the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

A Little fun with RC

Posted by Jeff Id on September 3, 2009

Laymen Lurker pointed out a comment at RC which is apparently directed toward the good old Air Vent and myself in particular. Apparently someone called Sekerob has a problem with my sea ice posts. HERE.

Sekerob says:

2 September 2009 at 5:25 PM

To complete the numbers of ‘Global’ a chart to go with that. Note wider difference between extent and area, what I’ve dubbed the break up index. It was 1.25 back in 1979 and this August it was 1.34 or alternate, the August Area this year in global terms was 74.1% of the Extent, back then it was 80.1%. Sign of quality of the ice me thinketh.


One Jeff is massaging this as if sea ice has not significantly reduced. It’s a special art form I’ve not grasped… maybe I would accept after nurse Ratched performs a lobotomy on me. I’m convinced that lack of summer cover and sea ice off days has more bearing for the globe than the simple global summation that is commented surely with ‘it’s only 5.5% less’. Add to that the many millions of km square in missing land snow cover and the snow off days that keep increasing. That’s a bunch of Albedo change on the sunny side.

Since Sekerob hasn’t ever bothered to ask what particular methods I’ve used on sea ice I wonder what he’s referring to.  He is correct though that I don’t use Mannian sanctioned methods for throwing out data or manipulated filter projections to make things appear worse than we thought.  So he does have a good point.  So today I’m forced to come clean with the equations I used to manipulate curves such as this one in Figure 1 which show global sea ice levels reached a near maximum earlier this year.


Figure 1, Global Sea Ice level - NasaTeam NSIDC Data

It is necessary to demonstrate the openness in kind as we expect from scientists in general so under the weight of great pressure from RC readership, I’ll cave in.  After all, I’m sure RC proprietors wouldn’t want their readers to get the wrong message.  The math used to create the diabolical illusion that global sea ice is not vanishing and will not be gone in 2015 like some apparently peer reviewed presentation recently said is as follows:

‘ + ‘

It’s called plus

and is defined as

1. a plus sign (+), indicating addition

In adding up sea ice, it takes a lot of plus signs or more precisely it’s appropriate to use a summation.

Ι  = ∑i_n

I is total ice, i is gridcell ice fraction and the summation is over n gridcells.  Now I know it seems ludicrous to use such sophisticated trickery to confuse the readers here so for that I apologize.  Perhaps Sekarob could recommend a superior equation, I’m always interested in improving.

It’s the height of cherry picking to claim we can’t look at global sea ice for global warming.  Even the Cryosphere scientists calculate it, you’ll note they get similar results to my own.  Climatology has claimed that warming must occur at both poles according to the models because the poles are more sensitive to CO2 warming.  Since the Antarctic has thus far refused to comply with ever larger computers running the same algorithms, a rational person might conclude that the models are possibly predicting too much warming. NOT so at RC and Tamino.  Instead we need to ignore the Antarctic sea ice increases, we should also ignore the past two years of ice increases in the Arctic, we need to ignore the over 50% seasonal variation in Arctic sea ice, ignore that the sea ice flucuations are weather pattern related and only focus on the difference in Arctic sea ice at the summer minimum’s long term trend. Only then will you really understand the true power of the Real Climate impact on sea ice. hehehe.

BTW: I just checked YouTube for the the Arctic Sea ice Jeff Id propaganda video using something diabolical called data.  It has been played 24,000 times now!

arctic ice video

You Tube Video 23971 views!

I keep waiting for that oil company check.

10 Responses to “A Little fun with RC”

  1. DeWitt Payne said


    I must again point out that your nasateam global area data from 2007 on does not agree with any other source of global sea ice area data that I can find. Cryosphere Today, for example, shows that peak global area in the spring of 2008 was about the same as 2004 and about 1 Mm2 below years like 1985, 1988 and 1994.

  2. Jeff Id said


    I think as before the difference is that the quick spike in 08 was due to preliminary NSIDC data being used by my post. In my previous post, the data was filtered to remove the spike to conclude we were close to the record so I didn’t get the unprecedented global sea ice shown in Figure 1, instead I got something close which I think will hold up to further scrutiny. It’s just a summation of the data, there’s nothing else here.

    I’ll redo it for you soon because we’re approaching the seasonal minimum and the series has been updated and moved to a semi-final state a few months ago. The NSIDC uses previous day measurements of noisy passes to remove the noisy data. It seems like a very minor difference to me either way but there should be time this weekend to work on it.

  3. Jeff Id said

    #1 Oh and don’t forget they changed satellites due to the increasing data quality problem shortly after that post was done.

  4. MikeN said

    More warming equals warmer water equals more precipitation equals more ice.

    So a glacier on land in a very cold place can expect to get bigger with global warming.

  5. Layman Lurker said

    I did get a good laugh out of the “Nurse Ratched” comment.

  6. stan said


    I get it. Melting ice means that global warming is frying the planet. And increasing ice means that global warming is frying the planet. With a decision matrix like that, the alarmists don’t even have to fudge their stats anymore.

  7. Layman Lurker said

    I think I have dug up a little background on Jeff. Since his sea ice analysis shows that he has likely been lobotomized with Nurse Ratched being involved, this video likely shows the background circumstances:

  8. Andrew said

    “Climatology has claimed that warming must occur at both poles according to the models because the poles are more sensitive to CO2 warming.”

    Well, I think that GISS has been bragging about a model with has Antarctica cooling from Ozone depletion. There are some interesting inconsistencies though.

  9. Ron said


    Any chance you can update your sunspot chart @ ???? Need to move those standard deviation curves some more.

    Have a good one

  10. Arn Riewe said

    That’s a cute little bit of cherry picking on the NASA “peer reviewed presentation”. So you compare ice thickness within 6 months of the low ice extent of 2007 to the similar 2003 value with the highest minimum in the satellite record. Gee, I’ll wonder what you find? I’ll be interested to see a comparison of the 2010 winter vs. 2008. Think it will ever happen?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: