Arctic sea ice ... declining?

[Questioning_Climate]

I have finally managed to revisit my study of Arctic sea ice extent and added some of the things that should have been there first time around. The data sources have not been updated since I wrote it originally.

It now contains calculations of difference between the satellites. Whilst the trend is a little on the high side, probably due to the apparent more rapid decline in the overlapping time frame, it does suggest that all the apparent ice extent decline might be accounted for by measurement drift in SSM/I.

http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Cl...ing_v2.pdf

[Derek]

This really is one of the best pieces of work out there, Questioning_Climate.
Brilliant, clear, seemingly undeniable, and simply understood.

Are any of the other blogs interested in it as a guest post, have you tried WUWT, Jo Nova, etc, etc ?

May I make one suggestion, is it possible to plot the amount of instrument drift over time,
to produce a sort of three stage "Hockey Stick".
That might help as it would also visualise what the piece conveys in words.
An ever increasing "warming / alarmist correction factor" of instrument drift (whether it be accidental or otherwise), so to speak.

[Questioning_Climate]

Derek, I'm glad you like it.

Good point. The difference trend in the final graph is essentially the drift with time, although calculated backwards in time.

It could be referred to the start on the era, which in some ways would be better, but not so good in that it was calculated from the last part, in the period of overlap and therefore rooted there.

I will try to get some exposure on the blogs probably tomorrow evening.

[Derek]

I look forward to hearing what response you get.

It is the plots on pages 6, 7, and 22 that I'm thinking would visualise the papers point best if they could be "inverted".
Is it an Ice Hockey Stick...Obviously.

The other thing that occurs to me is that were there not reports of ice free passages late in the second world war. ?
The plots do not seem to show any possibility of this.
Is what is plotted (Climatic and observational), presumably processed averages, checkable against the original raw data,
or is this getting too near to another "gate", FOI denied request situation. ?

[Questioning_Climate]

I think this is a case of inverted hockey sticks ... 'enhance the decline'. I know what you mean but inverting would be criticised.

You are correct that there were apparently relatively ice-free summers in certain periods. The data does not show it, but that could be due to the fact these are mean values and that the reality is they are not direct measurements.

Maybe a hockey stick algorithm was used to flatten that period?

In the end, it is the difference in the trends before and during the satellite era that is important. I would suggest that there is some serious problems with the science of that record.

[Richard111]

Nice one Q_C. Lot of work there. The "inverted hockey stick" got my attention too.

As a new comer to all this science, I stopped worrying about Arctic ice melt when I learned that the average Arctic summertime air temperature is about +3C (just for three months of the year!). My reasoning is air carries about 1,000 joules of energy per degree C per kilogram and ice needs about 4,000 joules per kilogram to change by 1C. If the ice is just a couple of degrees below 0C that mean a LOT of extra energy to melt it. The air would need to get VERY hot to have any effect and the data seems to show it is pretty constant over the last few decades. The only energy source that can melt something in the order of 10,000,000 square kilometers of ice about 2 meters thick every year is the oceans. The next big player seems to be changing air flow patterns, i.e. the wind, which can help break up the ice with increased wave action and then move the ice to areas where the water is a bit warmer.

And then Antarctica is not behaving according to global warming requirements. Ah, well, Nature will do its thing and we will learn and adapt or die.

[Sunsettommy]

(03-01-2010 02:55 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  I have finally managed to revisit my study of Arctic sea ice extent and added some of the things that should have been there first time around. The data sources have not been updated since I wrote it originally.

It now contains calculations of difference between the satellites. Whilst the trend is a little on the high side, probably due to the apparent more rapid decline in the overlapping time frame, it does suggest that all the apparent ice extent decline might be accounted for by measurement drift in SSM/I.

http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Cl...ing_v2.pdf

I have posted your PDF presentation at a CLOSED FORUM,with links back to here and to your own website.

[Questioning_Climate]

Thanks Richard111.

The most important point is that all the apparent decline is probably the result of instrument drift.

The satellite images have been converted to 'movies' of the ice movement (pun intended) showing much of it being washed out of the Arctic when there was large summer loss.

There is trouble with the Antarctic sea ice too. Satellite measurements, even from AMSR-E, have been shown to underestimate the sea ice extent significantly.

(03-06-2010 12:06 PM)Richard111 Wrote:  Nice one Q_C. Lot of work there. The "inverted hockey stick" got my attention too.

As a new comer to all this science, I stopped worrying about Arctic ice melt when I learned that the average Arctic summertime air temperature is about +3C (just for three months of the year!). My reasoning is air carries about 1,000 joules of energy per degree C per kilogram and ice needs about 4,000 joules per kilogram to change by 1C. If the ice is just a couple of degrees below 0C that mean a LOT of extra energy to melt it. The air would need to get VERY hot to have any effect and the data seems to show it is pretty constant over the last few decades. The only energy source that can melt something in the order of 10,000,000 square kilometers of ice about 2 meters thick every year is the oceans. The next big player seems to be changing air flow patterns, i.e. the wind, which can help break up the ice with increased wave action and then move the ice to areas where the water is a bit warmer.

And then Antarctica is not behaving according to global warming requirements. Ah, well, Nature will do its thing and we will learn and adapt or die.

---

Thanks SST.

Hopefully, people will actually understand the significance.

(03-06-2010 12:41 PM)Sunsettommy Wrote:  

(03-01-2010 02:55 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  I have finally managed to revisit my study of Arctic sea ice extent and added some of the things that should have been there first time around. The data sources have not been updated since I wrote it originally.

It now contains calculations of difference between the satellites. Whilst the trend is a little on the high side, probably due to the apparent more rapid decline in the overlapping time frame, it does suggest that all the apparent ice extent decline might be accounted for by measurement drift in SSM/I.

http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Cl...ing_v2.pdf

I have posted your PDF presentation at a CLOSED FORUM,with links back to here and to your own website.

[Derek]

(03-07-2010 01:23 PM)Questioning_Climate Wrote:  The most important point is that all the apparent decline is probably the result of instrument drift.

Is it possible to plot the amount of instrument drift as it increased over time. ?
That was my original intension for the Ice Hockey Stick plot I suggested,
illustrating the main point of the paper I'd hope.

[Questioning_Climate]

Derek, send me a sketch of what you are thinking about and I'll see if there is any way of producing it.

[Derek]

Done, and it is winging it's way merrily to you across the nets ether as I type this.

[ajmplanner]

A good article debunking claims of shrinking Arctic Sea Ice has been posted by Randall Hoven on the American Thinker website. Hoven analyzes the raw data from NOAA and explains how the plotting the data from Arctic Sea Ice "Area" figures and Arctic Sea Ice "Extent" figures result in totally different pictures of the situation in the Arctic. This analysis debunks claims that Arctic Sea Ice will soon disappear and explains how NOAA fudges some of the data ( Surprise!).

It's almost as good as the debunking of the Hockey Stick and equally important if it holds up to further scrutiny. Here's the link to "Was the Arctic Sea Ice 'Adjusted?' "

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/w...juste.html

[Questioning_Climate]

I hate to be a bearer of bad news but unfortunately, I think he has fallen into the same trap as many of us. There appears to be a problem with the ice area data he used and those responsible for it refuse or are unable to correct it.

Basically, there is an unmeasured ‘hole’ that needs to be taken into account and when they swapped from one sensor to the next it changed size. That almost certainly accounts for the large upward step in sea ice area during 1988. I think the following links will explain it:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12...o-webpage/
http://nsidc.org/data/smmr_ssmi_ancillar...xtent.html

The important statement from NSIDC being:

Quote:For SMMR, the hole is 611 km in radius and is located poleward of 84.5 degrees North. For SSM/I, the hole is 311 km in radius and is located poleward of 87.2 degrees North. Note: The difference in pole hole areas between SMMR and SSM/I results in a discontinuity in the Northern Hemisphere ice-covered area time series across the instrument transition.

[Questioning_Climate]

Randall Hoven has updated the American Thinker article and makes an interesting observation regarding the 'pole hole'.

[Derek]

Great article in conjunction with your piece regarding ice extent / area measurements Questioning_Climate.
http://www.trevoole.co.uk/Questioning_Cl...ing_v2.pdf

Excerpt from the American Thinker article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/w...juste.html
" The data allow for cherry-picking. A Katie Couric, if she were cleverer,
could say that the Arctic ice cap shrank almost in half in the last three
decades. On the other hand, I could say it grew 6% in that time period.
We would both be telling the truth by comparing cherry-picked months
and years. "





Being Aquarian, I am far nearer a "March" sort of guy.....

[Richard111]

Svalbard appears to be almost completely iced in.