Mallow

Again, please show me the observational studies or data which suggest that El Niños are strongly correlated to low Arctic sea ice. I am not aware of such a linkage. Warmer global temperatures during El Niño are mostly associated with elevated SSTs in the tropics and midlatitudes (especially the tropics). As far as I am aware, there is not a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice. Indeed, a cursory glance shows that some of the strongest El Niño events in recent record (1982-1983 and 1997-1998) were not followed by particularly anomalous Arctic sea ice minima (1983 was near or even slightly above the average of the time, and 1998 was below the average of the time, but not remarkably so). Other moderate El Niño events such as 1986-1987, 1987-1988, and 1991-1992, were followed by anomalously high Arctic sea ice minima for their time. Furthermore, the extremely anomalous 2012 sea ice minimum record was preceded not by an El Niño, but by a La Niña.

El Niño is not associated with reduced Arctic sea ice in general. Indeed, over the Barents and Kara Seas region, based upon my own research, enhanced central Pacific equatorial convection is associated with reduced temperatures and increased sea ice. The effects of ENSO on Arctic sea ice vary from region to region, and I am unaware of any recent study that shows (in observations) that there is a strong correlation between ENSO and overall Arctic sea ice. As for the statement "there is nothing unusual about our current climate," if one is comparing our current climate to that of recent centuries, one could not be further from the truth. But that point has been rehashed repeatedly and can be easily researched with a small bit of time and effort.

Yep. As far as I could tell, this is the only year on record that the NH summer peak in global sea ice was higher than the NH autumn peak. I couldn't find one in the past that was even close.

But why would that show up as polynyas in all the basins at once this year, and not in any previous year? Not even a hint...

I think that was the general consensus. It's just so strange to me that it would seem so steady, and then suddenly collapse. Perhaps feedbacks are more important down there than I realized.

Wow... that has to be an error, doesn't it? That would be like if NYC's record high and low for a date were 80°F and 40°F respectively, and then they go and record an 18°F.

There is no conspiracy here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence--anecdotes based on memory are about the weakest form of evidence one could present. In other words, you're going to have to present data (again, not anecdotes, but real, comparative data) which support your claims in order for people to take your hypothesis more seriously.

That's not entirely true. The projection shown in that temperature plot looks like a polar stereographic projection, which is much better than, say, a mercator or equirectangular projection when looking at the accuracy of polar regions.

Could this be the first time on record that the global SIA peak happened in June rather than Oct/Nov?

I don't understand the point of your original post in any context. You seem to be trying to call people out on their hypocrisy, but when people tell you they never said those things, all you say is "well I know some people said them." Okay? And some people say the Earth is flat... so... If you're going to call someone out on their hypocrisy, please be more specific about WHO said what before (a quote, preferably), and WHAT that same person is saying now that's inconsistent with their previous positions. Otherwise, you're doing the same thing you're claiming others of doing--basing your arguments on your own memories or assumptions about what other people believe.

On NSIDC, we're now below 2011, and almost tied with 2007 for second lowest on record. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

I had said 2017-2018, but it's looking more likely that it'll be 2016.

Not you.

It depends. If the cool bias isn't changing with time, it by definition won't affect the trendline.

I said that.

This is where all the confusion is stemming from. Any reasonable person would read that sentence as "... anything in the way of gridding, nor anything in the way of spatial homogenization." The word "gridding" is almost exclusively used as a verb/gerund. Nobody would assume you were using it as an adjective in the noun phrase "gridding homogenization", which is a phrase I've never heard uttered, when it could be interpreted as the much more grammatically standard format I quoted above (italics). As for the other part, that you "mysteriously changed your mind"... you said it yourself in the very same post. "Actually, I was wrong." Any reasonable person, having read the following sentence in the way mentioned above (italics), would interpret the "I was wrong" part to mean exactly that--that you changed your mind. So, saying "that's ridiculous" is unhelpful here. It's not ridiculous, as skier and I (and many others) interpreted your post exactly the same way. If you really did mean something else, then you chose one of the most poorly worded means to express yourself I've ever seen. To me, the grammar of your post so obviously meant exactly what skier is suggesting, that it is actually easier for me to believe that you were wrong and didn't like being called out, than that you honestly just worded your statement poorly and meant something that no reasonable person would interpret your post to have meant. And that's why skier is so combative with you. Does that all make sense?

I have moved the relevant discussion on RATPAC to this thread, since it seems to be a catchall of sorts. Please keep the observation threads clear of accusatory posts.

Every time this conversation re-surfaces:

Even over relatively short time periods, it would seem.

Argh. I think you both honestly believe what you're saying. And you both believe the other is being intentionally deceitful. And that's why this argument is still going on. Stop assuming the other is intentionally trying to lie to get an advantage and maybe the conversation will be more civil in the future.

I think people (including me) are confused because the post of yours that's been quoted several times doesn't seem to have any other possible reasonable interpretation. Your attempts to explain what you were trying to say with that post have been confusing, and I still don't know how one could interpret it to mean anything other than that you were saying it wasn't gridded. At the very least, it was poorly worded, and the amount of people that interpreted your post the way you say it shouldn't be interpreted is a testament to that. In any case, this whole conversation is tedious and old, and I hope that it will be dropped soon.

He was demonstrably wrong (not an "opinion"), but you're right, he doesn't have to publicly admit it. And this conversation played itself out a week ago. Like he keeps suggesting, take it to PM.

I've never heard the term "geographic normalization" before. It's possible that it is a term used in geography, though I suspect the blog you linked uses the term "normalization" merely as a descriptive term (rather than a mathematical/scientific one). Either way, in the field of meteorology/climatology, as far as I'm aware, normalization refers to the statistical definition.

Weighting grid points to account for the areal coverage of the grid point is absolutely not called "normalization". I do not know for sure that it is called "homogenization", but I believe that it is. Normalization is, at its most basic, scaling variables by their standard deviations to allow for statistical intercomparisons. Weighting is a simple form of extrapolation. It is mathematically identical to extrapolating a single value to a larger continuous region, doing that for each data point, and then taking an average (via integration) over the whole globe.

I don't agree. The lag is longer than 15 to 30 years.