sunshine hours

February 2, 2014

Hail Mary Pass Attempt By Warmists to Claim Antarctica Sea Ice is Not Increasing

David Appell was kind enough to alert me to a paper written by I. Eisenman, W. N. Meier, and J. R. Norris.

They titled their paper “A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?”

I don’t plan to demean myself by spending a lot of time on this silly hail mary pass attempt. But I will post the evidence from the papers own supplemental materials.

That evidence was pointed out by P.R. Holland in an interactive comment here.

“This paper contains solid and important science and I congratulate the authors on their
vigilance. It is certainly important to know that the uncertainties in the ice area/extent
timeseries might be larger than thought (depending upon how this finding is addressed
by the author of the timeseries in question).

However, doesn’t Figure S5 in the supplementary material show that whatever the
source of the Bootstrap issue, there is no doubt that Antarctic sea ice is increasing in
both area and extent? The trends appear significant whichever of the three time series
one chooses. Even if one discards Bootstrap altogether on the basis of this paper, the
NASA Team series clearly shows significant increases. These two facts imply that the
title of this paper is misleading, and so is much of the discussion and abstract. The
clearly significant increases in all 3 datasets are not accurately reflected by the paper
text, abstract, or title.

With the eyes of the climate change lobbies (on both sides) watching this debate, it
is very important that papers’ titles, abstract, and conclusions accurately convey the
facts. Very few journalists will check the content of the paper before reporting its title,
and no-one should be expected to examine the supplementary figures of a paper.”

Figure S5 from supplement here. The yellow circled items are the NASA team data that is not using the bootstrap algorithm.

Cryosphere S5

About these ads

30 Comments »

  1. Other of the paper’s comments, including that by Grant Foster, also say the trend is positive and statistically significant. As does his blog post:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/southern-discomfort/

    Why do you think that is unusual or unexpected?

    Comment by David Appell — February 2, 2014 @ 8:56 AM | Reply

    • Is “is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?” very, very misleading? Yes or no.

      Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 2, 2014 @ 9:15 AM | Reply

    • This is a “discussion paper,” not a finalized journal paper. It’s purpose was to generate discussion and comments, to be used in the final paper.

      Comment by David Appell — February 2, 2014 @ 9:22 AM | Reply

      • Yes or no. Was the title misleading?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 2, 2014 @ 9:42 AM

      • Knock it off. It’s a discussion paper, not the final paper. The title contains a question mark, This version did its job — it got people talking.

        Instead of looking for some picayune reason to dismiss the result, study the science, which is very interesting. By the way, Manabe predicted an expansion of Antarctic sea ice in a warming world back in 1992:

        http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/03/wuwt-trumpets-result-supporting-climate.html

        Several other papers over the years have tried to explain the phenomena, which is perhaps due to stronger winds in the region:

        http://www.washington.edu/news/2013/09/17/stronger-winds-explain-puzzling-growth-of-sea-ice-in-antarctica/

        Comment by David Appell — February 2, 2014 @ 9:52 AM

      • Knock it off? It is a dishonest title.

        As for Manabe the abstract never mentions Antarctic Sea Ice.

        What did the IPCC say: “In 20th- and 21st-century simulations, antarctic sea ice cover is projected to decrease more slowly than in the Arctic”

        http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-3-2-4.html

        Oops for you David.

        As for the other paper. It would not have “puzzling growth” in the title if it wasn’t expected that Antarctic Sea Ice would decline.

        Why do you warmists embarrass yourselves like this?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 2, 2014 @ 10:02 AM

      • As for Manabe the abstract never mentions Antarctic Sea Ice.

        Is there some reason you can only read abstracts?

        Comment by David Appell — February 2, 2014 @ 10:19 AM

      • Yes, it’s well known that models don’t predict the increase (so far) in Antarctic sea ice. They also don’t predict sea ice in the Artic, where it’s declining faster than models simulate:

        Stroeve, J. C., V. Kattsov, A. Barrett, M. Serreze, T. Pavlova, M. Holland, and W. N. Meier. 2012. Trends in Arctic sea ice extent from CMIP5, CMIP3 and observations. Geophysical Research Letters 39, L16502, doi:10.1029/2012GL052676.

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL052676/abstract

        As they say, there are going to be surprises along the way…

        Comment by David Appell — February 2, 2014 @ 10:39 AM

      • I think a negative AMO will be a very rude surprise for warmists. Get your grant money soon. Its going to get cold.

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 2, 2014 @ 1:45 PM

      • “Is there some reason you can only read abstracts?”

        I was just hoping you would quote from the article the most import points. Is record ice at both minimum and maximum predicted?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 2, 2014 @ 1:50 PM

      • Do your own reading; I have plenty enough of my own to do.

        Comment by David Appell — February 3, 2014 @ 10:11 AM

      • Do my own reading? I always ask that question and no one bothers answering.

        Which part of that paper makes the point you are trying for? If it actually does, why does the IPCC ignore that paper?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 3, 2014 @ 10:51 AM

  2. You didn’t really expect honesty from a rotten appell, did you?

    Comment by Otter — February 2, 2014 @ 10:09 AM | Reply

  3. That’s funny because Dave just got done telling me the ocean is getting warmer.
    Melting ice caps, glaciers, and what not.
    {Dave’s comment}

    He said it with such a straight face too!

    Comment by papertiger — February 2, 2014 @ 6:27 PM | Reply

  4. […] Sunshine Hours points to a new paper that questions the satellite record of Antarctic sea ice increase.  The paper is written by I. Eisenman, W. N. Meier, and J. R. Norris and is titled “A spurious jump in the satellite record: is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?”   An interactive comment by P.R. Holland says: […]

    Pingback by Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? | Climate Etc. — February 3, 2014 @ 4:39 AM | Reply

  5. If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts!

    Comment by Paul Homewood — February 3, 2014 @ 5:37 AM | Reply

    • Sad isn’t it?

      Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 3, 2014 @ 7:14 AM | Reply

    • The fact is that the data is model-dependent, and also subject modeling errors. There is no data without models.

      Comment by David Appell — February 3, 2014 @ 10:04 AM | Reply

    • Sad isn’t it?

      Would you rather have the most accurate data possible, or only that which fits your preconceived notions?

      Comment by David Appell — February 3, 2014 @ 10:05 AM | Reply

      • David, the title of the paper is a giveaway that the authors are only interested in data that fits their preconceived notions. They pray to the AGW gods for some explanation for high Antarctic Sea Ice. When they couldn’t find one, they may have just made one up.

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 3, 2014 @ 10:21 AM

      • Made one up? Have you read the paper or not? They found an obvious error somewhere in the algorithm that converts microwave data to sea ice extent — their Figure 2 made that clear.

        Comment by David Appell — February 3, 2014 @ 10:30 AM

      • Why would I believe them with that title?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 3, 2014 @ 10:47 AM

      • This is from the paper’s conclusion, showing why the question mark in the paper is there:

        “Since there is no documentation that such a change was intensionally made, and
        our analysis does not categorically determine whether Version 1 or Version 2 is more
        20 accurate, we can not be certain whether the apparently inadvertent change leading to
        the increased trend introduced a problem or corrected one. Hence we lay out two possibilities
        that are consistent with the results of this analysis.”

        Figure S5 D-F in their supplementary material shows that the area (area, not extent) could well have a nonpositive trend, depending on what version of the data has the error. So the question mark in their title is appropriate.

        Comment by David Appell — February 3, 2014 @ 11:20 AM

      • So Extent isn’t affected and Area is growing on the non-bootstrap NASA Team data and you still think the title is appropriate.

        Do you know how much damage you do the AGW cult when you make such silly claims?

        Comment by sunshinehours1 — February 3, 2014 @ 11:38 AM


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

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

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers

%d bloggers like this: