the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Global Sea Ice Nears Record High

Posted by Jeff Id on May 3, 2009

Global sea ice area is a hot topic these past several years. We regularly hear about polarbears drowning due to ice caps melting, ice shelves breaking off in the Antarctic. We also hear the global warming advocate blogs basically screaming about the end of the world almost universally promoting leftist government policies as the salvation. Unfortunately the mindless public follows along rarely taking time to actually look at the data. Some are suspicious yet have no idea who’s right, others simply accept scientists word. “Trust the experts”, is becoming the standard mantra in blogland on advocate sites, how can we trust if the message from guys like Hansen are so distorted.

For those who’ve been following along, we have been watching the high ice levels in the Arctic and climbing Antarctic ice for some time. This led me to suspect that we were approaching a record high ice level. This is important due to the recently released US EPA report calling CO2 pollution dangerous referencing the obvious signs of warming. The report contained dozens of items presented as fact, unfortunately many of its points were nothing but false anti-science propaganda. This is most disturbing as the propaganda is being used as the excuse to dramatically increase the cost of the very item which powers our global economies – energy.

The point of this is to say that global warming science is biased both politically and scientifically by advocates posing as scientists as well as the expected politicians. Anyway, this very important quote came from the EPA.

image61

In ALL IPCC scenerios of global warming Sea Ice Extent is projected to shrink. In this post, I downloaded the gridded ice data from the NSIDC, and plotted it to see where we are now and look at the historic trend. It was important to this article to start with the least processed data available since there is a lot of unseen detail in how the NSIDC handles ice extent. In this manner I know the land masking is constant and the data from all years is sent through the same algorithms. (at least for the processing I worked on).

Another difference in this article occurs due to the fact that in February 2009 NOAA15 (a new satellite which only started being used for ICE area in 2008) experienced trouble the signal degraded rapidly and the ice instruments were taken off line. For this reason, this post doesn’t use any of the NOAA15 data which resulted in some minor data gaps in the recent years.

The gridded data is available at the NSIDC HERE. The ice are differs from ice extent in that each 25x25km pixel with greater than 10% ice inside is multiplied times 625Km^2 to determine the area of the ice inside the pixel. With extent, each pixel above a threshold ice level is counted as 625Km^2. I believe this will give a better estimate for ice volume than the extent estimate since any percentage infill will inherently be higher for thicker ice and variance in extent due to large spread out flows is accounted for.

Let’s see some plots.

The raw area values are shown in Figures 1 and 2.

north-ice-area1

Figure 1

south-ice-area1

Figure 2

You can see both the decreasing Arctic trend and increasing Antarctic trend, no numbers are presented as the endpoints and missing data have a strong effect on the raw area trend. Instead trends need to be calculated on the anomaly data.

north-ice-anomaly

Figure 3

A negative 51,000km ^2/year. Very similar in magnitude to other calculations I’ve done here. It’s interesting to note that in my calculation, current ice area is slightly above the mean for the Arctic. The data I’m using is the same as the NSIDC uses to create their plots. The 2008 and 09 data in this post is preliminary though.

south-ice-anomaly1

Figure 4

global-ice-anomaly3

Figure 5

Global sea ice appears to be decreasing rapidly in Figure 5. However the scale of the graph is important to put it into context. To create Figure 6 I re-added the 30 ice level back in.

global-ice-anomaly-from-average3

Figure 6

Just as a sanity check, I’ve linked to a plot from the Cryosphere sea ice page where a similar shaped trend (red line) is shown. It’s very clear that current global ice levels are well above mean, what’s more is that in April, it also shows we nearly set a record high global sea ice anomaly.

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg

Figure 7 - From Cryosphere

Figure 8 shows a histogram of global ice anomaly on a daily basis. The red line indicates the peak day in April2009 for ice Area anomaly, only a few values have ever been recorded which were higher.

global-sea-ice-histogram2

Figure 8

The red line is greater than 98.6 percent of all daily sea ice measurements. Amazing, I guess we’ll have to keep an eye on this to see if it sets the all time record. In the meantime, we don’t need to worry too much about sea level rising or polar bears drowning. It makes me wonder, exactly what science will do about the descrepencies between data and dogma in the future. One thing’s for sure, the data has to follow the science or something’s gonna give.

Just to be clear, the daily data post 2008 is not fully through NSIDC processing to remove holes in the data and fix discrepancies, this will cause some small adjustment in the numbers when they get around to making the corrections.

89 Responses to “Global Sea Ice Nears Record High”

  1. Ryan O said

    I don’t usually follow the ice extent to closely, but the shape of the curve from 1996-2006 (approx) for the Arctic extent just looks weird. It doesn’t fit with the sudden jump this year.

    Didn’t NSIDC go back to the old satellite earlier this year/late last year? I’m wondering if the 1996-2006 timeframe was due to the new sensor not measuring ice the same way as previous sensors, along with the degradation in its performance that NSIDC found.

    Dunno. Just looks weird.

  2. Jeff Id said

    I agree completely, it’s wierd. There was trouble with NOAA15 satellite which required it to be shut down, I left it out of this analysis.

    The strangeness is the main reason I included the cryosphere filtered data in this post. The shape of the recent years is basically the same.

  3. TCO said

    para one intro: you left out some of the silliness from denialists on this same subject. LEft out some of the good posts, Tammy has done. You should include silliness from all and good stuff from all. If you really want to survey the landscape. Understand dynamics. Be fair. Learn things.

  4. TCO said

    para 2: “For the interested public, we have been watching the high ice levels in the Arctic and climbing Antarctic ice for some time. This led me to suspect that we were approaching a record high ice level. This is important due to the recently released US EPA report calling CO2 pollution dangerous due to the obvious signs of warming. The report contained dozens of items presented as fact, unfortunately many of its points were nothing but false anti-science propaganda. This is most disturbing as the propaganda is being used as the excuse to dramatically increase the cost of the very item which powers our global economies – energy.”

    1. Who’s we, paleface? You part of a conspiracy?

    2. What’s this “for the public” crap? Are you speaking to the public in this post? Or are you saying you all “we” were perfoming a service? Leave it out…it’s fluff and self back patting…and loquacious.

    3. Two due tos (not properly used either) in one sentence are too many.

    4. The connection of subjects seems like a strain as well. I can gree with you on EPA document, energy taxes, etc. But doubt that sea ice, certainly current sea ice is central to the EPA document.

  5. TCO said

    para three:

    First sentence has a general claim, “advocates as scientists, etc.” that is not proven yet in the essay and not even really fully developed later in the essay. It sounds like fluffy mouthbreather, monkey tribe talking bad about opposite monkey tribe to own monkey tribe crap…not expecting a brave monkey who kicks ass on his own monkey side to call him on it. Now SHREEEK monkeys. Come at me with your teeth and fingernails. I will beat you down and throw you from the trees and not even be a bit scared from your little pack tactics!

    You return from the politics/energy segue to discussion of the sea ice claims in the EPA document. Good to be back. Resent the trip in para before and first sentence.

  6. TCO said

    Quote and para 4:

    You have a very small quote from a long EPA document. Hard to put in context. Also you don’t link the EPA document…which you are so free to revile. Nevertheless, even in this little section we can sea you all doing the pea-thimble (McI term that he loves) confusion of overall sea ice versus Arctic sea ice. Tammy has already once taken a ruler to your little peepees for this deception or mistake. How can you be so dumb or dishonest to repeat it. Maybe harsher methods than rulers are needed.

  7. TCO said

    “I downloaded the gridded ice data from the NSIDC, and plotted it to see where we are now and look at the historic trend. It was important to this article to start with the least processed data available since there is a lot of unseen detail in how the NSIDC handles ice extent. In this manner I know the land masking is constant and the data from all years is sent through the same algorithms. (at least for the processing I worked on).”

    Would be important/beneficial if you can assure us that your processing/lack of processing is superior to that of the previous expert performed one. But heck…if this is true…it’s a relevant publishable advance REGARDLESS of the whole rest of the record high versus EPA kerfuffle. What are the odds we will get such a publication, such a running to ground? Buehler? Ferris?

  8. TCO said

    Another difference in this article occurs due to the fact that in February 2009 NOAA15 (a new satellite which only started being used for ICE area in 2008) experienced trouble the signal degraded rapidly and the ice instruments were taken off line. For this reason, this post doesn’t use any of the NOAA15 data which resulted in some minor data gaps in the recent years.”

    Due to the pact that? DUE TO THE FACT THAT? Buy a copy of Strunk and White.

    I hope that your sattelite omission was not done to help your cause. I hope that you show the impact of that decision. I hope that you discuss which other sattleites should/should not be excluded. And if other experts leave this satt in, I hope you explain their points.

  9. Jeff Id said

    #8, The satellite isn’t used by the experts either anymore so for the conclusion of the post it makes no difference. I don’t know where they cut it out so I cut the whole thing.

  10. TCO said

    “The gridded data is available at the NSIDC HERE. The ice are differs from ice extent in that each 25×25km pixel with greater than 10% ice inside is multiplied times 625Km^2 to determine the area of the ice inside the pixel. With extent, each pixel above a threshold ice level is counted as 625Km^2. I believe this will give a better estimate for ice volume than the extent estimate since any percentage infill will inherently be higher for thicker ice and variance in extent due to large spread out flows is accounted for.”

    I beleive in second sentence you mean that the pixel has its percentage ice multiplied.

    Area seems like the better measure intutitively. However, would like a reference to a review article or text that explains the pitfalls of each. While my guess would be that area is better, one could imagine situations where its not (certain types of error patterns). Since, you are all oer this stuff…checking the scientists out…of course you will have read and understood these basic grounding refernces. Right?

  11. TCO said

    Figure 6 is nice. But please…just express the normalized slope. What percent of the ice is going away per decade (or year or century).

    The comment about current ice area versus trend is helpful. But surely trend is what matters. Blathering about a recent high record would be as silly as blathering about ther record low a year or two earlier. The trend’s the thing.

  12. TCO said

    “Just as a sanity check, I’ve linked to a plot from the Cryosphere sea ice page where a similar shaped trend (red line) is shown. It’s very clear that current global ice levels are well above mean, what’s more is that in April, it also shows we nearly set a record high global sea ice anomaly.”

    eh…no…no it’s not clear. That graph is actually rather hard to read with the scale and all. Perhaps if you annotated it with arrows, or called out data values or something…that would make your point.

  13. TCO said

    Figure 8 is beautiful. Kudos.

  14. Ryan O said

    #11 and #13 are mutually exclusive, since Fig. 8 is simply a different way of plotting what you called silly in #11.

  15. TCO said

    “The red line is greater than 98.6 percent of all daily sea ice measurements. Amazing, I guess we’ll have to keep an eye on this to see if it sets the all time record. In the meantime, we don’t need to worry too much about sea level rising or polar bears drowning.”

    1. If you are record watching, the current high level is of interest. (You did not discuss when the global maximum occurs time-wise, but that would let us know when we know it we set record…if there is such a phase based phenomenon…donno.)

    2. Sure, for the trivial point…if sea ice is high right, now, that tells us we are ok now…but statements from EPA and “experts” are for long range trends.

    3. Sea ice level is dependant on land ice melting (and thermal expansion), not on sea ice extent.

    4. The polar bears are impacted by Arctic ice decline, not Antarctic. Note that the trend of decline in the Arctic is larger than the overall sea ice decline.

  16. TCO said

    15-3: sea level…not sea ice level.

  17. TCO said

    “It makes me wonder, exactly what science will do about the descrepencies between data and dogma in the future. One thing’s for sure, the data has to follow the science or something’s gonna give.”

    “Dogma” will get revised. Of course. Note that, the trend’s the thing. Not the record. Need a lot MORE data to break that trend apart and shove dogma up the greenie’s asses. Not just a good year, ‘hopper.

    Thus this conclusion is an overreach given what is in the essay. And more monkey chest beating…talking brave about other tribe in the safe confines of home tribe territory. Get some real knife to the heart peer reviewed publications. Several of them. And then you can start congratulating yourself on how you’ve set back the other side. Don’t be like the Heartland homos patting each other on the butt, when they don’t really have much good work finished.

  18. TCO said

    9. Diffent times of cutting would not create a discrepance of you and experts for time now values…but could have implications for records or trends (past values are a concenr then). also, just the basic idea of cutting a sattelite or not…could have implications on what values we get. Like to have some science paper refernces here ‘hopper.

  19. Jeff Id said

    #18, So many questions you should be asking TCO let me help.

    Why’s the trend the thing?
    Why doesn’t weather just cycle back and forth?
    Why doesn’t it matter that we’re near the max ice level ever recorded?
    Doesn’t it matter that the huge ice loss can be replaced in two years?
    Doesn’t the last point mean the trend argument is questionable?
    If Arctic ice is above mean are the polar bears in danger?

    Think more talk less TCO.

  20. TCO said

    14. No. They’re NOT mutually exclusive. What’s nice about figure 8 is that it explicitly keys the discussion to the record as opposed to the trend. If all we care about is “distincitiveness about time now” then figure 8 is a great chart. On its own. But what 11 brings up is that the earlir discussion in the essay was about EPA “advocate in scientist clothing” claims on TREND. Capisce?

    Disaggregate issues clearly.

    Use the right chart for the right point.

    And be willing to praise what is good (13) and criticize what is bad (11). Rather than criticizing ALL actions of one monkey tribe…and only praising your own tribe. (Which is why I find McI disengneous for not calling out Watts and Loehle mistakes when made right in his area of discussion…obvious that he hates one tribe, likes another…and lacks the scrotum to call out his little server mechanic…since skepticism is really a social phenomenon.)

  21. TCO said

    19.

    “#18, So many questions you should be asking TCO let me help.”

    A. Huh? And B your comments were not reponsive to 18, but seem more geared to my whole set of comments.

    “Why’s the trend the thing?”

    1. Because it’s what was in the quote. What’s in the “dogma”. So if you are going to use data to dispel dogma…well the dogma discussed trend.

    2. Statistical significance versus excpetionalism.

    3. Impact of multiple years (general case) versus single ones (exceptionalims). For instance for albedo, polar bears, shipping through NW passage, etc. isn’t it more significant what general state is decades from now, than what a particular year is like?

    4. You would call out your opponent if they ignored trends and touted exceptions that help them. Play fair. Be a scientist. Be an engineer. Be a good sailor.

    “Why doesn’t weather just cycle back and forth?”

    Huh? Not sure your point. But if I have it, the answer is that you can have a general trend and have yearly variation as well. Then see above. And I think the sea ice measuble is really sorta monthly…not exactly 7 day weather cycle…not exactly decadal trend.

    “Why doesn’t it matter that we’re near the max ice level ever recorded?”

    Uh…see why’s the trend the thing.

    “Doesn’t it matter that the huge ice loss can be replaced in two years?”

    I think it’s very interesting. I noted the big differences in my comments. Your essay doesn’t really go into detail on this aspect though.

    “Doesn’t the last point mean the trend argument is questionable?”

    Huh? A.. Could you express that concept mathematically? B. To disprove the overall trend, you need more years. Also, remember that there was also an extreme low as well recently.

    “If Arctic ice is above mean are the polar bears in danger?”

    If the trend continues, then they could still be in danger, sure. They don’t only live right now, Jeff. Even if a future record were set, they might be in danger because of the general trten of less and less ice. They don’t only live in high ice area years, Jeff. If the average temp in San Diego dropped 20 degrees, it would still kill the palm trees, even if some select yeat was warmer than average. Capisce?

    “Think more talk less TCO.”

    This is how I process things, stud. And it’s a lot better than the little me-too monkeys like Dardie. See here: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=712

  22. Ryan O said

    TCO:

    14. No. They’re NOT mutually exclusive. What’s nice about figure 8 is that it explicitly keys the discussion to the record as opposed to the trend. If all we care about is “distincitiveness about time now” then figure 8 is a great chart. On its own. But what 11 brings up is that the earlir discussion in the essay was about EPA “advocate in scientist clothing” claims on TREND. Capisce?

    No. They are exactly the same thing, just depicted differently. Exactly. Precisely. 100%. They are drawn from exactly the same information. One is a frequency plot, the other is a plot as a function of time. In fact, Figure 8 is less meaningful than what you called “silly” because Figure 8 contains no information about how the series evolves with time.

    However, since you’ve effectively killed what was more of a “things that make you go hmm” thread, you go, girl. Keep typing.

  23. Jeff Id said

    I think the AGW is coming out of you. The trend can’t be that concerning if we’re setting records now.

    AGW is probably true to some level, it seems to me that the current level isn’t that significant. You speak of the statistical significance of disproving the trend, yet these are arbitrarily chosen statistical limits and tests. Look at the curve and use your mind, you can judge the magnitude of the trend by looking at the wiggles yourself. The trend can be created by a couple of high or low years, a slight offset between satellites.

    You can worry about the polar bears and penguins if you want but as far as melting ice caps…. not happening.

    We’ll see what happens next year but right now there’s a lot of ice.

  24. TCO said

    22. Go read Zelazny Say it with Charts. Sure. The incorporated data may be the same. But unless you have a robotic eye and can process like a scanning computer, you can not get the frequency plot info from the time series.

    23. Weak. Go use numbers and stats to make your point. And then at the end you just expostulate…as if just claiming something makes it true. And you finish with a comment about next year…completely missing the point of statistical significance of trends. Dude, you are not even at Lucia level of thought there.

  25. TCO said

    22. I think you are also missing the point that Figure 8 is used explicitly for a relevant discussion (the remarkabilty of current ice). Whereas the para/figure 6 before is part of a confusion of concepts by the author–trends and this year.

  26. TCO said

    However, since you’ve effectively killed what was more of a “things that make you go hmm” thread, you go, girl. Keep typing.

    ——————–

    The problem is that Jeff has no sense of proportion. At one time, he’s got a things that make you go hmm point. At others he claims broad invalidation of his opponents.

  27. Ryan O said

    Not the issue, TCO.

    Simply because you cannot visually pick out the high points from a plot does not make one presentation “silly” and another awesome. They mean the same thing. In fact, the previous plot contains more information and gives a better overall picture of the state of ice. Besides, you spend the first half of #19 chastizing Jeff for “exceptionalism” vs. “statistical significance” and then cream your shorts at a plot that shows nothing other than “exceptionalism”.

    Anyway, I had given you the benefit of the doubt on the Steig threads because you intermixed tripe with good comments and questions. On this thread . . . well, not so much.

    Sorry, dude, but your Derrida-like deconstructionism (look it up if you don’t know) fails to hold my interest. In my opinion, you have overstayed your welcome on this thread, grasshopper.

  28. TCO said

    So in your opinion a time series plot is always superior to a frequency plot. Since one has more info? I guess we should never see histograms then. Heck let’s just have tables of the numbers.

    The thing that was great about Figure 8 is how well it expressed and supported the concept in the para. And how within that para, Jeff seemed to avoid the confusion of trend and exception which plagues the rest of the thread.

    I had to look up Deridda. I don’t think I am like that guy. I just pick stuff apart. If I hear a bullshit explanation of alphaT, I worry at it until the issue is settled. I’m not really smart or anything…just a plodder who wades through things…really never have any ideas of my own…the closest I can get to a spark of an idea is a suspision that something of someone else is wrong…which I then worry away at and sometimes come up with a real flaw.

    You can’t tell me I’ve overstayed time in the thread. I’ve got more squatters rights than you, now.

  29. TCO said

    Charts: Seriously, go read Tufte, Zelazny and Minto. You can have the different fundamental charts, but depending on the point you are making, they may be more apporopriate for one or the other. Similarly, it is important to be abble to disaggregate and organize thoughts. Otherwise, you end up blathering about current state, when trend is the relevent thing. Or visae versa.

  30. Ryan O said

    Let me get this straight. You blather on and on about the trend being important, and then you praise a histogram and proceed to cite references about the proper way to present data? WTF?

  31. Ryan O said

    By the way, you thinking you’re qualified to pass judgement on Lucia does not do much for your credibility.

    You were much more fun when you weren’t playing editor.

  32. anon said

    Well, I don’t know who TCO is, or why he is writing all this stuff, but the thread is unreadable due to this self indulgent verbal …quite….

    What you should do is borrow or beg or steal Lucia’s ‘slow down Boris’ plugin, and keep TCO to one post an hour. Or maybe a day. That way he or is it she might think before writing.

  33. TCO said

    30. There are two separate things, Ryan:

    A. Jeff’s confusion of a current value versus a statistical trend.

    B. The effectiveness at the histogram (rather than an X-Y trend line) in showing the exceptional nature of the current level.

    —————

    One is a major confusion of two concepts that essentially shows him messing up the bulk of the post and his attempt to contradict unnamed EPA authors. The other was a minor place, where Jeff zeroed in on a particular concept and presented it well graphically.

  34. TCO said

    31 and 32: I realize that taking things apart in detail and critically can be annoying and not appealing socially. Sorry.

  35. Andy said

    I’m sure there is something about empty vessels making the most noise……how his inability to spell comes into it I’m not too sure!

  36. Jeff Id,

    I’m a ‘lurker’ but I appreciate the good work that you, Jeff Ryan O and a few others do. Hoever, I have to tell you that I am annoyed by TCO monopolizing the comments. Here’s my tally since 9:59 AM and 6:21 PM today:

    Jeff Id = 4
    Ryan O = 6
    TCO = 23
    Anon = 1
    Andy = 1

    Com’on TCO, use your own blog …

  37. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Figure 7 rocks. Did I say that (right)?

  38. TCO said

    Ken-doll, you little cee tee. You’re begging for me…

  39. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    not bad, but I want to know more about the large rod knocking.
    well why do we have this large amount of swinging going on.
    we see a slow steady decline from 2004 to 2007.6 and then this Huge rebound 2008.4. i am just saying there is an unusual amount of rod knock.
    I will guess at it. the earth uses the poles as negative feed back,
    pushing heat into the poles where it gets processed out. this causes the ice to swing harder. any other thoughts? amo, pdo,? jet streams?
    sun changing from active to passive?

  40. Fluffy Clouds (Tim L) said

    or worse a new ice age coming to a place near you?

  41. Layman Lurker said

    #39

    The ice albedo is positive feedback – it amplifies both warming and cooling.

  42. wastingtime said

    Hank McCard said

    Jeff Id = 4
    Ryan O = 6
    TCO = 23
    Anon = 1
    Andy = 1

    Com’on TCO, use your own blog …

    I’m with Hank.

  43. I had the good fortune to attend a Christopher Monckton presentation Tuesday night. It is easy to see why Al Gore is afraid of him. He (Monckton) is a very honest man on a genuine mission to spread the truth.

    He didn’t even tell people that he has a DVD for sale on the Science and Public Policy website. He has no connections to big oil or coal. He is obviously isn’t doing this for the money. Lord knows that can’t be said of Gore who stands to make a billion if cap and trade legislation goes through in the U.S. Monckton said during the presentation that Gore told the committee last Friday that if Monckton showed up, he wouldn’t. Gore has been running from Monckton for years. As I said, it’s with good reason.

    Monckton would tear Gore apart in a one on one debate. Anyone who doubts Monckton’s abilities should view Apocalypse? No! which is a tape of a presentation he made at Cambridge.

    His presentation Tuesday is still available for free online:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/videos.html

    You can also view Monckton’s review of the 35 errors in Gore’s Sci-Fi Comedy Horror Flick:
    An Inconvenient Truth on my website:

    http://www.hootervillegazette.com/AlGoreTheater.html

    Lord Monckton’s Written works are available by following this link:

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/

  44. Jim P said

    21. “If Arctic ice is above mean are the polar bears in danger?”

    “If the trend continues, then they could still be in danger, sure. They don’t only live right now, Jeff. Even if a future record were set, they might be in danger because of the general trten of less and less ice. They don’t only live in high ice area years, Jeff. ”

    Over long time scales, if ice were to disappear progressively, natural selection would select for those bears that possessed suitable traits to survive the new conditions, just as polar bear species (at least one of which became extinct) originally evolved. How did polar bears survive the last ice-free period in the Arctic? They probably used different survival strategies.

  45. Jeff Id said

    There’s nothing to indicate the ice is going away. It just shrank a ‘little’ bit and sprang back. The cute fuzzy polar bears are fine, the reefs are fine and despite the highly corrected temp data warming has been very slight.

  46. Jeff Id said

    You know, I make the point in 44 because climatology claims trend yet if you look at the extreme melting/recovery cycle every year, the fact that there is such a stable medium should be a thing of amazement. The trend is very slight.

    Claiming the polar bears are in trouble is to ignore the sine wave graph Fig 1 & 2. Most of the sea ice melts every year as it has for a long time. The little sine wave sprung back to median level from record lows in one or years depending on how you look at the graph.

  47. TCO said

    You little pussies can’t disaggregate issues.

  48. Jeff Id said

    Wanna bet if the ice is gone or not in 5 years.

  49. TCO said

    Is that what the trend equates to?

    MORON!?

  50. Jeff Id said

    The trend equates to a minor shift in the value. Consider the magnitude of the annual shift.

    You tell me when the ice will run out and we’ll bet on that, genius!

  51. TCO said

    Let’s bet on 5 years from now. At trend or below. You can have the other side. Or are you more confident than that…Civlantian.

  52. Jeff Id said

    Confident enough to bet. Which trend do you accept -51,000km^/yr for the Arctic?

  53. Sam said

    Just today I bought a sack of apples in which I found one rotten one. When I threw it away I noticed on the sticker: TCO

  54. TCO said

    Jeff, my “over/under” is the trend extension, for five years. I would take either side of that bet.

    If you have more confidence in your case, though, feel free to give me something better. What’s your over/under (the projection where you would take either side of a bet)?

  55. Jeff Id said

    55. Tell me what you need -40k km^2/year. What makes you comfortable, I’m the Moron for not understanding a simple trend — don’t forget. ;)

    It’s time for you to teach me a lesson.

  56. TCO said

    I already told you my over under. I just want to know yours. We can bet on both.

  57. dmc said

    OK, I’m not the scientific WIZ TCO appears to be (considering I don’t understand most of his comments) in fact, perhaps I really have no business commenting, but if all this Global Warming (ie. Climate Change to be politically correct today) is caused by man, how did the ICE AGE of the past (you know the one environmentally conscious DISNEY did the movie about) many, many, many, many, many, many years ago, ( lead to THE BIG MELTDOWN, that environmentally conscious DISNEY did the movie about) way, way, way, before human population got to the levels of today????? An inquiring 7th grader thinks this may be a cyclical mother nature kinda thing the way I’m looking at it! Or was it Dinosaur flatulence?

  58. Jeff Id said

    #56, Over-under 51,000 KM^2 in 5 years from today is fine for me. Wanna bet your identity vs mine? Whomever loses comes clean, name rank and history the whole bit.

    You know I’ll keep my promise. :D

  59. Jeff Id said

    #57, IMO Nobody knows for sure. CO2 will cause some warming, my own belief is that the warming is much smaller than stated and likely much smaller than natural variation.

    IMO, scientists that say THEY KNOW the answer are full of it and often themselves. Not that they are wrong, just that they don’t really know and the evidence is weak.

  60. TCO said

    57.

    No one knows for sure, although orbital cycles are believed to have played a part. Look up Milankovitch in Google.

    BTW, your general level of knowledge and bluster is like walking into the Redskins coaching room and saying: I don’t actually know the most basic things about football, but why don’t you play Colt Brennan over Jason Campbell.

    IOW, if you know your ignorant and wary of that and still have some questions/reservations. If you think you know the key features to make judgements, not only are you far from that, you’re also unaware of your limitations.

  61. TCO said

    Jeff:

    Is that honestly your under-over also? I can take either side of that bet and put some dinero on it? If that’s the case, you are endorsing the trend…

  62. Jeff Id said

    #60 TCO I like you because you have guts but you don’t realize your own lack of knowledge limits you from judging. You just walk around criticizing everything, about 70% of it is flat wrong. Like most very loud people you are clueless about it. Sometimes but rarely it’s actually entertaining, who knew being called clueless could be so much fun.

    Money is nothing. Let’s have it big dog, give me your terms based on your superior knowledge of everything and put your name where your mouth is.

    No guts no glory. Or are you actually considering that the trend mantra may not be the answer.

    Maybe you shouldn’t bet on math against an engineer?

  63. TCO said

    Jeff: Did you undestand my comment–that you endorsed the trend by making it your under/over? Saying that your indiffernce point is at extending the trend?

  64. Jeff Id said

    #63,

    In this case trends exist but trend doesn’t predict TCO, that is the message you are again missing.

  65. Mark Young said

    TCO focuses on trend. It’s “the thing”.

    Now, in my business, the trend is your friend, but when you get a big counter-trend move, you pay attention. It matters. Reversals often get massive counter-trend moves. Now, I don’t know for sure if the record is important or noise as I’m not an analyst of sea ice, but I’m not sure I’d just dismiss it as “not the thing”.

    In any case, it’s nice and interesting work.

    Thanks.

  66. TCO said

    64. Just answer my 63 question with yes or no, please. I agree there are other aspects to be discussed (me, etc.) and will do so. But let’s not bob and weave.

  67. TCO said

    Mark Young: I hope you are not a chartist. They are the sillies thing in finance. I will get Hu McC to make fun of you.

  68. Jeff Id said

    #66, You are misinterpreting the trend. As I said the trend exists (this is enough to answer your question), it doesn’t predict and that is not an attempt to dodge.

    No guts no glory TCO.

  69. Sean said

    TCO said
    May 3, 2009 at 12:03 pm
    “Just as a sanity check, I’ve linked to a plot from the Cryosphere sea ice page where a similar shaped trend (red line) is shown. It’s very clear that current global ice levels are well above mean, what’s more is that in April, it also shows we nearly set a record high global sea ice anomaly.”

    eh…no…no it’s not clear. That graph is actually rather hard to read with the scale and all. Perhaps if you annotated it with arrows, or called out data values or something…that would make your point.

    TCO,

    What the heck is up with you? The graph could not be more simple. You don’t need arrows. It’s a time series. Therefore the very last point on the graph is the current time. Did you think that it might be in the middle??

    “That graph is actually rather hard to read with the scale and all.”?? Click on it and you will see it bigger. You might as well complain about the font or the color of the line.

    As a matter of pure idle curiosity I wonder whether you are flooding this page with meaningless comments because you have social issues, or because you think that somehow it will dilute the author’s point. It doesn’t. It just makes you look like a cross between a small child and a old crank.

  70. TCO said

    68. I’ll give lots of chances for you to make money and to excorciate me for being a pussy, Jeff.

    ISAYAGAIN (prosign) do you understand what an over/under is??

  71. TCO said

    69. Different charts are in fact better at showing different things. Read Zelazny.

  72. DeWitt Payne said

    Jeff,

    There is no way the data after 2007 in Figure 3 is correct. You have the Arctic ice area anomaly minimum in 2008 about 1 Mm2 higher than 2007. That is wrong. The 2008 Arctic area minimum was only about 0.25 Mm2 higher than 2007 according to Uni-Hamburg AMSR-E data, for example.

  73. Jeff Id said

    #72, This is the prelimiary data as released by the NSIDC as verified by SteveM. I can’t pick and choose which months say what.

    If you pic on the cryosphere graph above you can see the endpoint peaked out at a + 700,000 Km^2 of area. If I were to filter my graph it would look almost the same as the cryosphere plot above. I’m not claiming the NSIDC data is perfect but it’s pretty close to the Cryosphere graph as presented by the pro’s and was quite near the record in mine and the cryosphere graph last month and earlier last year.

    My anomaly baseline is for the whole series which also creates a slight difference.

  74. DeWitt Payne said

    I forgot about the slow freeze in 2007, but the minimum anomaly in 2008 is still too large and the peak anomalies in 2008 and 2009 are less than 2004, much less above the longer term average. Here’s the Uni-Hamburg Arctic ice area anomaly plot for reference: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/gplracerx/Uni-HamburgArcticIceAreaAnomaly.png

  75. Sean said

    Re: TCO at 71. Another utterly mindless comment. Do you want to suggest a type of graph that is better at showing a time series of ice area and anomalies? Something more intuitive than putting (i) time on the x axis and (ii) ice area on the y axis?

    What do you suggest? Time on the Y axis? An ice area histogram? A little 3D maybe? How about a picture of an ice cube and a clock so you could more quickly identify the two key elements of this highly sophisticated graphical representation of ice area over time?

    Whatever you come up with, be sure to send it to Cryosphere so they can use it to simplify the graphs they have been using to confuse the unwary for ‘lo these many years.

  76. DeWitt Payne said

    I’ve overlaid the Uni-Hamburg plot on your Figure 3. The agreement is ok until after the minimum in 2007. Then the positive anomalies are way, way too high. See here:http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/gplracerx/OverlayPlot.png

  77. DeWitt Payne said

    Try again: http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u43/gplracerx/OverlayPlot.png

  78. Jeff Id said

    #74, I don’t know the history of uni-hamburg their mean is also above zero but the record is short.

    I am guessing by the lack of fluctuation that they have employed some strong filtering whereas I have only employed 3 day filtering.

  79. TCO said

    75. Your questions were answered earlier in the thread.

  80. Jeff Id said

    #76 Thanks for the graphs. I don’t think I would describe the difference as ‘way way’ considering that the ice fluctuates by 10,000,000 km^2 in the Arctic and another 10 in the Antarctic every year.

    It looks to me like the hamburg graph is lower than NSIDC Cryosphere and myself. Cryosphere also has recent years higher than 04 while the Uni-Hamborg data is below.

    I would expect some adjustment of the preliminary data by the NSIDC but understand I am only plotting what they present right from the individually measured satellite gridcells. There is no mechanism available for me to fool around with it other than filtering which I employed very minimally, so we have two highly processed curves – cryosphere and Uni-Hamborg compared with basically raw gridded trend from preliminary NSIDC.

  81. Jeff Id said

    #76 I’ll look again at the masking tonight and make sure there aren’t any surprises.

  82. DeWitt Payne said

    I really think someone would have noticed last year if the Arctic ice area anomaly had gone positive by 1 Mm2. While Cryosphere Today has stopped posting images from 2009, you could look at an image from the date of your peak anomaly in 2008 and compare it to previous years on the same date. For example, the UH data shows similar anomalies on 4/12/2008 and 4/13/2003 (0.54 and 0.44 compared to the 2003-2008 average), and the images ( http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=13&fy=2003&sm=04&sd=12&sy=2008 ) look pretty comparable. There’s more ice in some places but less in others. But, assuming that 4/12/2008 is close to the peak anomaly in your data, it should be more than 0.5 Mm2 more area in 2008 than 2003. So lets look at an earlier date in 2003 with ~0.5 Mm2 higher area like 4/2/2003 ( http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=04&fd=02&fy=2003&sm=04&sd=12&sy=2008 ). Seems pretty obvious to me.

  83. Jeff Id said

    Cryosphere graph above exceeds 1Mm^2 last year in the global anomaly. Seems pretty clear to me also.

  84. Jeff Id said

    #82, It is odd that a 1 million km positive anomaly didn’t make news tho.

  85. DeWitt Payne said

    After a couple of false starts, I’ve produced anomaly graphs from the Uni-Hamburg data that look very much like the Cryosphere Today graphs, at least from June 2002 to April 2009. There are minor differences, but the major wiggles match pretty well. They’ll probably match much better when I finish collecting the complete 1979 to 2000 average data by the end of July. I can copy, upload and post them, but not until Monday.

  86. Sean said

    79. The author wrote that “It’s very clear that current global ice levels are well above mean” and he linked to a graph that has a time series of global sea ice area, with the most recent point on the graph being above the mean.

    Explain how that is not clear. Saying “read Zalazny” is not a sufficient answer. If you cannot use what you have read to answer a question, then you haven’t understood what you have read.

    Spearately, a note to the moderator: certain offensive and bigoted comments by TCO should be removed from this page. I would suggest that you have a policy that if commenters cannot refrain from bigotry and offensive language, they should be blocked.

  87. Robert Alex said

    Sounds clear to me.

    Also, I totally agree with the last paragraph. Who wants to submit themselves to vulgar language and/or bigotry? Not me, thank you.

  88. DeWitt Payne said

    I’ve read R. Zelazny’s “The Chronicles of Amber” and I don’t see any connection with sea ice or statistics. (weak attempt at humor)

  89. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Spearately, a note to the moderator: certain offensive and bigoted comments by TCO should be removed from this page. I would suggest that you have a policy that if commenters cannot refrain from bigotry and offensive language, they should be blocked.

    I believe TCO has given a farewell post on another thread stating that he will be gone for a while.

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

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: