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.
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?
Is “is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?” very, very misleading? Yes or no.
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.
Yes or no. Was the title misleading?
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/
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?
As for Manabe the abstract never mentions Antarctic Sea Ice.
Is there some reason you can only read abstracts?
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…
I think a negative AMO will be a very rude surprise for warmists. Get your grant money soon. Its going to get cold.
“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?
Do your own reading; I have plenty enough of my own to do.
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?
You didn’t really expect honesty from a rotten appell, did you?
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!
Yes, the oceans are getting much warmer — including the Southern ocean, according to a 2010 Judith Curry paper:
“Accelerated warming of the Southern Ocean and its impacts on the hydrological cycle and sea ice”
Jiping Liu1 and Judith A. Curry, PNAS 2010
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/09/1003336107.abstract
Bob Tisdale says otherwise.
http://judithcurry.com/2014/02/03/why-is-there-so-much-antarctic-sea-ice/#comment-447810
Bob Tisdale is a blogger, not an expert, nor does his work appear in one of the best journals in the world. Bob Tisdale’s function is to put up some junk that sounds science-y, so deniers like you, who don’t understand enough to judge good science from bad, will have a link to point to.
Prove he is wrong or you can go in the SPAM bucket.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1998/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1998/trend
It’s impossible to prove him wrong, because it’s impossible to know where he got the data, since he provided no link to the source, or any discussion of methods. (That’s the problem with throwing up some picture that’s not in a paper.)
Your WFT data is for the southern hemisphere, not the Southern ocean.
His graphs are labelled Reynolds OI.v2 … you should have noticed that before the smear attempt.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/gridded/data.noaa.oisst.v2.html
If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts!
Sad isn’t it?
The fact is that the data is model-dependent, and also subject modeling errors. There is no data without models.
Sad isn’t it?
Would you rather have the most accurate data possible, or only that which fits your preconceived notions?
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.
Why would I believe them with that title?
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?