DMI continues to show rapid melting of Arctic sea ice.
Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut
Their maps show the exact opposite. Arctic sea ice coverage is hardly changing at all.
Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?
Equally as troubling is that they show a lot less ice than last year, when in fact there is more ice than last year.
As far as I can tell, there are no government agencies in any country – which are not vested in the climate scam.
The hard part of this is it shows things from space. I was on the ground in Ulukhaktok North West Territories Canada for 6 months. I met the local people who are far closer to the land and water than most who read this article. On a flight to a nearby island I met two professors from University of Victoria BC. They likely agree but they were out on the land. The sea is still frozen over with a noticeable crack near the land. The locals do not expect and ice free harbour till late June. Ice fishing is still on going.
The hard part of this is it shows things from space. I was on the ground in Ulukhaktok North West Territories Canada for 6 months. I met the local people who are far closer to the land and water than most who read this article. On a flight to a nearby island I met two professors from University of Victoria BC. They likely agree but they were out on the land. The sea is still frozen over with a noticeable crack near the land. The locals do not expect an ice free harbour till late June. Ice fishing is still on going.
You’re getting caught out by the change in the land mask.
Look at the picture from last year – here’s the high res link. Observe the THICK dark blue line around all the coastlines – i.e. the area that is masked off as “un-analysable” because it’s too close to the coastline to be reliably scored as water or ice
http://osisaf.met.no/p/ice/nh/edge/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201505251200_pal.jpg
Now look at the picture from this year. Note that it’s higher resolution and has a smaller “Pole Hole”, and that there is only a THIN blue line round all the coastlines. The vast majority of the (previous) thick blue line is now being correctly shown as white, ice-covered water.
http://osisaf.met.no/p/ice/nh/edge/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201605251200_pal.jpg
Now look at your overlay. First up, it’s woefully low resolution and distorted – I can only assume you’re using the thumbnail images rather than clicking through to the high res ones. Second, note that there is now a green border along almost every coastline – particularly obvious in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. These are pixels that are ice-covered this year but which were NOT ANALYSED last year. You are erroneously counting these as an increase in ice. You’re a computer programmer, so tell me, what is the correct answer when comparing a floating point point value to a NULL? You’re treating NULL as a zero, because you’re an idiot.
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-26-10-48-31.png
This is exactly the factor that led to the sudden upward spike on the old DMI graph when the land mask was changed – more ice is now being detected, because they’re able to look at a finer resolution and closer to the land edges. For the new DMI graph they have adjusted the earlier values using the updated land mask to ensure that the dataset is comparable from year to year. They haven’t gone through and re-generated all the image screenshots on their web page, because they didn’t think anyone would be stupid enough to try and extract numerical data from a compressed, low resolution image when the actual data is freely available. It seems even the most idiot-proof system can be confounded by a REALLY PROFESSIONAL idiot.
Go and get the real data in grid format, here. It’s available in three different formats, all open source.
ftp://osisaf.met.no/prod/ice/conc <– last month
ftp://osisaf.met.no/archive/ice/conc <– data back to 2005
http://www.osi-saf.org/biblio/docs/osisaf_cdop2_ss2_pum_ice-conc_1_0.pdf <– user manual
If they changed the land mask to measure ice much closer to the land than in previous years, don’t you think it is a little disingenuous to compare this years melt trend with previous years melt trends on the same graph? Ice closest to the land melts first and it wasn’t even measured in previous years according to you.
If the narrowing of the “coastal mask” made such a big difference, there should be a glaring circle of green in our host’s map. It should amount to more than 245 pixels.
Maybe I need new glasses, but I don’t see it, when I squint at the above map. In fact there are even some red pixels along the East Siberian coast. I have the feeling that the difference between the 2015 “mask” and the 2016 “mask” is so narrow it is less than a pixel wide and doesn’t show up.
If I am wrong, I won’t mind being shown I am wrong, but at this point I have a sense the people fussing about the change in the DMI “coastal mask” are “straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.”
And what is the camel they swallow? It is exactly what our host demonstrates: The maps show more ice while the graphs show less ice .
What have you and Tony been smoking Caleb?
Here’s a satellite image of the Beaufort Sea this year, which is red on Tony’s low resolution 2015/16 comparison map:
http://go.nasa.gov/1RvXI2G
Here’s a satellite image of the the northern edge of the CAA last year, which is green on Tony’s map:
http://go.nasa.gov/1RvXloS
Would you care to play “spot the difference” with Peter and I?
Ah.. Jimbo the CLOWN returns..
He is a DENIER of climate reality and history.
A LIAR and a low-level CON MAN… even he knows that… and keeps reinforcing that fact.
The real truth is that Arctic sea ice is actually anomalously high compared to the rest of the Holocene.
Biodata conclusively shows that during the first 3/4 or more of the last 10,000 years summer sea ice levels were often down to ZERO.
The reason Arctic sea ice is still so anomalously high is because we are only just a bit above the COLDEST period in the whole of the last 10,000 years.
In the current scheme of things, with the AMO being still very close to the top of its cycle, and there having been a strong El Nino that pushed somewhat warmer air up through northern Russia…
the current level of sea ice is almost exactly where anyone looking purely at the science, would expect it to be.. nothing untoward at all is happening.
Unfortunately, for the people living up there, the El Nino has gone, the AMO is heading downwards, and the sun is having a snooze..
The next few years, maybe decades, will almost certainly see a very unwelcome climb in the amount of Arctic sea ice.
The recovery from the frozen misery of the LIA has finished.
Be aware AKA “Snow White” provides links that, as usual, oddly tilt the truth.
1.) Our hosts comparison is from May 24, but Snow White chooses May 20.
2.) Rather than lining up the shorelines, he has the 2015 polynya up at the upper right corner, and the 2016 dead center. (It is possible to drag the pictures about until the shorelines match.)
3.) Not sure of this, but as I recall a cold wave in 2015 skimmed the polynya with thin ice which, when dusted with snow, made it “shrink” for the time the thin ice lasted.
These polynyas form when the winds are persistently from the southeast. They have happened before.
You guys must be desperate.
1) I thought you were an Arctic expert Caleb? Do you need a Worldview driving lesson?
2) Can you read? That’s because, as I said, “Here’s a satellite image of the the northern edge of the CAA last year”. Take a good look at it and then show me the areas of open water corresponding to the green areas on Tony’s final map above.
3) Think again. Of course such polynyas have happened before. Due to persistent winds. They’ve never been as large as this in May though (since satellite records began at least). Here once again is Tony’s very own animation of the one from 2016:
https://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ArcticSeaIce-April-May-1.gif
Can you spot the difference between that and your own examples?
“If the narrowing of the “coastal mask” made such a big difference, there should be a glaring circle of green in our host’s map.”
This is an enlarged view of Tony’s sea ice gain around the North Pole.
“For the new DMI graph they have adjusted the earlier values using the updated land mask to ensure that the dataset is comparable from year to year.”
I grabbed a screen capture from May 10 2015 using the Wayback Machine and your statement is incorrect (the May 10, 2015 is hopefully uploaded with this posting, otherwise it can be found at this link – https://web.archive.org/web/20150510210019/http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php)
I may be another idiot professional computer programmer (for my bona fides, null is not equal to zero, it’s not even to NULL), so maybe you can enlighten me as to how the pre-2016 data has been adjusted in the current DMI graph.
I can infer from your statement that you think that using this year’s dataset with previous year’s graphs is not a valid comparison. Thank you for strengthening Tony’s argument that there’s something rotten in Denmark (an opinion that I do not wholly swallow, BTW) . According to your statement the graph is worthless in analyzing trends, yet it is being used for jsut that purpose.
I also grabbed a Dec 2014 graph to make sure that I had an archived image that definitely pre-dated the new coastal masks and those also do not show any changes to the older graphs.
You accuse Tony of being an idiot. Your statement quoted here, taken in the context of the current DMI graph, has been proven incorrect. Not only incorrect, it reinforces the author’s argument. While I do not have enough information to make a conclusion as to whether you’re an idiot, I can conclude that you are not as smart as you think you are.
Here’s a higher res view of the two dates:
Do we have DMI Arctic Ice extent predating their “new algorithm” (euphemism for “adjustment”, short-hand would be “fraud”) ? I would be curious to see whether they recomputed past maps with the “new” algorithm, or keep using pas curves, established with more generous parameters, along with the current mutilated curve…
The fraud here is so blatant, that I wonder if they were not forced to do it and it’s their way to signal it.
“Real Science”?
Strangely unsettled science. Questioning what is “known”.
I know that’s unsettling but that’s just the way it is.
“Why would the ice be melting?”
I thought you were a believer in the power of the wind Tony? Ever heard of the Beaufort Gyre? If not, here you go:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/04/the-beaufort-gyre-goes-into-overdrive/
Hunt’s dishonest selective quoting,here is the FULL quote to show that Jim is babbling as usual:
“Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?”
He he..
Here’s Tony babbling as usual for you Tommy:
https://realclimatescience.com/2016/05/arctic-ice-be3ing-blown-off-shore/
Perhaps you wouldn’t mind selecting a FULL quote for us?
Ha ha,
now you are deflecting after I caught you deliberately misquoting him then flog him over it.
He was talking about TEMPERATURE, not wind!
“Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?”
It is people like you who play stupid word games is why people like me wonder if you are into climate propaganda.
Now you’re babbling Tommy.
Since it’s evidently too much trouble for you, let me assist you. On May 14th a certain Tony Heller said:
“A high pressure system created winds which blew the ice offshore”
Precisely one month earlier yours truly said:
“A high pressure system has been in place over the Arctic Ocean for a few days now, and the effect of the clockwise circulation on the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea is already evident in these recent satellite images”
Bwahahahahaha!!!
This is what silly Jim wrote earlier in the thread:
“I thought you were a believer in the power of the wind Tony? Ever heard of the Beaufort Gyre? If not, here you go:..”
Now suddenly you discover that Tony has indeed noticed the existence of wind in past postings showing that Ice is pushed away from the shore.
You made a dishonest quote selection,you have yet to admit you were caught at it.Here it is again as anyone with two working brain neurons can see he was talking about TEMPERATURE. While you attacked him over something he never said.
“Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?”
Here it is Jimboy!
This is the FIRST paragraph of his post:
“Alarmists are currently hysterical about ice melting in the Beaufort Sea. Only problem is that it isn’t melting. A high pressure system created winds which blew the ice offshore – but facts don’t matter to alarmists.”
Again in that post like this one the ice isn’t melting at this time of the year,it is the WIND that compacts the ice to make it appear it is getting smaller. That is the point Tony is making that you can’t seem to fathom.
You are really that dumb,Jim?
I notice you didn’t complain in that post,why Jimmy?
At the risk of repeating myself repeating myself, here’s what I wrote on April 14th 2016:
“The continuing clockwise winds have already started reducing the area of sea ice in the Beaufort Sea at an unusually early date”
Here’s the article again:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/04/the-beaufort-gyre-goes-into-overdrive/
You have read it I take it? Did you notice that there is not one single mention of the word “melt”?
Since Tony and Caleb have been unable to do so perhaps you can show me the areas of open water around the CAA in 2015 corresponding to all those green pixels in Tony’s final image above?
Jim,where did I say your link mentioned melt in it?
You keep ducking the part where tony made this specific statement,because you are a dishonest person.
“Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?”
Jim’s clever.
You have to realise that Jimbo is a very low-level operative link to the Exeter Uni climate troughers.
Is he getting or giving “favours” to the likes of extreme fraudster, Richard Betts…
…… almost certainly.
And here’s Andy babbling as usual for you Tommy!
Poor Jimbo,
Too much of a COWARD to post any real Arctic history on his CON web site.
How are your Exeter trougher buddies going , Jimbo ?
No it is YOU who made a dishonest comment,since you deliberately left out part of the quote.
DMI also tracks arctic ice volumetric data. Note that volume is most often above the red line 2012 levels where surface area is reported below the red line. (see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/thk.uk.php
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/images/FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160525.png)
Edit text T, exact opposite is rapid gaining sea ice :p
Leading climate experts say that we are all going to die and you don’t even care!
“Temperatures have been below freezing in the Arctic Basin for many months. Why would the ice be melting?”
You must be kidding? Do you really think Arctic Ice doesn’t melt in the spring (Apr, May, and June)? Do you imagine that arctic sea ice is increasing right now? Show me any graph, from any country, of any political bent, that has ice increasing right now. You keep showing three or four day ice maps that you count more greenish dithered pixels versus reddish dithered pixels, but do you have any creditable evidence that in the middle of the melting season, we are seeing an increase in arctic sea ice?
Compare an ice map from a month ago until now. And honestly, do you think that you can cover up actual arctic sea ice melt with dithered pixels? Or claims that since the arctic temps are sub-freezing, everyone but you is lying to us?
The ice at the fringes always melts. Every year more than half of the ice melts away, and every year more than half grows back. It is the ice at the core that matters.
Would it surprise you that the ice towards the core is still growing thicker? We only have a single Mass Balance Buoy properly maintained this year, but Buoy 2015F shows the ice is still growing thicker.
http://imb.erdc.dren.mil/irid_data/2015F_thick.png
Do you not feel a bit foolish for making such a fuss about ice melting when it is in fact still getting thicker? Calm down. Rest assured we are not complete idiots, and may actually know our posterior from our elbow.
Rest assured that you are doing a very good impression of a complete idiot Caleb.
Can you by any chance provide us with a scanner image revealing the precise location of both your posterior and your elbow?
Notice Jim who is supposed to have a science education, fails to post a proper science based reply?
Caleb, post a chart Jim completely ignores that seems to support his claim that the core is getting a little thicker.
Why can’t you make a decent reply Jim?
AKA “Snow White” is interested in posteriors, but supplies no facts or graphs that might be useful in an adult conversation.
Hmm. Would that fit the definition of “complete”?
Make no mistake Caleb, Jim is a complete posterior.
I agree. Fully formed.
Here’s a large supply of such graphs Caleb, revealing much more detail than the one you linked to:
http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/ice-mass-balance-buoys/
Please feel free to display whichever one(s) you prefer.
Con graphs, from a worthless PROPAGANDA CON of a web site that is unable to get up enough courage to give the true history of Arctic sea ice over the Holocene.
That’s because the owner KNOWS that history would show that the trivial changes in Arctic sea ice as the AMO has climbed are absolutely irrelevant compared to the huge swings from ZERO summer sea ice in the first 3/4 or so of the Holocene , through the massive increase during the Little Ice Age, to the only partial recovery from that coldest period of the last 10,000 years.
Nice of you to post a link to your website,but you still failed to address the central point that has been raised a number of times now.
Why can:t warmists admit there are simply no evidence that CO2 is causing any melt of the Ice cap which is above average size for the Holocene?
As pointed out before that periods of time in the earlier part of the Holocene there were little to no summer ice,while the atmospheric CO2 levels was around the 260-280 ppm level.
You’re the one failing to address the central point raised in Tony’s original post and Peter Ellis’s comment.
Try answering these questions.
1) Can you see my image of the Canadian Archipelago in May 2015?
2) If so please point out all the assorted areas of open water in the image. Especially the ones coloured green in Tony’s final map above.
3) If you need to take a closer look please feel free to click this link and browse around to your hearts content:
http://go.nasa.gov/1RvXloS
“You’re the one failing to address…. blah blah blah”
No Jimbo, you putrid piece of human excrement…
YOU are the one refusing to acknowledge the REALITY that Arctic sea ice changes over the last couple of years are absolutely TRIVIAL compared to the ZERO sea ice of the first 3/4 of the Holocene, and the massive gain during the LIA, which the Arctic is still struggling to recover from.
Try to ADMIT THE TRUTH.. for once in your miserable, dishonest life.
Blah blah blah…..
Can’t you answer a simple question for once in your life?
2) Where’s all the open water?
http://go.nasa.gov/1RvXloS
Cherry picking taken to absurd lengths. A trend based on three days.
From the Wikipedia entry of ‘Steven Goddard’ (tony Heller):
One of Goddard’s earliest writings, an article for The Register, asserted that the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s (NSIDC) data underlying a chart depicting 2008 Arctic sea ice loss was incorrect and that NSIDC seemed to demonstrate “a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss.”[3] Ten days later, however, Goddard acknowledged that the data on which the graph was based was accurate.[4]
Only a moron would confuse a comparison with a trend.
And Phlip is certainly a moron.
Cherry picking and outright lies will get you the adulation of this crowd. “It’s below the freezing temperature of my ice cubes!!!” It can’t be melting. It is NOT something rotten in Denmark, and Sweden, Norway, Germany, Japan, the UK, and the US. It is something rotten here.
But I give value to Tony’s allowance for my posts. In the past, he has cut me off at every turn, but now seems to be willing to take criticism.
“Cherry picking and outright lies will get you the adulation of this crowd”
really??? then why is nobody is cheering you or Dr Brainless.
Notice that he doesn’t explain his claim for “cherry picking”?
Something Is Not Rotten In Denmark
Posted on August 5, 2014 by stevengoddard
If you want accurate information about the Arctic, go to the Danish Meteorological Agency.
Something Rotten In Denmark
Posted on May 24, 2016 by tonyheller
The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic sea ice extent much lower than last year. Ocean and Ice Services | Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut However, their maps show that there is more ice than last year.
At this point, no one in the world believes that there is more arctic sea ice this year than last (on this date), except for Heller. To prove his point, he dithers low res ice maps on a four day baseline, and then counts gray-greenish pixels versus gray-reddish pixels. Where is the ability to verify his method?
The fact that no one here is “cheering me” proves my point that adulation here comes from agreeing with Heller, not me. Albeit this is Heller’s blog and he should be given kudos for it, and I should not have any expectation of ‘cheers’, that certainly doesn’t make what he claims to be true, actually true.
And when he contradicts his own pronouncements, shows three or four day map comparisons, chooses what sea ice graph to support his short range view, then THAT is cherry picking and ‘selective truth’.
When he circles minor peak anomalies between 1974 and 1979, and claims that the scientists are cherry picking 1979 because it had 2 million sq kms more sea ice than 1974, he is being disingenuous. You don’t get to patch anomaly graphs together without regard to their baselines. And then claim that 1974 arctic sea ice is similar to current sea ice.
This is science, not engineering. If Tony wants to figure out how to fix the DMSP satellite microwave sensor problem, then cool. But he doesn’t get to pick his scientific data to suit his preconceptions.
Ha ha,
the IPCC originally used the starting Satellite ice data from 1973 in their 1990 report.
Read up on the Nimbus satellite class.
The real baseline should be the whole Holocene interglacial, not just the last very short, meaningless period in the recovery from the coldest period of the last 10,000 years.
But using the correct baseline would shut down the AGW alarmist scammers for good, wouldn’t it, more-git.
And why shouldn’t TH use a different short period of data that you do to make his point.
Its not as if the whole AGW malarkey isn’t based on monumental cherry-picking and data manipulation, now is it.!
Somehow you can’t tell us…………….
Philip,
we are waiting for your explanation……
Wow, I sincerely hope that no one looking for actual science ever finds this post. The internet is a scary place.
I take it that your funding depends on junk climate science slush money?
Excellent contribution
You are no scientist. You are a liar though
An actual scientist would have made an argument, not got all emotional and safe space bed wetty
Bingo!
Tony used actual data and posted them,while you said absolutely nothing at all to it.
Do you know what a viable counterpoint is, alleged scientist?
You are allegedly an educated man who post nothing of value both times.
When I was young “actual science” told me a lot of things that did not turn out to be true. For example, when I became interested in dinosaurs, like many little boys, I accidentally learned some geology, and it was geology as it existed before the theory of continental drift existed. That was the “actual science” back then.
Then an older brother told me some amazing news. Continents drifted! Oh! What a wonderful revelation it was!
You might experience a similar revelation, if you dare leave stuffy confines of “actual science”, and adventure into REAL science.
We live in dangerous times, and Truth is dangerous. It is not merely the internet that “is a scary place.” Our world and our times “are a scary place.”
If you want to play it safe, stay at home, in the Mom’s basement of “actual science.” But if you like fresh air and freedom, give credit where credit is due, and thank the host of this site for having the guts to provide some REAL science.
Actual science. We need actual scientists who care, in spite of this scary internet thing.
And I hope they are sleeping on their side. Wouldn’t want to build up too much detritus. The fate of the planet depends on them.
The Actual Science Behind Beauty Sleep
Mr non-scientist.
The real truth is that Arctic sea ice is actually anomalously high compared to the rest of the Holocene.
Biodata conclusively shows that during the first 3/4 or more of the last 10,000 years summer sea ice levels were often down to ZERO.
The reason Arctic sea ice is still so anomalously high is because we are only just a bit above the COLDEST period in the whole of the last 10,000 years.
In the current scheme of things, with the AMO being still very close to the top of its cycle, and there having been a strong El Nino that pushed somewhat warmer air up through northern Russia…
the current level of sea ice is almost exactly where anyone looking purely at the science, would expect it to be.. nothing untoward at all is happening.
Unfortunately, for the people living up there, the El Nino has gone, the AMO is heading downwards, and the sun is having a snooze..
The next few years, maybe decades, will almost certainly see a very unwelcome climb in the amount of Arctic sea ice.
The recovery from the frozen misery of the LIA has finished.
“The next few years, maybe decades, will almost certainly see a very unwelcome climb in the amount of Arctic sea ice.”
Which is probably why we are seeing a massive AGW troll invasion. Make a warming point, before the cooling begins.
Get those anti-CO2 rule in place and economic decline started, before the cooling kills off the whole totalitarian socialist scam.
This alarmist desperation is evident throughout the whole web.
Any of them with the slightest intelligence knows that their climate hysteria rests on a knife edge.
AndyG55
It is an election year in the USA and Trump is threatening the Globalists. The European Union is facing a major crisis as the sleeping population wakes to find their ‘leaders’ are leading them over the cliff into genocide.
The Austrailians are also rumbling.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXmCIFKRrTY
Expect a major crank-up of ‘scare the feces out of the population’ as the Elite struggle to regain control.
What actual science are you complaining about?
To me he was simply pointing out that there little overall change from last year at this month time frame, if anything there is LESS loss this year than last year for the sample dates.
If you want to see how screwed up ice reporting has become for the Arctic take a look at Cryosphere Today charts. They show that suddenly there is over 2.4 million square kilometers of ice in the Arctic than several days ago. Is the truth accidentally getting out or is there another instrument failure or What?
As is says on the Cryo site, “Special Sensor Microwave Imager and Sounder (SSMIS) on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F-17 satellite that provides passive microwave brightness temperatures (and derived Arctic and Antarctic sea ice products) has been providing spurious data since beginning of April. Working on resolving problem or replacing this data source.”
NSIDC was using data from the same satellite until it crapped out (actually a solar panel blocked the view of the microwave sensors). It took them several weeks to switch to the DMSP F18 satellite data, but they are currently publishing ‘unspurious’ data that they ‘matched’ to earlier data, but they warn that this data is subject to verification by others.
DMI has already been using DMSP F18 SSMIS data since 1/19, 2013. Prior to that they were using SSM/I data from DMSP F17.
JAXA used ASMR-E data on the NASA satellite, Aqua from 2002. They then switched to AMSR data on their own ADEOS-II satellite, and now are using data output from the AMSR2 sensors on Japan’s Shizuku satellite.
Their maps do show melting in the last two weeks.Below is 5/11/16 over 5/25/16. the high-res version clearly shows melting. More accurate is comparing the histograms of the two images. The map from 5/11 has 21001 white pixels (245-255) while 5/25 only has 19496. That’s an 8% reduction in ice, just as the line graph shows.
Remember, the maps are generated from the same data as the graphs. Why would they be different?