Skip to content

DMI’s Missing Graph

February 19, 2016
tags:

By Paul Homewood   

 

h/t Dave, Andy and Pethefin

 

icecover_current

http://web.archive.org/web/20160202040352/http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/old_icecover.uk.php

 

For the last few months, there has been a widening divergence between the two Arctic sea ice extent graphs produced by DMI.     

The above chart for Feb 2nd, accessed via the Wayback Machine, is for 30% ice concentration, and shows ice extent at 10-year high levels since October.

This is how DMI describe this data:

 

Total sea ice extent on the northern hemisphere since 2005. 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.
The total area of sea ice is the sum of First Year Ice (FYI), Multi Year Ice (MYI) and the area of ambiguous ice types, from the OSISAF ice type product. However, the total estimated ice area is underestimated due to unclassified coastal regions where mixed land/sea pixels confuse the applied ice type algorithm. The shown sea ice extent values are therefore recommended be used qualitatively in relation to ice extent values from other years shown in the figure.

 

 

This contrasts strongly with their other version, which looks at 15% ice concentration:

 

 icecover_current_new

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

 

 

Now there may be good reasons for this difference, and it must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it.

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.

 

But the real problem is that DMI has now withdrawn their 30% graph, offering this explanation:

 

I have removed the old sea ice extent graphics and the new graphics (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.php) is now our one and only official sea ice extent.

When I introduced the new graphics I also announced that the old graphics would be removed after some time – and now is the time, sorry.
I spend too much time explaining the differences and it was quite confusing for many – so, I decided to remove the old graphics. However, all the data are available here http://osisaf.met.no/p/ if you would like do the plotting your selves.

 

The link for the data which they offer is not of any use to laymen, so effectively the DMI has withdrawn this data from the public eye. Now, when the old link is clicked, we get this:

 

 

icec3over_current

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

 

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 may be being harsh, but if DMI wants to avoid these sort of accusations, the answer is imply to restore the graph, whether convenient or not.

200 Comments leave one →
  1. February 19, 2016 2:02 pm

    Ya gotta love the new “scientific method.” If you cannot present the results you want, trash the results. Hello, Michael Mann.

  2. A C Osborn permalink
    February 19, 2016 2:12 pm

    A sad day indeed.

  3. Takesi Suzuki permalink
    February 19, 2016 2:14 pm

    too bad

  4. February 19, 2016 2:21 pm

    I have to agree that in the light of what has gone before, this does look like a case of deliberately hiding unhelpful information

  5. Pethefin permalink
    February 19, 2016 2:45 pm

    You can find the last version before the killing of the graph by the DMI here:

    Compare that with what they show now and you will be able to see some serious “reinterpretation” going on in terms of the fall 2015

  6. February 19, 2016 3:29 pm

    I have never understood why the NSIDC 10% or DMI 15% were meaningful ice extent metrics. It measures an extent where the edges are by definition 85-90% open ocean, NOT ice. That is so subject to the vissitudes of wind, waves, and currents as to be essentially meaningless.

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 20, 2016 7:02 am

      Exactly. 30 % would be better in terms of perennial ice, as Ron Clutz has pointed out, but if you take a look at any of the ice concentration maps, e.g.

      it seems clear that even a 30 % ice coverage is a questionable measurement metric. The proportion of ice coverage below 50 % seems rather miniscule compared with the ice coverage above 50 %.

      Even worse, we are being led to believe that satellite measurements began in 1979, while the early data, recognized by the IPCC in their 1990 and 1996 reports, showed remarkably lower extent of sea-ice than the cherry picked 1979, which happened to be the maximum:

      The opposite of skeptical is gullible.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 20, 2016 7:11 am

        I forgot to add that unsurprisingly when one looks at the Arctic ice maps at the moment, the area where the 15 % ice coverage is clearly below the 30 year mean just happens to be the area where the North Atlantic Current brings warm water to the Arctic (west and east to the Spitzbergen/Svalbard):
        http://www.whoi.edu/main/topic/arctic-ocean-circulation

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 20, 2016 11:45 am

        And finally, all this recent Arctic sea-ice scare is put into proper perspective by this collection of analysis of the long term sea ice extent:
        http://www.climate4you.com/SeaIce.htm#Sea ice extension in a longer time perspective
        particularly the map by Vinje (2001) should be an eye-opener. The variation between the ice extent in 1769, 1866 and today is quite remarkable, natural variation in other words seems to be dramatically higher than what CAGW/AGW-dogma tells us.

  7. David Richardson permalink
    February 19, 2016 3:32 pm

    One would have to agree that this graphic seems odd in that they should have made 2015 a new colour (from black) at the new year, and kept the latest 2016 section the only black – but it has been that way until now.

    As I said in your “Arctic Ice Update” post it leaves a bad impression if they do not want to own there old 30% product.

  8. jimmy Haigh permalink
    February 19, 2016 3:42 pm

    Post-modern science…

  9. Green Sand permalink
    February 19, 2016 4:25 pm

    “…..I spend too much time explaining the differences and it was quite confusing for many – so, I decided to remove the old graphics….”

    Easily remedied, post the explanation on the relevant web pages. Simples?

  10. profile permalink
    February 19, 2016 4:33 pm

    Bit like the 72-75 Arctic satellite data that no longer exists.

  11. February 19, 2016 4:42 pm

    As I commented to Pethefin, the Arctic ice cap has two elements: connected to the shore is the fast ice which mostly melts out each summer; and drift ice which shrinks some but persists all year. The 30% sea ice product is useful as a metric for the perennial drift ice, and it is a shame to lose that indicator, just because the extent this year is surprisingly high.

    • A C Osborn permalink
      February 19, 2016 7:34 pm

      Ron, is it also a proxy for the Multi Year Ice & Thickness?

      • February 19, 2016 8:28 pm

        I don’t believe so. It is only considering the % of ice within each grid cell, which includes both first-year and multi-year ice. The documentation refers to OIS SAF as the source for ice concentrations.

    • NevenA permalink
      February 19, 2016 8:41 pm


      The 30% sea ice product is useful as a metric for the perennial drift ice, and it is a shame to lose that indicator, just because the extent this year is surprisingly high.

      But, Ron, we both know that extent isn’t surprisingly high. It’s at an all-time low as we speak. All sea ice extent and area graphs show this (see here). How can a difference between a 15% and 30% threshold cause such large disparities? It’s because there’s something wrong with the old DMI graph and as it’s discontinued there’s no quality control to correct it, right?

      • February 19, 2016 8:53 pm

        Not according to MAISIE

        So the correct scientific approach is to ask nsidc why their old data shows such different results to their new, supposedly more accurate, new data.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 19, 2016 9:06 pm

        Paul, you’re confusing the NSIDC and DMI. The NSIDC doesn’t have ‘old’ and ‘new’ data. MASIE and their Sea Ice Index are different ways of measuring extent.

        And MASIE isn’t showing the huge difference the old DMI plot is showing. Not even close.

      • February 19, 2016 10:25 pm

        Stop being so pathetic.

        Maisie is the newer way and does not support the older way, which you seem to be religiously attached to.

        I simply ask for nsidc to explain the difference.

      • February 19, 2016 10:18 pm

        Paul’s question is the interesting one: 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.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 19, 2016 11:08 pm

        If you look at the temperature charts, you will see a huge blob of red over northern Russia.

        The northern coast of Russia would comprise a large area of the “coastal” sea ice that makes up the difference between the 30% value and the 15% value.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 19, 2016 11:08 pm

        ie.. Its something to do with the wobbly jet stream.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 20, 2016 7:19 am

        Endless hand-waving from Neven the gullible.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 20, 2016 10:43 am

        Maisie is the newer way and does not support the older way, which you seem to be religiously attached to.

        I simply ask for nsidc to explain the difference.

        Paul, you really should do your own homework first before demanding explanations. You obviously don’t know what you’re talking about and you could learn a lot just by looking things up.

        For starters, it’s MASIE, not ‘Maisie’, as it stands for Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent. And if your read the MASIE product documentation you’ll quickly find out what makes it different from other sea ice products.

        The word multisensor is key. Sea ice extent/area products are based on passive microwave data from one satellite sensor. MASIE is based on operational analysis, in other words, an analyst uses not only that passive microwave data , but also different kinds of other information (satellite, radar, etc) to determine ice edges. That means it’s more accurate in general on a day-to-day basis, but it’s less consistent than passive microwave data because methods can change over time, and there may be variations in the subjective interpretation of (different) analysts. Passive microwave data products (such as the ones put out by JAXA, DMI, NSIDC, Cryopshere Today, etc) do the same thing all the time, and that makes it possible to compare years with each other and do trend analysis.

        From the documentation:

        While operational analyses are usually the most accurate and timely representation of sea ice, they have errors and biases that change over time. 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. The NSIDC Sea Ice Index monthly ice extent, and the satellite passive microwave data sets upon which it is based, is one example. The Sea Ice Index gives a daily image of extent as well as monthly products. However, these daily images are not meant to be used for climate studies or for inferring anything longer than seasonal trends. Satellite data are not quality controlled quickly enough; and for reasons explained in the Sea Ice Index documentation, the daily ice edge position can be off by tens of kilometers or more from the ice edge that an analyst would draw. Reasons include known errors in thin ice detection, bias in summertime concentration estimates, and the relative compactness of the marginal ice zone. See Partington et al. (2003) for an assessment of operational versus satellite-derived ice concentration.

        MASIE was developed by NSIDC and NIC to fill a need for an intermediate type of product; one between operational charts and the passive microwave based Sea Ice Index. MASIE is based on the NIC IMS product and gives a daily picture of ice extent that is easy to use and available in several formats. Daily values for hemisphere-wide and regional ice extent are made available in an Excel file that is a rolling archive of the most recent four weeks of extent values and archived imagery is available for the complete data set. MASIE gives a quick picture of ice extent that is more accurate than the daily Sea Ice Index product and allows users to compare day-to-day changes in extent values. However, in general, it would not be appropriate to compare a recent MASIE extent value to one more than a few weeks old because the data sources and analysts NIC uses may have changed.

        So, MASIE and the NSIDC’s Sea Ice Index are two different ways of looking at ice cover. One is more accurate, the other is more consistent. One is used mainly for navigational purposes (because ships need to know exactly where the ice edge is and what kind of ice they can expect there), the other is used for trend analysis. Older and newer is irrelevant, they’re two different things.

        Ron could have told you this. He knows all about MASIE.

      • February 20, 2016 1:06 pm

        Thanks for the spelling lesson!

        Clearly both series have a contribution to make. According to the NIC

        Polar orbiting satellites are the only source of a complete look at the polar areas of the earth, since their orbits cross near the poles approximately every two hours with 12 to 13 orbits a day of useful visible data. This visible imagery can then be analyzed to detect the snow and ice fields and the difference in reflectivity of the snow and ice. By analyzing these areas each day, areas of cloud cover over a particular area of snow and ice can be kept to a minimum to allow a cloud free look at these regions. This chart can then be useful as a measure of the extent of snow and ice for any day during the year and it can also be compared to previous years for climatic studies.

        http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/snow_ice.html

      • NevenA permalink
        February 20, 2016 10:32 pm

        Clearly both series have a contribution to make.

        So, I take it the difference has now been sufficiently explained to you and the NSIDC is off your hook?

      • February 20, 2016 11:12 pm

        No. We need to understand the differences between the two

  12. NevenA permalink
    February 19, 2016 5:07 pm

    Now there may be good reasons for this difference, and it must be pointed out that DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it.

    But there is obviously a big problem* with it ever since DMI switched to the new version months ago, and no one is keeping is QC-ing the old graph. I’ve also asked the DMI about it, but they didn’t seem that interested in finding out what the problem is exactly as they had a new official graph and the old graph was going to be discontinued anyway.

    * a big problem because the graph deviates so strongly from every other extent/area graph out there. Besides, there are two black trend lines, but no 2016 in the legend. And what’s with the big dips in the 2015 trend line, and that big black horizontal line?

    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.

    Can you please explain the exact procedural difference between the 15% and 30% extent metric? How is extent being calculated, for instance? Are the resolutions for the old 30% SIE and the new 15% SIE the same?

    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.

    Can you quantify the percentage of the total constituted by ‘mixed land/sea pixels’? And why do you think that practically every international scientific organisation uses a 15% threshold? I believe there is a reason for that, but forgot what it is. Did you ask DMI why they switched from the 30% to the 15% threshold?

    • February 19, 2016 6:28 pm

      I did ask DMI to explain the rather large differences a month or two ago, and received a garbled, meaningless reply. It was clear they did not know themselves!

      So it is probably my fault they have taken the easy way out!

      • February 20, 2016 10:10 pm

        With all due respect Paul you are talking utter hogwash.

        I have spoken with a number of the guys and gals at DMI on numerous occasions, and they have always been extremely helpful.

        If you couldn’t understand their reply, then it does indeed seem likely that “it is probably [your] fault”.

        To repeat for the umpteenth time, DMI stated quite clearly for a long period of time that their 30% threshold metric was unsupported and would eventually be phased out.

        Period!

      • February 20, 2016 11:10 pm

        As you have not seen their reply, you are not in a position to comment.

        But there is a very simple answer. You can contact DMI and ask the same questions. I am sure we will all be pleased to see their reply!

      • February 21, 2016 12:14 am

        I am in the perfect position to comment Paul, and have already done so. Here you go:

        http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/02/gross-deception-about-dmis-missing-graph/

  13. February 19, 2016 6:32 pm

    So, it appears that DMI was the only product measuring 30% sea ice concentration, which is apparently why it differed from all other products. There appears to be no suggestion that it was unreliable or wrong; rather it was just ‘confusing’ for people. It became very confusing when it began to tell a story very different from the 15% concentration graphs, showing ice accumulating rather than diminishing. So DMI discontinued it because they did not want to ‘confuse’ people. As Green Sand says, why not just explain the differences between the graphs of the actual page and state why they may be so different from one another? Is it perhaps not so much that they do not wish to confuse users of the website, rather that they do not wish their graphics to display a confusing message re. whether ice is shrinking or accumulating in the Arctic?

  14. Canadian Climate Guy permalink
    February 19, 2016 6:37 pm

    Reblogged this on Canadian Climate Guy.

  15. NevenA permalink
    February 19, 2016 8:11 pm

    I did ask DMI to explain the rather large differences a month or two ago, and received a garbled, meaningless reply. It was clear they did not know themselves!

    So it is probably my fault they have taken the easy way out!

    DMI’s answer to me could also have been more unequivocal, I feel. Still, I think that together we can get to the bottom of this (if you’re willing to). There are a couple of questions that need to be answered:

    1) Can we all agree that something is obviously wrong with the old DMI 30% SIE graph, and that it persists because there is no quality control? Or are there actually people here who think that what that graph is showing, depicts the current situation wrt Arctic sea ice?
    2) What’s the difference between using 15% and 30% as an extent threshold? How is extent actually measured? I have a feeling most people here don’t really know the answer to this, but their gut tells them that 30% is better.
    3) One example of this is your statement, Paul, that the 30% threshold is probably more reliable because it better handles ‘mixed land/sea pixels’. I’d really appreciate it if you could explain a bit more what you mean with that, and how large the influence of ‘mixed land/sea pixels’ is or can be.

    But let’s start with question 1. Paul, you do agree, I hope, that there is obviously something wrong with the old 30% SIE threshold graph?

    • February 19, 2016 8:51 pm

      I don’t see any evidence for that.

      We clearly need to ask DMI the question without any preconceptions

      • NevenA permalink
        February 19, 2016 9:04 pm

        So you really, seriously believe that the old graph is depicting reality?

      • February 19, 2016 10:21 pm

        Belief does not enter into it.

        I await Dmi’s verdict. I don’t prejudge as you pathetically appear to

      • NevenA permalink
        February 20, 2016 10:24 am

        Belief does not enter into it.

        Of course belief enters into it if you’re unwilling to use common sense. It’s obvious from a mile away that there is something wrong with that graph. Like I said, there’s no 2016 in the legend, there are two black trend lines, and there’s another black horizontal line.

        If you look at the 2015 trend line, you see two unnatural dips. This used to occur regularly, but would then be corrected within a couple of days by someone in charge of quality control. The reason that they haven’t been corrected, is because the old graph was discontinued quite a while ago, and so no one was paying attention to it anymore.

        And since then the old graph has gone overboard. If you really think that what that graph is showing could have something to do with reality, then yes, you are a believer.

        I await Dmi’s verdict. I don’t prejudge as you pathetically appear to

        I take it that you have asked DMI about it again? Maybe I’ll shoot off a mail later today as well.

      • February 20, 2016 11:52 am

        “It’s obvious from a mile away that there is something wrong with that graph. Like I said, there’s no 2016 in the legend, there are two black trend lines, and there’s another black horizontal line.

        If you look at the 2015 trend line, you see two unnatural dips. This used to occur regularly, but would then be corrected within a couple of days by someone in charge of quality control.”

        This appears to be an argument that the 30% concentration graph was administratively neglected by DMI. It is not much of an argument in favour of suggesting that the actual data which built the graph was somehow erroneous and/or that the essential message conveyed by that graph was detached from reality. DMI appear to have neglected the graph because they were planning to replace it.

  16. February 20, 2016 3:29 am

    Reblogged this on Climatism.

  17. AndyG55 permalink
    February 20, 2016 3:47 am

    Let’s not forget that we are talking about 2 to 3 MILLION sq km of highly dubious coastal ice.

    That is what makes up the difference between the 30% coastal masked, and the 15% coastal included charts.

  18. eliza permalink
    February 20, 2016 1:20 pm

    I believe this all came about because Steven Goddard aka T Heller, kept putting up this graph and started an unholy row with a Mr Martin Smith a paid warmist troll probably who wanted this graph removed ASAP. DMI is paid to promote AGW just like all the other “Climate Scientist” Ted Cruz will terminate AGW.

  19. February 20, 2016 3:16 pm

    Re MASIE and NSIDC Ice Index

    Look, it is quite simple. NOAA produces and controls the NASIDC Ice Index, and they want that index to be the “official” dataset. They do not produce or control the NIC measurements, so they discourage use of MASIE.

    This is perfectly understandable bureaucratic behavior, and warmists also want to restrict people from seeing datasets not controlled by scientists not sharing the warmist bias. NOAA and NSIDC principals are on record saying the Arctic should have melted out by now. NIC personnel have no position in the climate debate; they are Navy-types tasked to report on ice locations for the safety of ships operating in the Arctic.

    One more thing: NIC ice charts are not new; they precede satellite measures by many decades. Partington et al (2003) preferred the ice charts to passive microwave estimates of extents because of satellite sensor inaccuracies. Clearly the data prior to 2006 exists but is not available for public access.

    • February 20, 2016 3:20 pm

      My bad: should be “datasets not controlled by scientists sharing the warmist bias”

    • David Richardson permalink
      February 20, 2016 6:06 pm

      I think that comment totally nails it Ron – thank you.

    • NevenA permalink
      February 20, 2016 10:28 pm

      Ron, as you’re repeating certain claims, I’m going to have to ask you for links/evidence for the following:

      NOAA produces and controls the NASIDC Ice Index

      Link?

      They do not produce or control the NIC measurements, so they discourage use of MASIE.

      How exactly do they do this? Link, please.

      NOAA and NSIDC principals are on record saying the Arctic should have melted out by now.

      Link? And don’t come with Zwally and Serreze, as we both know they didn’t say that.

      NIC personnel have no position in the climate debate

      How do you know this? They’re collaborating with NASIDC, for crying out loud.

      NIC ice charts are not new; they precede satellite measures by many decades.

      On this you might be right, though. Still, I’d like to see a link. And a link for this one too, please:

      Clearly the data prior to 2006 exists but is not available for public access.

      If you can’t or won’t provide links/evidence for all these quotes, I’m going to have to assume that you are knowingly lying.

      • February 20, 2016 10:47 pm

        The paper was written in 2003. Do the math. Since you call everyone a liar for not agreeing with you, I am in a large and good company.

      • February 20, 2016 11:19 pm

        Whilst we’re all having such fun in here perhaps I might ask your webmaster the same question as I recently asked Paul’s. Where is this recent comment of mine on “Science Matters” hiding?

        https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/icy-arctic-mid-february/comment-page-1/#comment-1062

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 20, 2016 11:28 pm

        NOBODY has to publish your dishonest mis-representation of Arctic sea ice..

        Use your own BIG ARCTIC CON site for that.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 21, 2016 11:12 am

        The paper was written in 2003. Do the math. Since you call everyone a liar for not agreeing with you, I am in a large and good company.

        No, I don’t call everyone who disagrees with me a liar. I call everyone who comes with bold statements and conspiracy theories a liar, when they can’t back them up with links or evidence, but present them as facts.

        I’ve asked you to provide evidence for the 6 statements in your previous comment. Except for that paper, for which you again provide no link and which may contain evidence for just 1 out of 6 statements, you’re not providing any evidence for the claims that you state as fact.

        We both know that they sprout from your imagination. If you can’t admit that, then you’re simply a liar.

        And now I’ll go look for that paper myself, and find out in what way you twisted its findings to mislead people.

      • February 21, 2016 11:31 am

        I think I can save you the trouble Neven, even if Ron can’t:

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2002JC001623/full

      • NevenA permalink
        February 21, 2016 10:18 pm

        Okay, Ron, I’m reading the paper now to see whether it corroborates the last two of your six statements (I assume that you have no evidence or links for the other four, or you would’ve said so):


        5) NIC ice charts are not new; they precede satellite measures by many decades.

        On the second page of the paper (thanks for the link, Jim), it says this:

        Hardcopy ice charts exist from before 1972, but these are not in a form which is convenient for quantitative analysis, while other ice information, in particular related to partial ice concentrations, may have some value but are temporally and spatially inconsistent in quality and therefore inappropriate for analysis of sea ice variability over the period of interest.

        And then:

        The ice charts have grown from being relatively coarse products in 1972 to detailed and comprehensive charts by the mid 1990s, reflecting the increasing range of data sources available to the analysts.

        Ice charts were also made before 1972, but it’s not entirely clear to me they were produced by the NIC, and they were of course very rudimentary and incomplete.

        As far as I can tell, the NIC started producing ice charts in 1972. That’s just 7 years preceding satellite measures (if we don’t count NIMBUS, etc), and not many decades, like you asserted. It looks to me like your statement pronounced as fact, is nothing of the kind, Ron.

        Furthermore, the ice charts werevery coarse, as can be seen in fig. 1 of the paper. And they covered only half of the Arctic!


        6) Clearly the data prior to 2006 exists but is not available for public access.

        There is no MASIE data prior to 2006, pure and simple. As fas as public access is concerned: NIC ice charts from 1972 onwards are available at the NSIDC (here). And check this: “Access to the National Ice Center Arctic Sea Ice Charts and Climatologies in Gridded Format data set is unrestricted, but users are encouraged to register for the data.” And also check out figure 1 showing the NIC ice chart from Feb 1992: only half of the Arctic.

        So, there, I spent an hour checking 2 of your 6 stated-as-fact statements, Ron, and it turns out they weren’t fact. I’d still like to see links/evidence for your other 4 statements, but I don’t think you will post them, as you and I know they’re probably not fact either.

        I have pointed out these things to you before, but then you go and present them as facts again elsewhere. From this I can only conclude you are knowingly lying. Of course, my opinion may change if you care to explain or retract.

  20. NevenA permalink
    February 20, 2016 9:55 pm

    Ron Clutz wrote:

    Paul’s question is the interesting one: 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.

    It’s quite clear that the old graph is in error and that there’s no quality control to remedy the problem, whatever it is, because the graph has been discontinued and replaced by a new graph several months ago.

    But let’s assume the graph is correct. In that hypothetical case, yes, we can wonder why there is such an enormous difference between the 15% and 30% threshold. Of course, if we want to find a possible answer, we first need to know what those thresholds mean! Here’s how I think these things work:

    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.

    In the comment below I will try to consider a situation in which a large disparity between graphs with different thresholds could occur.

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 21, 2016 12:29 pm

      Neven’s logic: data does not correspond to the pet theory -> data is wrong.

      DMI’s logic: 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.

      Traditional scientist logic: data does not correspond to the theory -> collect more data, do more research into whether the theory is falsified or in need of adjustments in accordance with the data, or whether the measurement technology/equipment is correct.

      Post-normal climate science indeed. What a disgrace.

  21. NevenA permalink
    February 20, 2016 10:22 pm

    So, a hypothetical situation that could explain the large disparity. Ron suggests that it may be because ‘the drift ice is strong this year’, which is a bit vague, but okay.

    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.

    What makes it even more difficult to think of a hypothetical situation that explains a large disparity (that isn’t caused by an error in one of the graphs), is that it’s winter and the Arctic sea ice is close to its maximum, meaning that the ice edge is smaller than during summer, because the Arctic Ocean is covered with ice coast to coast, from Canada/Alaska to Siberia, and almost the entire ice pack has a sea ice concentration of 100%, so there aren’t that many areas that could cause a disparity between SIE-15% and SIE-30% (however that would look). For the same reason a land-mask difference can’t explain the disparity, never mind the fact that Paul or anyone else still hasn’t quantified it by showing the differences in land-masks used by DMI.

    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. Now, given the fact that the DMI SIE-15% graph grosso modo shows what all other sea ice extent graphs are showing (yes, that includes MASIE), as well as all sea ice concentration maps and radar/satellite images, we can assume with almost 100% certainty that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is incorrect, which makes sense, because it is discontinued and thus no longer QC-ed, which in itself was enough Occam’s Razor.

    Now, is there anyone here who seriously thinks it’s possible that the old DMI SIE-30% is correct? Paul?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 21, 2016 12:34 pm

      Oh man, you truly are confused, the 30 % ice-coverage was going up before the DMI found it necessary to adjust it for the fall 2015 and ditch the rest, while the 15 % index was going down. What a tangled web you weave…

      The truth is we don’t know why, and we never will as long as scientist are bound by conformity to a dogma/theory and are willing to ditch the data instead of questioning their theories. What an utter disgrace in terms of philosophy of science.

  22. February 20, 2016 10:31 pm

    Since everyone seems to be gathered together in here at the moment, perhaps I might take this opportunity to ask the webmaster where this comment of mine from another thread is hiding?

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/18/arctic-ice-update/#comment-64330

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 20, 2016 10:41 pm

      Since everyone seems to be here..

      Maybe its time you ADMIT that the current level of Arctic sea ice is actually anomalously HIGH compared to the rest of the Holocene. (except the LIA which we have thankfully just climbed out of)

      Or do you STILL want to carry on with your CON trying to get people to think its actually at low levels?

      DISHONESTY seems to be your thing, doesn’t it Jimbo.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 20, 2016 10:46 pm

      Here’s Jimbo when it comes to the TRUTH about Arctic sea ice.

    • February 20, 2016 11:15 pm

      I have not got a clue what you are on about.

      Your link just takes me back to my original post – there is no comment linked

      • February 20, 2016 11:25 pm

        Which is precisely my point Paul.

        Why is my earlier comment not visible when I click the link that WordPress assured me it was located at?

        Is it perhaps in your moderation queue? In your trash bin? In your spam can?

      • February 20, 2016 11:34 pm

        In the spam can for some reason!

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 20, 2016 11:26 pm

        Jimbo has been given EVERY OPPORTUNITY to be HONEST about Arctic Sea Ice history.

        He has REFUSED to take those opportunities.

        One can only assume he aims to keep up his DISHONEST CON.

      • February 21, 2016 12:19 am

        Thanks Paul.

        Perhaps “psychic” is a four letter word in your list of expletives that must be deleted?

  23. February 21, 2016 12:27 pm

    With regard to the apparent ‘conundrum’ regarding the significant increase in 30% SIE and the lack of increase 15% SIE.
    It seems to me – and correct me if my logic is faulty – that the ‘at least 30% concentration’ increase tells us that the area of more consolidated ice has increased relative to previous years.
    The ‘at least 15% concentration’ lack of increase (or decrease) tells us that the less consolidated ice edge area has not increased significantly compared to previous years and may even be declining.
    Thus, in relative terms, we seem to have a central core which is growing but the outer penumbra of more fractured ice is not expanding in unison. Which suggests that, for some reason, ice beyond a certain well defined area is being rapidly melted/dissipated. Whether there are valid meteorological reasons why that may happen, I am not qualified to say, but I certainly would not dismiss the possibility out of hand. Ideas anyone?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 21, 2016 2:58 pm

      Take a closer look at the Arctic sea-ice maps, as I have suggested above, the area where the 15 % ice coverage is below the 30 year mean are the areas where the North Atlantic Current meets the scattered sea-ice front. Warm water would certainly have an effect on scare sea ice (15 % coverage) but less so as the ice concentration increases. Remember that 15 % ice coverage means 85 % open sea water. Just one of several explanations of course.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 21, 2016 3:06 pm

        Here’s another potential angle.
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/21/another-blob-of-warm-ocean-water-discovered-this-one-ancient/

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 21, 2016 3:09 pm

        Here’s a third potential explanation, which leads to question our knowledge of the volcanic activities below Arctic sea-ice:
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/hot-times-near-svalbard-volcanic-range-discovered/

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 21, 2016 3:11 pm

        A quote from the researchers (from 2013) for the third explanation:
        ““We probably know even less about the very deep seas and oceans then we know about the moon,” he said. The range extends from Jan Mayen island in the Greenland Sea to the Fram Strait between Svalbard and Greenland. It comprises hundreds of volcanos, some just 20m below the surface.”

      • February 21, 2016 3:37 pm

        Interesting Pethefin. What also occurs to me is that, in winter especially, the expansion of sea-ice is naturally limited to a large extent by surrounding continental land masses. So if the more consolidated areas of sea ice have expanded this winter relative to earlier years – as is indicated by the discontinued DMI graph – we might expect at some point for those areas of scattered ice flows being driven outwards by this expansion to be compressed further against the shoreline, perhaps with the effect that the 15% ice concentration area diminishes in comparison to the 30% area. Just a thought.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 21, 2016 4:17 pm

        Jaime, an interesting thought. The continental barriers were actually hit by the 30 % coverage very early this year (the point in the DMI index usually around New Year starts to move almost horizontally), that is in the beginning of December, so maybe you have something there, an interesting angle.
        This graph shows the areas where the sea-ice is below the 30-year-mean:

        Interesting, but unsurprisingly, the models once again seem to have missed the mark:

        and predicted quite the opposite

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 21, 2016 5:43 pm

        The warm ocean current warming of the Arctic Seas and affecting Arctic sea-ice is confirmed by a recent study:
        http://www.bjerknes.uib.no/en/article/nyheter/barents-sea-warms-behind

      • February 21, 2016 8:48 pm

        The last 18 months of the RAPID AMOC data confirm an upturn, no major slowing events – a steadying of the general downward trend observed since 2004.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:22 pm

        Jaime, here’s an interesting graph that relates to your idea:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/stats_mean.uk.php
        Haven’t had time to look into this in detail, or to look for other more detailed analysis of the same kind.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:36 pm

        Interestingly, when you look graph that I linked to and focus on the 1978-2014 mean for Jan-March, there is a large area of 15-29 % ice coverage almost exactly where the new volcanic ridge was discover in 2008-2013 (between Island and Spitzbergen):
        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/02/hot-times-near-svalbard-volcanic-range-discovered/
        Compare that with the mean for 2004-2014 and you will notice how that area of 15-29 % coverage sea-ice has disappeared which does not seem surprising considering that some the volcanic vents were discovered just 20 meter below the surface.

  24. February 21, 2016 12:58 pm

    What “at least 30% concentration increase” would that be then Jaime?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 21, 2016 2:51 pm

      “at least 30 % concentration” = minimum 30 % concentration = ice coverage with concentration equal to or higher than 30 %. Anyone with the slightest ability to think for themselves would be able to figure it out. Trolls however…

    • February 21, 2016 3:42 pm

      Jim, that increase shown in comparison with earlier years by the discontinued DMI graph shown above, starting in September and culminating with the large difference notable right up to mid February.

  25. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 3:36 pm

    Believe it or not, the confusion regarding MASIE and NSIDC Ice Index was settled years ago to the satisfaction of A Watts at WUWT

    Here is a link to the start of the conversation between Watts and Walt Meier, scroll down to see more…

    http://bit.ly/1Ug2nLR

    • February 21, 2016 4:06 pm

      Yes, I think Anthony was happy to the extent that MASIE tended to give higher numbers, and therefore it was not relevant to compare absolute numbers with NSIDC (which was the original issue raised)

    • February 21, 2016 4:11 pm

      Walt Meier expressed his POV in 2012. In November 2015, NSIDC released the 10 year MASIE dataset saying that it was “reasonably consistent.”

  26. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 4:13 pm

    Paul
    You are missing the point, Anthony accepted Meier’s explanation of the two different products their differences and their use. Please take the time to read the conversation again.

  27. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 4:15 pm

    @ clutz
    It is more than Walt’s point of view, are you familiar with his relationship to MAISE and NSIDC?

    • February 21, 2016 4:52 pm

      Yes, that is why the 2015 statement is significant. Meier praises MASIE as more accurate but warned about its inconsistency. That doubt is removed by 2014 and eventually with the 2015 release.

  28. February 21, 2016 5:12 pm

    It seems that Walt Meier is far from dismissive of MASIE results, but rather relies on them to improve remote sensing of ice extent. In much the same way, UAH and RSS refer to radiosonde measurements for comparison and calibration.

    Walt Meier published this in October 2015:
    How do sea-ice concentrations from operational data compare with passive microwave estimates? Implications for improved model evaluations and forecasting

    Abstract:
    Passive microwave sensors have produced a 35 year record of sea-ice concentration variability and change. Operational analyses combine a variety of remote-sensing inputs and other sources via manual integration to create high-resolution, accurate charts of ice conditions in support of navigation and operational forecast models. One such product is the daily Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE). The higher spatial resolution along with multiple input data and manual analysis potentially provide more precise mapping of the ice edge than passive microwave estimates. However, since MASIE is based on an operational product, estimates may be inconsistent over time due to variations in input data quality and availability. Comparisons indicate that MASIE shows higher Arctic-wide extent values throughout most of the year, largely because of the limitations of passive microwave sensors in some conditions (e.g. surface melt). However, during some parts of the year, MASIE tends to indicate less ice than estimated by passive microwave sensors. These comparisons yield a better understanding of operational and research sea-ice data products; this in turn has important implications for their use in climate and weather models.

    .

  29. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 5:18 pm

    Clutz
    Why are you in denial about the differences in the two products?

    Even A Watts accepted the explanation Meier gave at WUWT

  30. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 5:24 pm

    @clutz ” These comparisons yield a better understanding of operational and research sea-ice data products; this in turn has important implications for their use in climate and weather models”

    That simply is not true, either you have a reading comprehension problem or you are trolling,

    Which is it?

    • February 21, 2016 5:34 pm

      Those words were written by Walt Meier; Take it up with him.
      http://dx.doi.org/10.3189/2015AoG69A694

      • February 21, 2016 6:09 pm

        [SNIP]

        Jim

        I have already warned you.

        You have already posted eight comments on just one article, none of which had the slightest relevance to the original post, not to mention several more.

        All you have done is disrupted the comment thread. I am aware that you have attempted to do exactly the same on other blogs. I am not prepared to allow you to do the same here.

        If you want an argument, I suggest you decamp to Disqus, or better still go and argue with yourself on that pathetic little blog of yours, which very few people appear to read.

        You are on your final chance. If you have any relevant comments to make, they will be welcome. But any more trolling, and you will be banned.

        BTW – If you want to slag me off on your own rarely visited site, as you have before, perhaps you might at least have the decency to get the facts right

        Paul

  31. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 6:01 pm

    @ clutz
    Is English not your mother tongue?

    “However, since MASIE is based on an operational product, estimates may be inconsistent over time due to variations in input data quality and availability”

    • February 21, 2016 6:11 pm

      LM, you are willingly unbalanced. Read the text in its entirety. For example: “Comparisons indicate that MASIE shows higher Arctic-wide extent values throughout most of the year, largely because of the limitations of passive microwave sensors in some conditions (e.g. surface melt). However, during some parts of the year, MASIE tends to indicate less ice than estimated by passive microwave sensors.”

      Take off your fundamentalist blinders and understand what he is saying: There a two different ways of estimating ice extent. Both are imperfect and both have their usefulness in climatology.

  32. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 7:13 pm

    @clutz
    Have you actually read the entire paper or are you commenting based only on reading the abstract?
    You are wrong when you claim both versions have their usefullness in climatology and Meier made that abundantly clear in the conclusion to the paper that you link.

  33. February 21, 2016 7:42 pm

    LM, Huh? The ending paragraph:

    “Regardless of the application, it is important to understand the capabilities and limitations of any sea-ice observations. In the results presented here, comparison of MASIE and passive-microwave products illustrates important characteristics of each product. Passive microwave data tend to show lower extents in regions with thin ice and ice. Operational products, while providing more spatial detail and on average higher accuracy in the
    ice-edge location, are subject to inconsistencies due to data quality and availability.”

    Nothing contradicting what was in the abstract or in what I said.

    LM, for me this exchange is over. Your defenses are remarkable, impenetrable in fact.

    Over and out.

  34. Lawrence Martin permalink
    February 21, 2016 8:23 pm

    [SNIP]

    Lawrence

    Please stop this ridiculous trolling.

    Ron Clutz has repeatedly given full answers to your questions.

    Any further nonsense will be spammed. I am not going to allow trolls like you to disrupt my comment threads

    Paul

  35. NevenA permalink
    February 21, 2016 9:28 pm

    Okay, let’s try again. This is for Pethefin and Paul.

    Oh man, you truly are confused, the 30 % ice-coverage was going up before the DMI found it necessary to adjust it for the fall 2015 and ditch the rest, while the 15 % index was going down. What a tangled web you weave…

    Remember, Ron Clutz wrote:

    Paul’s question is the interesting one: Why is DMI’s 30% extent data the highest in 10 years, while their 15% extent is only average or lower?

    That’s the key question.

    There are two possibilities:

    1) Both the SIE-15% and SIE-30% graphs are correct, and a situation has arisen that causes one graph to go down, the other to go up, made possible by their differences.
    2) One of the two graphs is in error.

    I hope you can agree with me on that.

    Now for 1): unless you can come up with a hypothetical situation that explains how SIE-15% can go down and SIE-30% go up, I think this can’t be the reason for the disparity. I have explained in this comment what the 15% and 30% thresholds mean. The Arctic Ocean is divided into grid cells, if there is 15% ice or more in a grid cell, it’s considered 100% ice-covered. The same for 30%.

    If there are a lot of grid cells with 30% ice or more, the SIE-30% line will go up. But all of these grid cells are counted for SIE-15% too, as these grid cells contain more than 15% ice! In addition all the grid cells with 15-29% ice cover are counted as well, which is why SIE-15% will always be higher than SIE-30%. It’s not like the 30% threshold means that more ice is being counted than with the 15% threshold. Quite the contrary.

    I can’t think of a situation where grid cells are counted for SIE-30%, but then somehow not counted for SIE-15%, and if you can’t either, this means that option nr. 1 is not possible. So it has to be option nr. 2, namely that one of the graphs is incorrect.

    Again, my arguments that its 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.

    Now, can you guys agree with me that it is highly, highly likely that the old DMI SIE graph with a 30% threshold is incorrect? If you can’t just simply agree with me on that, and really think that it could be correct, there is nothing I can do to convince you, because you are simply unwilling or unable to admit it.

    What’s the harm in agreeing with me and saying ‘mystery solved’? Low winter sea ice doesn’t mean all that much. It’s not like you’re suddenly admitting that AGW is causing it to be low. The graph is incorrect because it’s no longer updated properly. End of story.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 21, 2016 9:44 pm

      “simply unwilling or unable to admit it.”

      You mean like certain people are unwilling or unable to admit that Arctic sea ice levels are still ANOMOLOUSLY HIGH compared to all the Holocene except the LIA.?

      • NevenA permalink
        February 21, 2016 10:28 pm

        Why are you changing the subject, Andy?

        Do you agree with me that it is highly, highly likely that the old DMI SIE graph with a 30% threshold is incorrect? That’s the subject.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 21, 2016 11:24 pm

        NO, there is some 2-3 million sq km involved in the very iffy coastal sea ice count.

        The margin for error is enormous, especially along the north Russian coast where the big warm land blob of Dec/Jan was.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 8:00 am

        NO, there is some 2-3 million sq km involved in the very iffy coastal sea ice count.

        First of all, why is the ‘coastal sea ice’ count iffy? What are you basing that on? Did you read OSI SAF methodology documents?

        Second of all, I highly doubt an area of 2-3 million km2 is involved with this count. That would amount to almost 20% of all the ice! Land masks involve a narrow strip of grid cells along coasts.

        Third of all, it’s winter and the ice concentration near most coasts is 100%.

        If you can’t further explain your argument and back it up with some solid evidence, I’m going to have to assume that you just made it up.

        But thanks for letting everyone here know that you think the DMI 30% graph could possibly be depicting reality.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:21 am

        Yawn !

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:22 am

        “I highly doubt an area of 2-3 million km2 is involved with this count”

        roflmao !! So you haven’t even done the basic maths..

        Says it all, doesn’t it !!

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:26 am

        Look at the different graphs and do a subtraction even a competent 6 year old could do. ! Could even be as much as 4 – 5million

        You have just outed yourself as a non-thinking drone. Well done 🙂

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 10:13 am

        Look at the different graphs and do a subtraction even a competent 6 year old could do. ! Could even be as much as 4 – 5million

        So, now you’re maintaining that all of the difference between 15% and 30% is all because of ‘iffy coastal sea ice count’? No, it’s simply because grid cells with sea ice concentrations between 15% and 29% get counted for SIE-15% but not for SIE-30%. Looks like someone else has a problem with basic math here.

        And it simply doesn’t explain how SIE-30% goes up, while SIE-15% goes down. That’s because one of the two graphs is in error, and we both know which one it is.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:52 am

        Admit it, fool…

        you didn’t even realise there was such a big difference did you.

        Are you REALLY saying the difference isn’t IFFY coastal sea ice, when that is the VERY DEFINITION of the difference?

        Seriously !!!!!!! OMG !!!

        Keep bringing your AGW fuelled imagination and ignorance to the fore..

        Good for a laugh. 🙂

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 22, 2016 5:50 am

      Neven, of course there are several options, but there´s no way to know that DMI chose the non-scientific alternative and discontinued the option that disagreed with the pet theory of AGW-movement. A true scientist would have gathered more data and checked both the theory, measurement methodology, equipment etc.

      So you can not think of any possibility for the Arctic sea to behave in any other way than what your pet theory predicts? Very convincing argument indeed, particularly when the models based on your pet theory have been almost 97% wrong about Arctic sea-ice:

      What are you’re credentials in terms of Arctic sea-ice since you seem to think that you are and expert to be believed in? You do know that science is the belief in the ignorance of experts, as one Richard Feynman put it.

      So now you say that your “arguments that its highly probable that it’s the old DMI SIE-30% graph that is incorrect” and provide a long list of arguments of ridiculous credibility, except for the last, the fact that DMI discontinued the graph. How interesting.

      Look, there are no SCIENTIFIC explanations at the moment to say anything about whether the 15 % and 30 % coverage are “right” or “wrong”. In general, within other sciences, data trumps theory, unlike in climate “science”. No amount of hand-waving is going to make the fact that 30 % ice coverage was doing something unexpected to go away. The fact that DMI adjusted/reinterpreted/reanalyzed the problem away is without any explanation is convincing only for the gullible/devote believers. It certainly is a far cry from a scientific approach to such observations, but in climate science theory/models always seem to trump data. If you can live that kind of travesty of science, good for you.

      So no, I do not agree with you since there is no scientific way to figure it out since the DMI got rid of the inconvenient data, and science for that matter, no explanations provided. Good for you though as your confirmation bias was saved. Enough of this, I have provided loads of material in this thread without a single comment from you, in other words, you are only interested saving your confirmation bias.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 8:07 am

        Neven, of course there are several options, but there´s no way to know that DMI chose the non-scientific alternative and discontinued the option that disagreed with the pet theory of AGW-movement

        This kind of extreme conspiracy thinking means that no explanation will ever satisfy you.

        So you can not think of any possibility for the Arctic sea to behave in any other way than what your pet theory predicts?

        No, can you come up with a hypothetical situation in which SIE-30% goes up and SIE-15% goes down? I don’t believe you can, can you?

        I do have pet theories for long-term changes, yes, but I have no pet theory for how Arctic sea ice behaves at a given moment, especially not in winter. And that’s what this is about, a short-term fluke that is best explained by errors in a graph. Why can’t you just admit that the old DMI 30% SIE graph is highly likely in error? What’s so difficult about that?

        So no, I do not agree with you since there is no scientific way to figure it out since the DMI got rid of the inconvenient data, and science for that matter, no explanations provided. Good for you though as your confirmation bias was saved.

        The only person showing his confirmation bias here and not being candid about it, is you. I cannot for the life of me understand why someone would be so stubborn about something so trivial and easily explained.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 8:34 am

        Neven, you are in error, again. I would be happy to accept a scientific explanation from the DMI. If you can get one from them, fantastic. You still have not commented any of the other arguments put forward in this thread so your claims of confirmation bias with anyone else than you are baseless. Enough said.

    • February 22, 2016 10:32 am

      Neven A,

      I keep reading your analysis of why there cannot be a difference between 15% and 30% ice cover and I just can’t fathom the logic. You say:

      “If there are a lot of grid cells with 30% ice or more, the SIE-30% line will go up. But all of these grid cells are counted for SIE-15% too, as these grid cells contain more than 15% ice!”

      Yeesss, but so what? 30% includes all those cells with AT LEAST 30% ice cover. So any cell with less than 30% will NOT be included in the count for SIE-30%. The 15% ice cover WILL include all those cells in the 30% count, as you point out, but not vice versa, So, a graph of 30% SIE will not include any areas where the ice is less consolidated, but the 15% SIE WILL include this consolidated ice. Thus, 30% SIE will generally always be a lesser area consisting of more consolidated ice which excludes the ice fringe.

      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.

      Crucially, as the measure of ‘at least 30%’ SIE does NOT include this penumbra, we can only say what is happening with the more consolidated ice when looking at the 30% graph. Any increase or decrease is entirely independent of what is going on in the outer less consolidated fringes. Hence no information whatsoever regarding the 15-29% SIE is contained within the 30% SIE graph. With 15% SIE, we can say that the consolidated area, included within the total area being measured, MAY or MAY NOT be expanding/contracting in unison with with the total area being measured.

      “I can’t think of a situation where grid cells are counted for SIE-30%, but then somehow not counted for SIE-15%, and if you can’t either, this means that option nr. 1 is not possible.”

      I can’t either, but your point is irrelevant. I CAN think of a situation where the reverse is true – grid cells are counted for SIE-15%, but NOT counted for SIE-30%. This means that 30%-SIE is NOT measuring exactly what 15%-SIE is; hence option No. 1 IS possible!

      So what I am saying in a rather long winded way is that 30% SIE is INDEPENDENT of a large area included in the measure of 15% SIE (the penumbra). Thus it is entirely feasible that it will differ significantly from 15% SIE which does include this area.

      You admit that both graphs could be correct and then you challenge the reader to come up with a situation where they could both be correct:

      “1) Both the SIE-15% and SIE-30% graphs are correct, and a situation has arisen that causes one graph to go down, the other to go up, made possible by their differences.
      2) One of the two graphs is in error.

      I hope you can agree with me on that.

      Now for 1): unless you can come up with a hypothetical situation that explains how SIE-15% can go down and SIE-30% go up, I think this can’t be the reason for the disparity.”

      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.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:00 pm

        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).

        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.

        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.

      • February 22, 2016 3:39 pm

        Neven, the Bremen University concentration maps only seem to cover Mar 1st to Nov 25th and there is no data for 2015 at all so the period of interest we are looking at (from around Nov 2015 to mid Feb 2016) is not available for direct comparison with other years. But we can compare ice concentration today with Mar 1 2007 to 2014. 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.

        “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?”

        I’m not sure I do agree. Granted, north of Greenland where the ice is locked in by land masses, there appears to be little scope for any large variance in 15-29% SIE because it’s virtually all thick pack ice right up to the shorelines. But 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.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 4:36 pm

        Jaime, I’ve replied to your comment below because the comment space is getting too narrow.

  36. February 21, 2016 9:49 pm

    Neven, nice analysis. Of course, there is third possibility: both of DMI’s graphs could be mistaken–one overestimating and one underestimating. I say this because MASIE is showing an average year so far (Please don’t go off on MASIE; LM was exhausting enough on that topic.) Could there be something rotten in Denmark?

    • NevenA permalink
      February 21, 2016 10:25 pm

      There is indeed a third possibility, but the new graph is in line with all other consistently produced passive microwave data products. It can’t be compared to an operational analysis product like MASIE because any long-term average may be biased due to changes in methods and/or analysts (nothing wrong with that, as its intedned use has nothing to do with long-term comparison, it’s the most accurate source for day-to-day changes and navigational purposes).

      I don’t see why there would be something rotten in Denmark, if the graph is produced consistently with the way it was produced in previous years.

      But thanks for agreeing with me that the old graph is incorrect.

      • February 22, 2016 2:04 am

        Thanks for agreeing with me and Walt Meier that both MASIE and microwave estimates are useful in climatology. Let’s leave it there.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 5:21 am

        Neven, of course the new DMI graph is in line with the other sea-ice indexes since it measures 15 % coverage as do the others. Pathetic argument.

        I do agree that there would be nothing rotten in Denmark if DMI continued to do their work as they had in previous years, but they didn´t, did they? Another pathetic argument.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 7:46 am

        Neven, of course the new DMI graph is in line with the other sea-ice indexes since it measures 15 % coverage as do the others. Pathetic argument.

        As I’ve explained, the difference between the 15% and 30% thresholds cannot account for the large discrepancy. The most logical thing to expect would be for the SIE-30% graph to show something akin to other SIE graphs. But it’s way, way out there, and there simply is zero data (radar, true color satellite images) that points in this direction.

        I do agree that there would be nothing rotten in Denmark if DMI continued to do their work as they had in previous years, but they didn´t, did they?

        Nothing indicates that they didn’t do their job. They announced many months ago that the old graph would be replaced by the new graph and eventually discontinued.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 7:54 am

        Neven, I am done with your tired arguments and unwillingness to consider any other arguments. Enjoy you belief in the AGW-dogma.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 8:15 am

        You have ZERO arguments for how the old DMI 30% SIE graph could be correct, which means that so far you have given me nothing to consider.

        For some strange reason you can’t handle the idea that the graph is incorrect. Why this is, only you know.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 8:41 am

        I have presented a dozen of arguments but you never comment them as is usual for people with confirmation bias. You try to force everyone to discuss with you premises. I for one have grown tired of your attitude. Enough is enough.

  37. Pethefin permalink
    February 22, 2016 7:51 am

    The DMI’s scientific problem in discontinuation of the 30 % coverage are following:

    – no scientific reason was ever given for the discontinuation at the very moment when the index was showing unexpected results,
    – no explanation was given for why the removed the index for the beginning of 2016 entirely at the very moment when the index had reached/tied the 10-year-high, a month earlier than the previous record,
    – no explanation was given for why they reinterpreted the data so that the remarkable rise since fall 2015 disappeared:
    – was the measurement method suddenly “wrong”? If yes, what adjustments were made and why and when were they made? Why was the method considered to be “wrong”? Does such a reconsideration of their methodology have an effect on their other products? If no, why not?
    – was the measurement equipment suddenly malfunctioning?
    – why no scientific explanation was given for any of this?

    with all the skullduggery within climate science, from “get rid of the MWP”, “we’ll redefine peer review if we have to”, “fire the editors for the letting non-AGW-conforming papers be published”, “Mike’s trick” etc, etc., all this leaves a very bad smell allover the DMI. Climate-science-as-usual though.

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 22, 2016 8:57 am

      Notice how Neven The Gullible avoids answering or commenting any of these questions.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:39 pm

        Neven has been all over the place since the questions above were posted but still avoids the crux of the matter. Unsurprisingly.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:58 pm

        I did reply to these ‘questions’, but the comment didn’t show up. The questions could be relevant if the DMI had suddenly removed a graph, out of the blue. However, the old graph was replaced months ago, accompanied by the announcement that the old graph would be discontinued at some point.

        The main question here is: Is the old graph correct or not? If it is incorrect, the reason for that is not that interesting, I believe.

        Imagine everyone demanding an explanation for every glitch on every sea ice graph out there, even after it has been corrected. That would be quite silly.

        Now, imagine people demanding an explanation for glitches on a discontinued, replaced graph, as announced many months earlier.😀

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:00 pm

        Oh man, “dog ate my homework” just don’t cut it.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:27 pm

        Which is why I’ve written a second comment, explaining why your questions are irrelevant to the matter at hand, and not so interesting in themselves either.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 23, 2016 3:37 pm

        Neven, as evasive as always.

  38. NevenA permalink
    February 22, 2016 8:12 am

    Did you ask them for an explanation? Or did you just go from one assumption to the next? Might it perhaps be possible that the graph is simply in error (and grossly at that) and that no one really cares or wants to invest resources in why that is because it was already replaced by the new graph many, many months ago and then discontinued, as announced?

    Is such a simple explanation simply not possible? Who is the sceptic here?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 22, 2016 8:39 am

      You are quite gullible, you never even questioned the DMI decision but accepted it without any questions. And you call yourself a skeptic?

      Of course the graph could be in error, we simply don’t know. Only a person with a confirmation bias has difficulty to accept such uncertainty.

      I have not asked DMI for explanation, since I have no skin in the game. Have you?

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:24 am

        I’m not interested in why the DMI replaced their 30% SIE graph with a 15% SIE graph, because a switch from 30% to 15% isn’t all that exciting. Perhaps it is for someone who doesn’t understand the difference, but it isn’t for me.

        And it’s not like they did it all of a sudden. The graph was replaced months ago, with the announcement that the old graph would be discontinued at some point.

        I’m also not interested in why the graph was in error. What’s interesting about that? Why would I want DMI people who have lots of different stuff to do, to spend time and money on something that bears no relevance to anything, except to some guy who thinks it’s a all big conspiracy?

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:27 am

        “Perhaps it is for someone who doesn’t understand the difference,”

        YES it most certainly IS YOU !!!

        You proved that up above.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 9:31 am

        Hint: the 30% graph tops out at 11 mil km2

        The 15% graph at 15 mil km2

        That’s at least 4 mil KM2 difference

        Do you REALLY think there can’t be an error of up to 1-2 mil km2 in the spurious 15% coastal sea ice.

        You have NOTHING except your ignorance to back up your story !!

        Go back to kindy… fool !!

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 10:22 am

        Again, SIE is higher on the SIE-15% graph because grid cells with sea ice concentrations between 15% and 29% get counted for SIE-15% but not for SIE-30%. There’s nothing mysterious there, and ‘spurious coastal sea ice’ doesn’t play a role, because coastal sea ice can’t cover as much of an area as you seem to think it can. And besides, it’s winter and sea ice concentration near coasts is 90-100% almost everywhere, which means it gets counted for both thresholds.

        It does not for one second possibly explain why SIE-30% goes up, while SIE-15% stays stable or goes down. You have ZERO arguments to explain that.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:33 pm

        Neven, you are the only one talking of conspiracy which BTW has become somewhat of a standard defense for alarmists when their dogma is being questioned. Another sign of a belief-system, rather than an academic/scientific approach.

  39. NevenA permalink
    February 22, 2016 9:29 am

    I have presented a dozen of arguments but you never comment them as is usual for people with confirmation bias.

    You’ve posted a lot of things, a lot of which wasn’t relevant to the subject of Paul’s blog post.

    Could you, please, not for me, but to convince other readers, one more time present your arguments below as to how the old DMI 30% graph could be correct?

    For clarity, I will repeat my 5 arguments why it’s highly probable that the old DMI SIE-30% graph 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.

    Could you, please, one more time present your arguments below as to how the old DMI 30% graph could be correct?

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 22, 2016 9:51 am

      “The graph looks weird. There are two black trend lines, and a horizontal black line”

      FFS, they were going to dump it, probably because of outside pressure.

      They just didn’t update the code for the lines.

      You seriously have NO IDEA how these things are done, do you !!!!

      Sorry, but you keep outing yourself as not being very knowledgeable.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 22, 2016 9:52 am

      But do keep telling yourself that it was incorrect, if it helps your story !! 😉

      You have nothing but erroneous supposition to back you up.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 10:17 am

        My arguments may be wrong, but they make sense, and I have several. You, however, have ZERO arguments as to how the old DMI SIE-30% graph could be correct.

        Or are these your arguments:

        they were going to dump it, probably because of outside pressure.

        They just didn’t update the code for the lines.

        Talking about erroneous suppositions!

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 22, 2016 10:31 am

        yawn. provide proof its incorrect or STFU !!

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:09 pm

        I can’t provide proof, but I can provide convincing arguments. You can’t do either because you don’t have a leg to stand on. Come on, explain how that old graph could be depicting reality. You can’t.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:34 pm

        AndyG55 managed to change the subject, but in the meantime Pethefin still hasn’t copypasted his ‘dozen of arguments’ for the sake of other readers, to convince them that the old DMI 30% graph could actually be correct.

        I have read through all his comments again, and the only thing that comes close to an argument is the one that involves a dark and secret conspiracy:


        DMI’s logic: 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.

        (…)

        the 30 % ice-coverage was going up before the DMI found it necessary to adjust it for the fall 2015 and ditch the rest

        (…)

        So no, I do not agree with you since there is no scientific way to figure it out since the DMI got rid of the inconvenient data, and science for that matter, no explanations provided

        Pethefin basically says the old graph could be correct, and probably is, because why otherwise would DMI remove it? That’s the argument, not a ‘dozen of arguments’. He can’t come up with a hypothetical situation wherein SIE-30% goes up radically whereas SIE-15% stays level, he can’t point to other graphs showing that this year is massively out of step with other years (it’s about to break the lowest maximum record if anything), he can’t point to satellite or radar images showing where all the ice is that somehow isn’t showing up on the SIE-15% graphs. He has nothing, no evidence whatsoever that reinforces the position that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is correctly depicting reality.

        All he has, is ‘they removed the graph because it didn’t match their pet theory, and therefore it must have been correct’. All he has, is a conspiracy theory, while at the same time pontificating about how science should be done.

        Pethefin might have had a point if it was regular graph that suddenly disappeared, but it was announced months ago that it would be discontinued (ie no longer corrected) and then removed!

        Ergo, Pethefin has ZERO arguments. Together with AndyG55 he has also ZERO arguments. And Paul seems to agree that they are right.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:25 am

        “but I can provide convincing arguments”

        Still waiting. NOTHING so far.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:27 am

        ” Together with AndyG55 he has also ZERO arguments. And Paul seems to agree that they are right”

        And you have ZERO arguments, just baseless supposition.

        Proof or waffle….. so far just waffle.

        Arctic sea ice is anomalously HIGH..

        GET OVER IT !!!

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:28 am

        “I can’t provide proof,”

        YES.. thanks for the admission..

        Now crawl back into your crevasse.

  40. NevenA permalink
    February 22, 2016 10:25 am

    I’d be interested to hear what Paul thinks of all this.

    Paul, do you find my arguments as to why the old DMI SIE-30% graph is highly likely incorrect, convincing? Or are you more drawn towards Pethefin and AndyG55’s ZERO arguments as to why it is likely to be correct?

    If you would have to bet, what would you bet on? Correct or incorrect?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 22, 2016 11:51 am

      I and others have put forwards lots of argument so the only thing equaling ZERO is your willingness to engage is discussion. Typical alarmist hand-waving and denial to accept other views. Do you really think your childish argumentation (repeating your tired arguments time and a time again) convinces skeptical people, go waste the time and space somewhere else since you are incapable or unwilling to engage in an intelligent discussion.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:38 pm

        For Neven who seems to have reading disabilities, there are lot’s of arguments under this comment for why there are many other explanations, most of which we still have too little knowledge:
        https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/dmis-missing-graph/#comment-64415

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:47 pm

        That is one argument, and it’s not even yours, but from someone who is actually using his brain and making a useful contribution to the discussion. Kudos to Jaime for coming up with a hypothetical situation in which SIE-30% could go up drastically, whereas SIE-15% stays level. In other words, it’s an argument to show that both graphs can be correct.

        I have responded to Jaime here, and have even posted a link to an illustration I have made to visualize his hypothetical situation. However, the hypothetical situation cannot be applied IMO to the current situation in the Arctic, and I have posted two arguments for that (a comparison with other years wrt sea ice concentration distribution and another compactness measure).

        I will have to wait and see whether Jaime agrees with me, but I believe I have sufficiently shown that both graphs can’t be correct. One of them is wrong. I have posted my 5-6 arguments as to why it is highly likely that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is wrong.

        You have posted ZERO arguments for why the graph might be correct, only a conspiracy theory.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:53 pm

        At last an honest attempt Neven, congratulations, although you are still having reading problems.

        We might actually now have something genuine to talk about, now take a look at this:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/stats_mean.uk.php
        I have not yet had time to analyze it my self but it seems highly relevant for this discussion

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:55 pm

        BTW, you seem to have an obsession about one of the graphs being “wrong”, you should try to figure out why you are obsessed about it. From my experience, alarmists are often people who have difficulty coping with uncertainties.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:13 pm

        We might actually now have something genuine to talk about, now take a look at this:
        http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/stats_mean.uk.php
        I have not yet had time to analyze it my self but it seems highly relevant for this discussion

        I don’t see how this is relevant to the discussion, but I’m willing to be enlightened, so please explain.


        BTW, you seem to have an obsession about one of the graphs being “wrong”, you should try to figure out why you are obsessed about it.

        I have known about this graph being unrealistic for a few months now. I couldn’t care less, as it was announced that it was replaced and would be removed at some point. Besides, there is so much other information wrt Arctic sea ice out there. I don’t base myself on just one source when analysing conditions in the Arctic.

        What I do obsess about, is people who maintain that Arctic sea ice is recovering or some such, by putting up graphs that are highly likely incorrect (as in this instance), or by pointing to global sea ice (which broke both minimum extent and area records, BTW), or by playing statistical games. Etc.

        If I’m annoyed enough and have the time, I will enter the fray and provide evidence as to why I think the proposition is wrong. In this case, my hope is that DMI confirms that the old DMI SIE-30% has been incorrect for a while. Or that they put it back, so we can all see how weird it gets.😉

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:19 pm

        Just as I had thought that you were capable and interested in an academic discussion, there you go again. Over and out.

    • February 22, 2016 11:51 am

      My position is absolutely clear.

      An inconvenient graph has been disappeared. If it is wrong, it is up to DMI to publish exactly why, and show how they arrive at what the “correct” figure should be.

      This should be how proper science works.

      Remember that DMI have been updating that graph daily throughout last year, and up to a couple of weeks ago. It seems a long time for them to do that if it was so obviously wrong.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 12:07 pm

        But what do you think personally? What would you bet on? The graph being correct or incorrect? If the graph is incorrect, then why would it be inconvenient? Because some people might run off with it and present it as proof of a conspiracy?

        The graph was obviously updated automatically, but no longer corrected at some point, after it was replaced with the newer graph. It was announced many months in advance that at some point the graph would disappear. You’re making a mountain out of a molehill (and it’s not even a molehill).

        PS I posted a comment containing a few links as a reply to Jaime further upthread, but it’s in moderation. Could you please release it?

  41. NevenA permalink
    February 22, 2016 12:38 pm

    If it is wrong, it is up to DMI to publish exactly why, and show how they arrive at what the “correct” figure should be.

    This should be how proper science works.

    Paul, have you asked them about this? You should go and ask them straight out: Has that old DMI SIE-30% graph been working correctly? If not, what were the reasons for it not to work correctly?

    You and AndyG55 and Pethefin and Tony Heller are the only persons in the world who think that this is anything other than what it is. You should go and ask the DMI about it, and then post their answer here. Especially, as all of you seem unable to come up with valid arguments as to why that graph might be correct (I have posted several with extensive explanations). Only the DMI can help you out with this.

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 22, 2016 12:43 pm

      Oh man, how old are you Neven?

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:00 pm

        Come on, don’t lose the discussion by getting personal. Post your arguments showing that the old DMI SIE-30% could actually be correct, or ask the DMI for help (and don’t tell them that you have accused them of fraud and deception).

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:12 pm

        Unbelievable, I have never said that the DMI 30 is or was correct. What I have said several times is that we simply do not know. Please, don’t resort to lying, I have not said the DMI is engaged in fraud or deception.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 1:25 pm

        Unbelievable, I have never said that the DMI 30 is or was correct. What I have said several times is that we simply do not know.

        But we can guess, right? We can try to come up with arguments for both positions ‘graph correct’ and ‘graph not correct’. And if there are a handful of arguments for ‘graph not correct’ and ZERO arguments for ‘graph correct’, we can assume that ‘graph not correct’ is the most likely explanation. If we would have written this blog post, we could add this information ‘graph most probably not correct, until further notice’ to the blog post, and then ask the DMI about it.

        Mind you, I haven’t said that the old DMI SIE-30% graph is 100% incorrect, but it’s highly, highly likely, as there are no arguments for it being correct. Which you and AndyG55 have amply demonstrated.

        As for fraud and deception, you’ve said this so far:


        Compare that with what they show now and you will be able to see some serious “reinterpretation” going on in terms of the fall 2015

        (…)

        DMI’s logic: 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.

        (…)

        the DMI found it necessary to adjust it for the fall 2015 and ditch the rest, while the 15 % index was going down. What a tangled web you weave…
        The truth is we don’t know why, and we never will as long as scientist are bound by conformity to a dogma/theory and are willing to ditch the data instead of questioning their theories. What an utter disgrace in terms of philosophy of science.
        (…)

        DMI chose the non-scientific alternative and discontinued the option that disagreed with the pet theory of AGW-movement

        (…)

        I do agree that there would be nothing rotten in Denmark if DMI continued to do their work as they had in previous years, but they didn´t, did they?

        (…)

        with all the skullduggery within climate science, from “get rid of the MWP”, “we’ll redefine peer review if we have to”, “fire the editors for the letting non-AGW-conforming papers be published”, “Mike’s trick” etc, etc., all this leaves a very bad smell allover the DMI.

        That to me reads as accusations of fraud and deception. If you don’t think that, then don’t talk like that.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:13 am

        Sorry Neven, I do not believe in “trigger words” and “safe spaces”, they make people underperform intellectually. Devote alarmists never take criticism lightly because it threatens their confirmation bias, too bad for them.

  42. Pethefin permalink
    February 22, 2016 1:59 pm

    Interesting enough, the DMI has been working with 30 % ice coverage products for a long time:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/extent.uk.php
    Are they going to discontinue this too?

  43. NevenA permalink
    February 22, 2016 4:33 pm

    Jaime wrote:


    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.

    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!


    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.

    Everything is possible technically, but what are the odds? 0.00001%?

    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.

    I know. 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.

    Can you agree with that?

    • NevenA permalink
      February 22, 2016 4:40 pm

      I’m sorry, the last DMI SIE-30% graph that was posted by Pethefin didn’t show up. It was in this comment. Another try, without the img tags:

      And the visualisation I made for your hypothetical situation:

      • February 22, 2016 5:38 pm

        Neven,

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

        I was talking about the concentration maps, not the graphs.

        I think we’re agreed that there should be approximately 1million sqkm less ice in the 15-29% zone this year – SIE which has ‘gone over’ to >30%.

        However, rather crucially, you neglect to mention that >15% sea ice extent last year was approximately 15 million sqkm (not much changed this year). In 2015, there was approximately 10 million sq km >30% SIE – increased to 11 million in 2016. So in effect, whereas in 2015, there was a total of 5 million sq km in the 15-29% zone, there is now only 4 million this year – a decline of 20% compared to last year. I’m sorry, I cannot eyeball those maps and say for sure either way whether the total of the blue green zone in 2016 is, or is not, 20% down on what it was in 2015. I seriously doubt whether you can either.

        Therefore the idea that SIE>30% may have grown by 1msqkm at the same time as the SIE>15% stayed more or less constant, is not disproved, despite your best efforts.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 6:42 pm

        I’m sorry, I cannot eyeball those maps and say for sure either way whether the total of the blue green zone in 2016 is, or is not, 20% down on what it was in 2015. I seriously doubt whether you can either.

        Seriously? You can’t find 1 million of green/blue SIC ice on a 1517×2321 pixel map? And therefore still think that it is likely that the old, discontinued, uncorrected DMI SIE-30% graph is correct?😐

        I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree then.

      • February 22, 2016 6:47 pm

        Might be worth keeping an eye on comments at WUWT, Neven.

        We might get some fresh ideas there.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 22, 2016 6:56 pm

        Yes, too bad I can’t post there. But the first comment is good already:

        In reality it looks like we hit maximum ice coverage a few weeks early and abnormally low. It’s going to be a difficult one to explain away.

        Not a lot of people know that.

    • NevenA permalink
      February 22, 2016 6:55 pm

      I’ve decided to refer to it also in a blog post on the Arctic Sea Ice Blog, Paul. There is still time to add a few caveats to your blog post, for instance that the old DMI graph is highly likely incorrect, and that the DMI has been asked to confirm and possible explain what went wrong with the uncorrected graph in the end.

      Or you could just wait and have as many people as possible get the wrong impression and think that there’s some conspiracy going on. It’s up to you.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:23 am

        “for instance that the old DMI graph is highly likely incorrect”

        That is purely a suppository on your behalf.. but I’m guessing you are used to them.

  44. February 22, 2016 6:00 pm

    Pethefin,

    Re. your http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/stats_mean.uk.php link.

    Thanks, that is very interesting. It shows a noticeable and large decline in the 15-30% concentration zone along the North Atlantic ice fringe during Dec-Mar, when comparing the 1978-2014 multi-year mean with the 2004-14 multi year mean. Effectively, in the 21st century, the 15-30% sea ice concentration zone has shrunk markedly compared to earlier years. Notice how the large lobe of dark blue east of Greenland simply disappears.

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 23, 2016 6:47 am

      Jaime, yes as I pointed out here:
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/dmis-missing-graph/#comment-64572
      that area might have been affected by e.g. the rather recently discovered volcanic activity in the area just 20 meters below surface.

      • Green Sand permalink
        February 23, 2016 3:19 pm

        Pethefin

        Question re the masking out of coastal zones do the coastal zones change during the seasons?

        Looking at this from our Russian friends:-

        The majority of the Russian ‘coastal zone’ is fast ice? Is that masked out? If so what effect would that have on the 30% number?

        Don’t have any answers, just puzzled. Have you come across an explanation of where and how the masking out is done.

        Sorry if you have been through this before and I have missed it.

        TIA for any info/thoughts

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 24, 2016 10:47 am

        Greed Sand, no idea since the DMI has no map illustrating the masking but I assume it covers all costal areas. The DMI is not exactly informative about their methodological choices. Thanks for the link!

  45. angech permalink
    February 22, 2016 11:22 pm

    NevenA permalink February 19, 2016 5:07 pm
    ” DMI has never stated that there is any problem with the 30% version, or reason to doubt it.
    But there is obviously a big problem* with it ever since DMI switched to the new version months ago,”
    They switched over 2 years ago.

    NevenA permalink February 22, 2016 9:24 am
    “I’m not interested in why the DMI replaced their 30% SIE graph with a 15% SIE graph, because a switch from 30% to 15% isn’t all that exciting.”
    Not interested?
    NevenA · 15 Days Ago
    “Angech, here is the link to the old graph, but you don’t want to use it because there is clearly something seriously wrong with it, just look at those black trend lines (which is why DMI replaced it, and removed the link, just like they told me a month ago after I asked them about it)”

    NevenA February 22, 2016 1:00 pm
    “Come on, don’t lose the discussion by getting personal. Post your arguments showing that the old DMI SIE-30% could actually be correct, or ask the DMI for help”
    Like Neven did??
    “As for the old DMI 30% SIE chart: I’ve asked DMI why it was so different from their newer chart. They said they didn’t know,”
    and
    NevenA permalink February 22, 2016 12:38 pm
    “You and AndyG55 and Pethefin and Tony Heller are the only persons in the world who think that this is anything other than what it is. You should go and ask the DMI about it, and then post their answer here”
    and
    NevenA permalink February 20, 2016 10:24 am
    “I take it that you have asked DMI about it again? Maybe I’ll shoot off a mail later today as well.”

    Paul Homewood permalink* February 22, 2016 6:47 pm
    Might be worth keeping an eye on comments at WUWT, Neven.
    NevenA permalink February 22, 2016 6:56 pm
    “Yes, too bad I can’t post there. ”
    Why ever not?
    just drop the conspiracy themes and post his update.
    Easy
    WUWT February 22, 2016 at 11:21 am
    “[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]”

    NevenA permalink February 19, 2016 8:41 pm
    ” How can a difference between a 15% and 30% threshold cause such large disparities?”
    Depends on data interpretation.
    from Ron Clutz blog
    ” Differences between the NIC ice chart sea ice record and the passive microwave sea ice record are highly significant.. .In summer, the difference between the two sources of data rises to a maximum of 23% peaking in early August, equivalent to ice coverage the size of Greenland.”

    NevenA permalink February 22, 2016 8:07 am
    “Can you come up with a hypothetical situation in which SIE-30% goes up and SIE-15% goes down?”
    How about a real situation.
    The answer is the SIE for 15% and 30% are worked out in different algorithms, fact.
    Hence the 30% uses the same figures to give different metrics.
    The 30% agrees more with direct observation, MASIE.
    The 15% graphs all agree with each other because they use the same data and assumptions but do not agree with reality.

    • NevenA permalink
      February 23, 2016 3:26 pm

      The answer is the SIE for 15% and 30% are worked out in different algorithms, fact.

      Oh dear, you were doing so great and then you go and spoil by saying something so infinitely stupid. I actually tried to tell you on WUWT, but Watts would no longer let my comments through. Now go to the NSIDC and read up on what these thresholds mean, because you’re simply not getting it and assume that a higher percentage must mean better.

      But you were right that the new DMI graph had been introduced quite a while ago (I had forgotten when exactly). The old and new graph coexisted happily and every time the old graph went off the rails, it was corrected. Here’s a good example of alarmists going nuts over an obvious processing glitch, thinking that it was real because their confirmation bias so much wanted it to be real (and you think I’m an alarmist😉 ).

      What we’ve seen here in the past week was the exact same, but in the opposite direction.

      Now again, go read up on what those thresholds actually mean, angech. I’m serious.

  46. NevenA permalink
    February 23, 2016 4:50 am

    Dr. Walt Meier has briefly weighed in on the matter:

    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. I don’t know specifically why the 30% plot went awry, but 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.

    On my blog someone had a look at the raw data, conclusion:


    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.

    Any confirmation yet from the DMI that the old, discontinued, uncorrected SIE-30% was in fact incorrectly displaying the data and that there’s no conspiracy?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 23, 2016 8:03 am

      Neven still obsessing about one of the DMI graphs being “wrong” and conspiracies. Yawn.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 23, 2016 8:18 am

        A graph that was almost certainly CORRECT, but removed avoid “inconvenience” for the guys at DMI.

    • AndyG55 permalink
      February 23, 2016 8:21 am

      Nope,… absolutely NO CONFORMATION it was INCORRECT….

  47. Pethefin permalink
    February 23, 2016 8:56 am

    The gift that keeps giving:
    Three more DMI graphs where 30 % concentration is being used:
    http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_mean.uk.php

    Under “Break-up date”
    they say that “The break-up date for a given point is defined as the date where the sea ice concentration falls from above to below 30% and remains so for at least 5 days”.

    Interesting, considering the decision to follow 15 % ice coverage instead of 30 % in the future. So from now on the DMI want’s us to follow, in their own words, broken-up sea ice, instead of the perennial sea-ice.

    Under “Freeze-up date” they say:
    Which explains that “The freeze-up date for a given point is defined as the date where the sea ice concentration climbs from below to above 30% and remains so for at least 5 days”.

    And under “Days of open water” they say:
    “The number of days of open waters for a given point is defined as the interval between the sea ice concentration falling from greater than 30% to less than, and remaining so for at least 5 days, until the ice concentration again climbs to above 30%, and stays so for at least 5 days”

    So the DMI 15 % sea-ice coverage is measuring open water as sea ice?🙂

    I really have to stop since this is getting all too weird, isn’t it Neven?

    • Pethefin permalink
      February 23, 2016 11:17 am

      And yet more tidying up for the DMI, two more sets of charts with similar definitions:
      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_trend.uk.php
      http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/climatology_v2/frzbrkowd_std.uk.php

    • NevenA permalink
      February 23, 2016 5:02 pm

      Nothing weird whatsoever, Pethefin. You’re just seeing things that aren’t there because you’re so focused on finding something. Sorry for being blunt.

      I’d be happy to explain where you’re going wrong in your interpretation wrt break-up date and days of open water, if you’re interested (although I don’t have inexhaustible amounts of time at my disposal).

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 23, 2016 5:15 pm

        You seriously claim that there is nothing weird in saying on the one hand that sea ice coverage under 30 % is to be considered open water and on the hand saying that we should follow 15 % coverage as a meaningful measure of sea-ice. Really?

      • NevenA permalink
        February 23, 2016 11:12 pm

        Look, you’re mixing things.

        Depending on what you want to do, you apply a certain methodology and then you stick to that, so that after a while you might be able to draw certain conclusions.

        For instance, you want to know how many days of open water there are at a certain location. You set up the rule that as soon as in a given spot “the sea ice concentration falling from greater than 30% to less than, and remaining so for at least 5 days, until the ice concentration again climbs to above 30%, and stays so for at least 5 days”. And then you stick to that rule.

        If you want to measure sea ice extent, you may have different rules. You may go for a threshold of 15% for a given grid cell, and count it as 100% ice-covered if the SIC is 15% or more. And then you stick to that rule, so that you get a consistent long-term data set to work with.

        These are two different things. It doesn’t to make sense to say: Ha, here they say the rule is this, and there they say the rule is that! It’s different rules for different things you might want to do. You can discuss whether there are better rules, etc, but there’s nothing weird about it.

        Three more DMI graphs where 30 % concentration is being used:

        WAS being used. Have you noticed the data stops at 2014? The 30% stuff is discontinued. NZ Willy on WUWT explains:

        What changed is that DMI signed onto OSISAF (which is linked on the center of the DMI page) a few years ago which is a European consortium to process satellite & other data. Now DMI doesn’t have to do its own work anymore, they can use OSISAF’s. Mind you, OSISAF has taken on board much of the Danish expertise (as well as a heavily Norwegian contingent) but not the 30% concentration — they’ve standardized on 15% like everyone else. I quite liked the DMI 30% chart, thought it the most reliable one (except when they visibly ran off the rails periodically), but they did seem to lose their bearings in the last 3 months

        I don’t know if this is the reason for switching from 30% to 15%, but thought you might be interested.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 23, 2016 11:24 pm

        Sorry, I see now that you read NZ Willy’s comment.

        Seaice1 gave the same explanation to you as I just did, BTW. What a coincidence.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 24, 2016 5:35 am

        Not a big surprise Neven, that neither you are interested in the only big question, the why? Of course you CAN measure what ever you want and even be quite good at it, but WHY should you measure something is the relevant scientific question, that is if you are interest in a scientific understanding of a phenomena. Switching from one’s prior scientifically motivated measurement metric (e.g. the 30 % coverage in 5 – now 4 – of DMI’s sea ice products) just because it’s easier to do something (which is the explanation by you, seaice1 and ZX Willy, without any proof BTW) is just intellectually and academically, not to mention scientifically lazy. We are not getting anywhere with this so enough.

      • NevenA permalink
        February 24, 2016 8:38 am

        Not a big surprise Neven, that neither you are interested in the only big question, the why?

        Like I’ve said before, I don’t think the exact reason for switching from 30% to 15% isn’t all that exciting, because a threshold is a threshold, and the difference between the two isn’t that big. A switch to higher resolution (different sensor) or to another algorithm has much more of a potential impact.

        I still hope the DMI will come up with a statement to confirm the old graph was incorrect (because there seem to be people who still think it somehow depicted reality), why it was incorrect and why they’ve switched.

        As for you, I think it’s good that you’re so inquisitive and don’t take things for granted, but this inquisitiveness needs to be matched by a growing level of knowledge understanding, and this requires thought and research. In the end it saves you (and others) a lot of time.

      • Pethefin permalink
        February 24, 2016 10:32 am

        Finally we agree on something, the DMI could have saved and save a lot of effort for many if they simply would explain their methodological choices, which in science are everything. Funny, that you should mention growing level of knowledge in the manner that you did, oh well.

      • AndyG55 permalink
        February 24, 2016 10:49 am

        “Funny, that you should mention growing level of knowledge in the manner that you did, oh well.”

        Hey, he is working on it.. small steps, small step !!

  48. February 24, 2016 8:42 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  49. NevenA permalink
    February 25, 2016 6:51 pm

    Paul, you can’t just change a blog post’s title without notification. Is this because you now too realize that the graph was incorrect (for all the reasons I gave repeatedly) and the title smacked too much of fraud, deception and conspiracy? DMI disappears inconvenient graph, remember?

    Anyway, is everyone here now convinced that the old DMI graph was incorrect and didn’t depict reality? Or do you still think it was a conspiracy because the highly superior 30% graph (30% is more than 15%, so it must be better) was accidentally showing the truth?

  50. NevenA permalink
    February 25, 2016 9:25 pm

    No, Eliza, the old DMI SIE-30% wasn’t correct. It really wasn’t. If you go to your link and click the regional graphs for the Barentsz Sea, the Greenland Sea and Bering Sea, you’ll see that Arctic sea ice cover is very low right now, not even close to what the old DMI SIE-30% graph was showing.

    Arctic sea ice area is currently 1.5 million km2 below the 1979-2008 mean:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: