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

30 thoughts on “Hail Mary Pass Attempt By Warmists to Claim Antarctica Sea Ice is Not Increasing

  1. Pingback: Why is there so much Antarctic sea ice? | Climate Etc.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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?

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