Wednesday
Apr182012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill A strange change in the sea ice data
Apr 18, 2012 Climate: WG2 The post to be reading this morning is Stephen Goddard's article about a strange change in the sea ice data.
Apr 18, 2012 Climate: WG2
Reader Comments (72)
After decades of unapologized for, alarmist-inspired data-hiding, this sort of thing is a pleasant surprise.
As many of Steven Goddard's posts are taken from old newpapers, how does that represent misinformation and deception?
Apr 19, 2012 at 2:17 PM | Mike Jackson
Perhaps you could explain the 'perfect sense' of changing the visualisation scheme just when it was becoming embarrassingly close to the long term mean.
anivegmin
'really sciency' - maybe, but not very literary:
"A look at Climate Change and it's portrayal in the media"
Billy Liar
Go read the explanation at WUWT. I gave the link earlier.
If you don't believe it, that's your problem. Are you suggesting that the old system of the average of three days data plus two days projections is preferable to the average of five days of actual data?
I suggest you have a good look at Eschenbach's comment on the same page. He makes the point about trust very succinctly and I am every bit as sceptical as he is but looking for devious motives every time someone makes changes — especially when those changes appear (to my eyes at least) to improve the reliability of the data they are using — simply provides ammunition to those who argue that sceptics/deniers are not prepared to engage in rational debate.
Which, as I am sure you understand, absolves them (in their own eyes at least) from the need to engage in any sort of debate.
I do not trust the scientists one bit.
Anybody have an estimate on how many 'legitimate' but as-yet unapplied 'corrections' there are to these longitudinal time series (ice, temperatures, polar bears), to be pulled out of the hat at politically expedient periods, to make the series go up, or down, or sideways or whatever?
The mathematical appropriateness or these corrections is not the question or the issue. The applied corrections always appear completely self-evident once they are applied. The question then becomes: "If they were so simple, why were they not applied before?"
Mike, we cross-posted. The above, was not in response to your post.
James P,
Haha. Well spotted. I'll trade you a misplaced apostrophe for a comma, and one full stop.
shub
Climate scientists (or as I call them "technicians") aren't my favourite people either.
I'm just trying to make the point that if we disbelieve everybody and all the time then in the final analysis we are no better than they are.
If you look at the correspondence between Watts and Meier above it looks like a genuine change of approach (which should improve the data and make it clearer) and a communication breakdown within NSIDC.
In my many long years of life I've found that 9 times out of 10 (at least) cock-up usually wins out over conspiracy and I don't see any reason to suppose differently this time.
And even if I don't trust Meier, I do trust Watts.
And I'm afraid that the idea that NSIDC has carefully adjusted the figure at this stage to prevent the current figure crossing some mythical line just seems to me to be stretching cynicism a wee bit beyond its breaking point.
Again, if you read the correspondence there is a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why this change was not made before. It may be a load of bull but why bother since the general attitude of the scientists we're talking about (which I don't think includes the likes of Meier, to be honest) is "f*** you". I can't see Mann (for example) giving two cents for whether we think the figures have been adjusted, leant on, fiddled, spindled, mutilated or whether they came to him in a dream.
The fact that Meier has bothered to engage with Watts suggests (to me) that he is concerned for his reputation and that of NSIDC. In which case good for him and let's take him at face value until proved otherwise.
Just my point of view.
anivegmin
"a comma, and one full stop."
Where?
Apr 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM | Mike Jackson
I am quite sure that Dr's Walt and Julienne are blameless. I can't say that I am so sure of their boss, Mark 'Death Spiral' Serreze.
It is clear that folks were too quick to suspect foul play in this instance, but even Walt Meier recognizes that climate "scientists" have lost credibility. He writes:
"As a final, personal note let me make a more general comment. I am saddened that some people have become so cynical about climate scientists and climate data. I can appreciate that scientists have brought some this on themselves."
Billy Liar
Now if you'd told me it was Serreze you were thinking of I'd have given you a whole different answer!
My considered opinion of him, as of so many others in the scam, is that he is either [no, I'd better snip that].
Arctic ice cover is actually irrelevant since we have very limited accurate data to work with and he knows that. He also knows (or he ought to know) that some of his colleagues consider that it is normal for the Arctic to be ice-free during the summer and that it has been many times in the past. Whether they are right or not I couldn't say.
It's also irrelevant because there seems to be a very powerful school of thought (no, I'm not going to check sources tonight; it's late and I'm tired) that Arctic ice cover has more to do with wind and currents than with temperature. And he must know that as well.
Serreze is well-known for his scaremongering and like most scaremongers he has already been proved wrong and almost certainly will be again. If in 10 years time the Arctic Ocean is completely ice-free at the end of March, I will apologise to him. If it isn't, who cares?
PJ
Yes, but as Eschenbach points out in his "open letter", 'saddened' is hardly the right emotion. He admits that scientists have brought some of it on themselves but what did he do about it? **** all!
"folks were too quick to suspect foul play"
All NSIDC had to do was include an explanation alongside the revised graph, but presumably they hoped no-one would notice. Climate science has simply brought itself into disrepute. Again.
'Professional' arrogance also implicated. A bit like old-fashioned doctors sighing when pressed for details of their diagnosis.
James P/Punksta
I'm not sure why I continue to leap to the defence of NSIDC - a severe attack of masochism perhaps - but it does appear that we are absolutely determined not to cut them any slack at all and that doesn't seem to me to make any sense.
Meier has admitted an error and has explained what happened — an internal breakdown in communication in NSIDC. Who was to suppose to add the explanation; the people who made the change because they thought it was ready to go or Meier who didn't know that the change was being made and hadn't actually authorised it?
Given the scrutiny that this gets from several sources (have you actually studied Watts' sea ice reference page?) this is either a genuine error or the stupidest way to commit professional suicide in the eyes of sceptics that I can think of.
Since Meier is hardly stupid and since he gave Watts a detailed explanation of what had happened as soon as the matter was brought to his attention I am happy to believe him.
Simply refusing to believe what you don't want to believe in spite of the evidence in front of you is a charge we level day in, day out at the warmists; what is the purpose of blatantly giving them the same ammunition to use against us?
Mike is right. What NSIDC have done is exactly what we've wanted these folks to do: be open with the data, and respond when there are questions. The maths changes they've made are justified and well explained, they've put their hands up to a process cock-up, they've replied to Watt's questions quickly and it a very full and pleasantly worded way; what's not to like?
I can appreciate that since such a response has been rare in the past in some notorious corners of the climate world many will be suspicious, but lets' meet this with generosity of spirit that might well encourage others to follow the pattern.
Incidentally, the figure that sticks in my mind from the various emails from NSIDC was the figure for the measurement error - 50,000sq.Km. - about a third the size of England! That really does put into perspective the sheer scale of the seasonal changes.
Cumbrian Lad
And the sheer scale of the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses.
Talk about bits the size of Long Island falling off are actually about as scary as the icicles falling off my greenhouse last winter.
Mike/Cumbrian Lad
I would like to respond later today.
Shub
Welcome as always but I may have taken to my bed to nurse a head cold. Hopefully Cumbrian Lad will do the honours on my behalf!
Good thing you haven't changed the link to Steve Goddards site, Bishop.