC are keen to use the latter as a starting point!”

This is of course inaccurate, as I have personally pointed out to Paul on several occasions in the past. The NSIDC themselves have this to say on the matter:

“The Sea Ice Index provides a quick look at Arctic- and Antarctic-wide changes in sea ice. It is a source for consistent, up-to-date sea ice extent and concentration images, in PNG format, and data values, in ASCII text files, from November 1978 to the present.

The images and data are produced in a consistent way that makes the Index time-series appropriate for use when looking at long-term trends in sea ice cover.”

When do you suppose the GWPF webmaster will be able to get around to correcting the latest piece of Arctic misinformation to be published on your web site?

Best wishes,

Us again:

Good morning Benny,

I note that the GWPF webmaster has still not taken on board any of the helpful advice I have proffered over the last few weeks, and has now posted some inaccurate information about “global warming”. Will he or she never learn?

Sticking with our own speciality, please feel free to “print” Snow White’s prediction that CT global sea ice area will post yet another new record of around 14.22 million square kilometers over the next 2 to 3 days.

I followed Ron Clutz’s recent suggestion on Paul Homewood’s blog to “Take it up with Walt Meier”. I interviewed Dr. Meier yesterday and this is what he told me:

https://greatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/dmi-masie-and-the-sea-ice-index-an-interview-with-walt-meier/

Perhaps it is now time to hand your current webmaster their cards and hire a new one?

Best wishes,

[Edit – March 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

It seems that your new webmaster has yet to republish the latest product of the Clutz/Homewood porky pie production line! Please pass on our congratulations on their perspicacity. However the latest article on The GWPF web site by David Whitehouse has this to say:

“Is the global warming pause over for good — or will it continue once the current El Nino dies down?”

Does Dr. Whitehouse not realise that there was no “pause”?

For your, and Dr. Whitehouse’s, information here is the latest report from the NSIDC on Arctic sea ice extent:

With a new webmaster in charge at The GWPF can we now anticipate an accurate Arctic article appearing on your web site? Please do not hesitate to ask if you would like to republish one of mine.

Best wishes,

[Edit – April 4th 2016]

Us once again:

Hello again Benny,

I hope this finds you well? I have been doing as you suggested! Consequently I could not help but notice that you have not been doing what I suggested, and have instead recently republished a large extract from yet another article by Paul Homewood on the topic of Arctic sea ice:

http://www.thegwpf.com/more-of-the-usual-hype-about-arctic-ice/

Needless to say this one is also downright misleading. For your information, here are the actual facts:

Claim – Arctic Sea Ice Holds Firm?

and

More Of The Usual Hype About Arctic Sea Ice

It looks like you’ll have to let another webmaster go, does it not? Don’t forget to tell the new one that my offer of an authoritative Arctic article still stands.

Best wishes,

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

Arctic Sea Ice Area and Extent Lowest *Ever for the Date

February 3, 2016ExtentArea, CT, Extent, JAXA, NSIDCJim Hunt

We’ve recently been speculating about the effect on the sea ice in the Arctic of varying amounts of weather borne heat, wind and waves. The cumulative effect of all the assorted storms is that today a variety of sea ice metrics are all at their lowest ever level for the date, since their respective records began.

The JAXA/ADS extent was the first to fall below all previous years, and here’s how it looks today:

Note that it shows extent currently decreasing. Next came the Cryosphere Today area, which has also just decreased from the day before:

The latest metric to join the club is the 5 day averaged version of the NSIDC Arctic sea ice extent, which currently reveals:

Would any brave reader care to hazard a guess where and when the assorted Arctic sea ice metrics will eventually reach their maximum values for 2016?

P.S. The NSIDC average Arctic sea ice extent for January 2016 is also in the “lowest ever” club:

* Since satellite records began

New Year 2016 Arctic Meltdown Update

January 11, 2016ExtentArea, Barents Sea, Concentration, CT, DMI, Extent, Greenland Sea, JMA, Kara Sea, NSIDC, Steven Goddard, Storm Frank, Temperature, Thickness, Tony Heller, Videos, WavesJim Hunt

On January 1st 2016 the 15% concentration threshold daily Arctic sea ice extent metric reported by the United States National Snow and Ice Data Centre reached the lowest ever level for the first day of any year since their satellite derived records began in 1979. A couple of days later the more familiar 5 day trailing averaged extent also reached the lowest ever level for the date:

Cryosphere Today have been somewhat sluggish about updating their records of Arctic sea ice area, but have at long last revealed that their metric is now also at the lowest ever level for the date:

Meanwhile Great White Con commenter “Just A Thought” states that:

I find it hard, with what I do have access to, to see why everyone is so worried that the Arctic is melting.

He or she has evidently only had access to the propaganda perpetrated by Tony Heller (AKA “Steve Goddard”) on his so called “Real Climate Science” blog. Mr. Heller’s latest Arctic pronouncement on December 31st 2015 is entitled “Arctic Meltdown Update” and claims that:

Experts say that a terrifying storm melted the North Pole yesterday. This unprecedented melting event has caused Arctic ice to reach its highest December extent in over a decade.

justifying that comment with the following graph of his beloved (albeit deprecated) 30% concentration threshold DMI extent metric:

Here’s a video revealing the effect of the recent “terrifying storm” on the sea ice on the North Atlantic side of the Arctic:

As you can see the ice at the North Pole didn’t melt away. However the ice edge did retreat in the immediate aftermath of what is referred to here in the United Kingdom as “Storm Frank“. Frank led to lots of flooding in the North of the nation, and also to some strong winds inside the Arctic Circle:

Those winds, travelling over a long stretch of open ocean, produced some pretty significant waves, speeding in the direction of the sea ice edge:

Meanwhile temperatures near the North Pole did briefly rise above the freezing point of sea ice in the middle of the Arctic winter. Here’s the Danish Meteorological Institute’s view of the air temperatures in the central Arctic:

and here is NOAA’s temperature anomaly reanalysis for December 30th 2015:

Personally I reckon the 25 m/s winds and resulting 10 meter waves had more effect on the sea ice metrics than the 25 °C above normal air temperatures, but your mileage may of course vary, especially if your pseudonym is “Steve Goddard”!

The 2015 Arctic Sea Ice Minimum Extent

September 2, 2015ExtentAMSR2, Area, DMI, Extent, JAXA, MeteoCiel, NSIDCJim Hunt

We’ve now entered the month of September, the month in which Arctic sea ice extent and area reach their annual minimum levels, historically at least. To set the scene, here’s the extent graph from the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) for September 1st, based on data from the AMSR2 sensor on board their SHIZUKU satellite.:

As you can see, the 2015 curve has just dropped below 2007 and is now at the second lowest level for the date in JAXA’s records. As the month progresses we’ll be taking a look at a variety of other metrics as they start to report their numbers for September.

To set the scene, here’s the University of Hamburg’s map of Arctic sea ice concentration for September 1st, again based on AMSR2 data:

Here’s a video showing how that map has changed over the last two months:

Notice in particular the effect of the recent Arctic cyclone on the sea ice in the lower left quadrant. Note also our comment that:

[There is] a large potential fetch across the East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas should any further cyclones occur in the area over the next few weeks. The conditions now exist for an even more damaging swell to be generated before the 2015 minimum Arctic sea ice extent is reached.

By now you may be wondering if we have a prediction to make? Well, we predict it still all depends on the weather! However here’s how the “probabilistic” 50 day ahead prediction from Andrew Slater of the NSIDC looks at the moment:

If I were a betting man I’d say that the red line will ultimately put in a lower low than the dark blue one.

Finally, for the moment at least, take a look at the GFS surface level pressure forecast for later today, courtesy of MeteoCiel:

Can you see the 1000 hPa central pressure low spinning over the Laptev Sea? It’s currently not very deep, and it’s not over the East Siberian Sea either, but watch that space along with us as we wait to discover where and when the assorted Arctic sea ice metrics reach their minima for 2015.

[Edit – September 3rd 2015]

The latest edition of the US National Snow and Ice Data Center’s Arctic Sea Ice News has just been published. In the section on the imminent minimum they show this graph:

and say that:

Starting with the ice extent observed on August 31 and then applying 2006 loss rates, the slowest rate in recent years, results in the highest extrapolated minimum for 2015 of 4.50 million square kilometers (1.74 million square miles), and a September monthly average extent of 4.59 million square kilometers (1.77 million square miles). The lowest daily minimum comes from using the 2010 pace, yielding an estimated 4.12 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles) for the daily minimum, and a September monthly average extent of 4.33 million square kilometers (1.67 million square miles).

Using an average rate of ice loss from the most recent ten years gives a one-day minimum extent of 4.38 ± 0.11 million square kilometers (1.79 million square miles), and a September monthly average of 4.49 ± 0.09. As of August 31, the 5-day running daily average extent is 4.72 million square kilometers. If no further retreat occurred, 2015 would already be the sixth lowest daily ice extent in the satellite record.

The forecast places the upcoming daily sea ice minimum between third and fourth lowest, with fourth more likely. There is still a possibility that 2015 extent will be lower than 4.3 million square kilometers, the third lowest sea ice extent, surpassing the 2011 sea ice extent minimum, and a small chance of surpassing 2007, resulting in the second-lowest daily minimum. This assumes that we continue to have sea ice loss rates at least as fast as those of 2010. This was indeed the case for the final ten days of August 2015.

Somewhere between 2nd and 6th then! We felt compelled to enquire on Twitter:

What's the #probability of a 2nd place finish for @NSIDC_ArcticIce daily #SeaIce extent? http://t.co/z9jA7ydg07 pic.twitter.com/KqccwUNjQg

— Snow White (@GreatWhiteCon) September 3, 2015

Arctic Sea Ice Approaching Normal?

August 11, 2015ExtentAl Gore, Extent, Steven GoddardJim Hunt

According to “Steve Goddard” it is! Hot off the presses over at “Real Science” we are told that:

DMI hasn’t updated their 30% concentration map for 10 days, but their 15% concentration map is just about at the 1979-2000 mean.

Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut

The melt season has essentially stopped, with very cold air across the Beaufort Sea

[Image redacted – It shows Canada and one corner of the Beaufort Sea]

The usual criminals in the press (Guardian, New York Times, etc.) and government agencies will of course not mention this, because reality and science wrecks their agenda.

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

I have to admit Steve’s confusing language confused me briefly. The Arctic sea ice concentration and ice type maps from the OSISAF on which the Danish Meteorological Institute base their extent graphs have been updating normally, but I eventually discovered what “Steve”/Tony was on about. On close inspection although the date at the bottom has been updating the 2015 curve on DMI’s 30% threshold Arctic sea ice extent graph currently seems to be stuck on August 2nd:

I’ve informed DMI of the problem, but when it might be fixed remains to be seen, since as the DMI web site puts it:

The old plot can still be viewed here for a while.

and as I was just informed they don’t have any resources allocated to keep the “deprecated” 30% service running.

Meanwhile back in real world in the Arctic, DMI temperatures north of 80 degrees are above “normal”:

GFS temperature anomalies look like this:

and JAXA 15% threshold Arctic sea ice extent has been dropping at nearly 100,000 km² per day for the last few days:

Trouble Looming for the Arctic?

May 29, 2015ExtentACNFS, Extent, GFS, Gish Gallop, NSIDC, PIOMAS, Steven Goddard, Thickness, Tony Heller, US NavyJim Hunt

Once again our title for today is inspired by the indefatigable “Steven Goddard”. His latest Arctic themed article on his so called “Real Science” blog is entitled “Trouble Looming For Arctic Alarmists“, and he’s following his usual formula of showing an image or two interspersed with unrelated text. Here’s Tony’s textual take on things, interspersed with our graphic retorts:

Arctic sea ice coverage is nearly identical to 20 years ago:

Not according to the NSIDC it isn't! — Not according to the NSIDC it isn’t!

Arctic sea ice is following almost the exact trajectory of 2006, which had the highest summer minimum of the last decade.

Not according to GFS they're not, and look at the North Pole! — Not according to GFS they’re not, and look at the North Pole!

The Beaufort Sea is full of very thick ice.

Not according to the US Navy it isn't! — Not according to the US Navy it isn’t!

Arctic sea ice is the thickest it has been in a decade.

According to PIOMAS it's thin in the Beaufort, and most other areas too! — According to PIOMAS it’s thin in the Beaufort, and most other areas too!

As we summarised matters for “Steve”/Tony’s loyal readership:

The Gish Gallop continues! Just for the record:

Arctic sea ice coverage is currently NOT nearly identical to 20 years ago

Arctic sea ice is currently NOT following almost the exact trajectory of 2006

Arctic sea ice is currently NOT the thickest it has been in a decade in Ron’s beloved Beaufort/Chukchi/East Siberian Seas (BCE for short)

Renowned Arctic sea ice expert “Steve Goddard” predicted last year that.”The minimum this summer will likely be close to the 2006 minimum, which was the highest minimum of the past decade”. That’s not how things eventually turned out!

The Greatest Arctic Sea Ice Prophet on the Planet?

The unedited version of "Steve's" extent graph — The unedited version of “Steve’s” DMI extent graph earlier today

Arctic Sea Ice Fails To Track 2005/2006

May 21, 2015ExtentCT, DMI, Extent, JAXA, NSIDC, Steven Goddard, Tony HellerJim Hunt

The pseudonymous “Steve Goddard” proudly proclaims this morning that “Arctic Sea Ice Continues To Track 2005/2006“. Tony Heller states:

Experts say that the Arctic is in a “death spiral” – but for the past two years it has been tracking 2005/2006 – the years with the two highest summer extents of the past decade.

For the past four years, summer melt season temperatures in the Arctic have been well below normal.

No matter how many times experts lie about it, the Arctic is not melting down.

The Arctic, of course, has other ideas and continues to fail to conform to the narrative over at (un)Real Science. Today the NSIDC 5 day average extent Arctic sea ice extent is in actual fact at the lowest level for the time of year since their records began:

In view of “Steve”/Tony’s headline you may find it surprising that so is his much beloved DMI 30% threshold extent extent metric (displayed in full):

and so is the JAXA 15% extent extent:

Holding out by the merest whisker (for the moment) is the Cryosphere Today area metric, which is nonetheless lower than on the same day in both 2005 and 2006:

Quod Erat Demonstrandum?

[Edit – May 23rd 2015]

After being used by a polar bear to inspect its feet, the webcam trained on ice mass balance buoy 2015A is now pointing in the right direction again. It reveals that the Arctic is in fact “melting down” even as “Steve”/Tony maintains that it isn’t:

As if further proof were needed, the DMI 15% threshold extent graph extent is also now clearly lower than previous years at this time:

The New Normal In The Arctic

May 12, 2015ExtentAqua, Beaufort Sea, DMI, Extent, Mackenzie River, MODIS, Steven Goddard, Tony HellerJim Hunt

The latest headline on the so called “Real Science” blog reads as follows:

The New Normal In The Arctic – Cold Summers

According to “Steven Goddard”:

For the third year in a row, near-polar temperatures have dropped below normal in May.

Both of the last two years, temperatures stayed below normal for the entire melt season.

The below normal summer temperatures are keeping the ice from melting, and have led to a large expansion in the amount of thick multi-year ice.

However the Arctic is unfortunately failing to cooperate with that narrative. Today we are unhappy to report that Tony Heller‘s favourite Arctic sea ice metric, the Danish Meteorological Institute 30% threshold extent, is at the lowest level ever for the date since their records began:

What is more, so is the JAXA 15% extent metric:

As if that wasn’t enough to be going on with, some big holes have already appeared in the middle of the supposedly multi-meter thick, multi-year sea ice in the Beaufort Sea, well away from the open water already warming up off the Mackenzie Delta:

NASA Worldview “true-color” image of The Beaufort Sea on May 11th, derived from bands 1, 4 and 3 of the MODIS sensor on the Aqua satellite

Gross Deception Measuring Arctic Sea Ice Trends

April 17, 2015ExtentExtent, GWPFAAA, H H Lamb, IPCC, NSIDC, Paul HomewoodJim Hunt

Our title today is inspired by Paul Homewood, who published an article earlier this week entitled “Why Measuring Arctic Ice Trends From 1979 Is Gross Deception” and which begins as follows:

Officially, we only started monitoring Arctic sea ice extents by satellite from 1979. We know however that this is not the whole story. For instance, HH Lamb tells us:

Kukla & Kukla (1974) report that the area of snow and ice, integrated over the year across the Northern Hemisphere, was 12% more in 1973 than in 1967, when the first satellite surveys were made.

I’ve added that link, since Paul neglected to include it. He concludes:

To draw any conclusions about Arctic ice or temperatures, using data that begins at the coldest point of the cycle is utterly worthless and grossly misleading. But this is climate “science” we are talking about.

Since this is Paul Homewood we are talking about I felt compelled to quibble about his grossly misleading assertion:

Us:

Here’s the NSIDC’s chart of Arctic sea ice extent anomalies since 1953:

You will no doubt note that it reveals an overall peak in the late 60s, not the late 70s

Them:

I note they don’t show the 1940’s

Us:

Whereas I note that 1969 is a much juicier looking cherry than 1979. Is 1949 better still?

Them:

They did not have satellite monitoring in 1969.

Even though I had already pointed out the error of his ways to him Paul Homewood decided at this juncture to publish another article, this time entitled “Satellite Monitoring Of Arctic Sea Ice Pre 1979“. It began:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

I was pointing out yesterday why it was so inappropriate to deduce trends in Arctic sea ice, using 1979 as the start point. NSIDC, of course, do this supposedly because that is when satellite monitoring began.

Mr Biscuits, however, reminds me that the 1990 IPCC report showed the above graph, with Arctic sea ice extent back to 1972.

Us:

At the risk of repeating myself, what about this remarkable recent narrative?

https://archive.today/ADq4O#selection-1535.0-1547.25

Them:

They did not have satellites in 1953.

Us:

What the NSIDC actually say regarding their dataset that starts in 1978 is:

“This product is designed to provide a consistent time series of sea ice concentrations (the fraction, or percentage, of ocean area covered by sea ice) spanning the coverage of several passive microwave instruments.”

http://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0051

Note that there is no mention of “when satellite monitoring began”. See also their Nimbus Data Rescue project, which has data going back to 1964:

http://nsidc.org/data/nimbus/data-sets.html

“Consistent time series” are the operative words

Them:

We’ll keep you posted!

IPSO Powerless to Prevent The Great White Con

April 5, 2015UncategorizedBob Ward, Daily Mail, Dana Nuccitelli, David Rose, Extent, IPSO, Judith CurryJim Hunt

In a blog post earlier this year entitled “IPSO, the press regulator created in the aftermath of the Leveson Inquiry, is not up to task” Bob Ward, Policy and Communications Director of the Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy at the Grantham Research Institute, made a prophetic statement:

IPSO is also currently considering a complaint I made against another article by David Rose in The Mail on Sunday in September 2014 which wrongly suggested that Arctic sea ice extent has stopped declining. I am not optimistic that my complaint will be upheld, even though the newspaper again breached Section 1(i) of the Editors’ Code of Practice.

IPSO have now published their ruling on that complaint, and conclude that:

17. The complaint was not upheld.

Remedial Action Required: N/A

Date complaint received: 17/09/2014

Date decision Issued: 16/02/2015

By all means read the ruling in full, but here are our edited highlights:

13. The article presented the author’s view that forecasts regarding the melting of Arctic ice had overestimated the rate of decline. The complainant did not dispute that measures showed that the Arctic ice extent had increased over the last two years. The article had made clear that the long-term trend still showed a decline, and the coverage had included commentary from a number of scientists, expressing a variety of views on the matter, including one who had stated that he was “uncomfortable with the idea of people saying the ice had bounced back”, and warned against reading too much into the ice increases. The article had made clear that scientific opinions regarding the significance of the most recent data varied. In this context, the omission of the information that the measure in 2012 had been the lowest on record, and that 2014 had still been the seventh lowest since records began, was not significantly misleading. The article did not suggest that it had been established as fact that the long-term decline in Arctic sea ice had reversed.

I highlight that paragraph in particular because in our coverage of David Rose’s article here at Great White Con we have disputed that “measures showed that the Arctic ice extent had increased over the last two years”. I wonder what IPSO might make of that information?

The Guardian have recently published an article by Dana Nuccitelli on the IPSO ruling entitled “Ipso proves impotent at curbing the Mail’s climate misinformation“, which now contains this addendum:

We have appended the following response from Rose:

“Like anyone who challenges aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ over climate change, I’ve grown inured to being called a ‘denier’, as some of the commenters ‘below the line’ claim I am here. It is with some weariness that I must point out, as I did in the article that started this fuss, that I accept that the long-term Arctic ice trend is down, that carbon dioxide of human origin is an important cause of this trend, and that, unchecked, it will lead eventually to ice-free Arctic summers – albeit perhaps not for decades.

“But to be attacked for something I didn’t actually write is unfortunate. The fact remains there are large uncertainties and intense debate among scientists on this and other climate change topics, even if, as has been said, 97 per cent agree that the world is warming and that humans are partly to blame. But that doesn’t take us very far, and there are important differences of opinion. Professor Judith Curry isn’t a ‘contrarian’ but a very distinguished scientist and ice expert with a long record of peer-reviewed publications, though she happens to disagree with Mr Nuccitelli.

We feel compelled to point out to David Rose once again that he actually wrote:

The Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession.

and that this is both inaccurate and significantly misleading.

Mr. Rose’s comments are also of interest to us because despite recently bringing her attention to the matter once again Professor Judith Curry’s personal blog still contains the inaccurate and/or misleading information first published by the Mail on Sunday on September 8th 2013 in an article by David Rose entitled “And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year“.

What sort of “very distinguished scientist and ice expert” would continue to proudly proclaim the following inaccurate information after even the Mail on Sunday had retracted it?