There was a lot more lying going on than that. Brad, could I send you an energy policy economic analysis? You would find it interesting. Please send me an email address to contact.

Peter Ellis: This is exactly what I didn't want to happen. I didn't want the problem to become this public, which is why I used this old thread to discuss it. I especially don't want any discussion with Steve Goddard, who believes that water exists at its triple point in the Arctic (he can't read a phase diagram), doesn't understand either Henry's law, Raoult's law, or Dalton's law; and doesn't know how to estimate the thermal energy released by air and water vapor as they cool… and doesn't want to seem to want to learn. He brings to mind Mark Twain's famous quote: "Never argue with an idiot, because the onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." I have spent an inordinate time studying this problem, and have talked to Dr. Meier's people, and there is nothing I want to say publicly. I am going dark on this issue.

Clarification to last comment upon re-reading it: I am agreeing with your earlier observation Ned, that we won't be able to reverse-engineer the problems in MASIE.

Wow, Ned, you really went off there. Do you really think a correlation of 0.5 is that good? What was the correlation for Day 0 of the most recent run? Was it even 0.5? Anyway, I had spent the last few hours going over the NSIDC daily data, which I didn't get until just this last week, and did compare MASIE and NSIDC daily numbers, with a preliminary first pass look, then I wrote a response offline, and I came here to post it, and there is your comment… I am going to post it the way it read, not changing a word: OK, Ned, I am throwing in the towel. But not in the direction you think, and not for the reason you want. I looked at the NSIDC numbers for July, August, and September last year, and the July and August numbers this year. I was going to check the correlation you calculated, but before I did that I simply wanted to see the daily "error", using NSIDC as the benchmark and the MASIE as the variable. I got a shock. These numbers are preliminary, and I need to look day by day to check for gaps, but the results so far are pretty compelling. Its too bad we didn't have daily NSIDC SIE data earlier in the season. Last year the daily errors came in as I would expect: July 2011 NSIDC was higher by an average of 220k with the root mean square error (RMSE) = 224k, since there were two days with negative errors. July 2011 RMSE= 224k August 2011 RMSE= 247k September 2011 RMSE= 200k (NSIDC and MASIE paths crossed) I was able to reduce the errors, and match observable events (storms, date of minimum, unusual pack movements) by introducing a 5-day lag for the MASIE reported data. 5d lag July 2011 RMSE= 214k versus 224k 5d lag August 2011 RMSE= 121k versus 247k 5d lag September 2011 RMSE= 101k versus 200k I expected July 2012 to more or less match July 2011 since the other SIE measures tracked very close to July 2011 over the month. And if there were bigger errors they would be due to the longer lag. But alas, no. MASIE showed a much bigger RMSE in July of this year, than last year, with RMSE in July hitting 363k and then in August skyrocketing to 715k so far. Even before the storm, the RMSE hit 436k on the one first few days in August. These differences are much higher than last year. Since MASIE has only been around since 2010, we simply don't have the track record for this report, to compare and spot discrepancies. Introducing a lag won't be able to fix this large an error. Here are the numbers, and note that using a 12d lag to correct August 2012 worked well, but threw off July: 12d lag July 2012 RMSE= 540k versus 362k 12d lag August 2012 RMSE= 112k versus 715k so far… I still see a 12d lag in response to timed events like the GAC-2012, but clearly MASIE has bigger problems than a simple reporting lag. And we won't be able to reverse-engineer these problems like you said. MASIE should still see a delayed minimum, but I can't begin to guess how that minimum will compare with Bremen or NSIDC, let alone IJIS. I'm finished until after the minimum hits.

Ned, the link to the NSIDC single day data is on Neven's Daily Graphs page.

Dr Tskoul: If Bremen and NSIDC hit minimums after September 18, MASIE may not show the SIE minimum until October, so it won't show the refreeze in late September. You are correct that this hypothesis will stand or fall by the end of September, unless NSIDC pulls the MASIE reports before then.

Ned, you are correlating single day data reports from MASIE against an average data set from IJIS… further, the time frame you selected is too large to test the hypothesis I am proposing. Sometimes the MASIE report is higher than IJIS and sometimes lower. Furthermore, the two SIE measurement systems use significantly different grid sizes. Finally, I don't find your correlations very strong. Try plotting NSIDC single day data for the last several months, and compare to the MASIE single day data; both should show very close SIE readings for the same date, but don't. If you shift the MASIE data 10-12 days you will find a much closer match with NSIDC numbers. I suggested this earlier, but you just repeated the same exercise you did last year. I will take physical system observations coupled with actual heat and mass transfer calculations, particularly if available in a specific area or region… anytime… over an inconclusive statistical correlation on different average period data from different measurement systems over a timeframe where differences can be averaged out and obscured. In process control, we use a step change to measure the system response, and the GAC-2012 gave us that step change. The MASIE data shows a serious transportation lag (the term process control engineers use for a delayed response to a step change, caused by the measurement and reporting system), to the GAC of 2012.

Now lets talk about the storm signature on the SIE data. The SIE reported by DMI showed a sizable uptick after the storm abated; the Bremen report shows at least one "level day" which we can't quantify without the actual numerical report; NSIDC daily data, shows a slight uptick on August 10th after the 240k decline the day before, and before the decline continued with another century break the next day. So yes, the broader measures (that don't give us the regional impact of the storm on the three regions hit worst), show leveling or upticks after the storm abated; this is just as we would expect from the melt/measurement processes, and consistent with prior melt events caused by storms. MASIE also usually shows a big uptick after storm drops, like the upticks after the August storm last year, but also upticks after a big drop in early September. So the storm signature big drop - uptick - continued stronger than normal decline until the damage pack becomes more stable… this signature is present in all the SIE data for the storm, and in the MASIE total Arctic reports, and in all three regions most impacted by the storm, in the MASIE regional reports. Even the Canadian Archipelago data is consistent with the storm impact there. This adds more observations that clearly support the hypothesis that the recent MASIE reported data were actually observed and collected during the storm dates.

Peter Ellis: You are starting to twist and nitpick the data… not a good sign. You focused on the Canadian Archipelago in the MASIE data, and ignored the other regions. Lets look at the whole picture, shall we? The biggest gain was not in the CA, it was in: E. Siberian +98k Which with the other regions most affected by the storm, Beaufort +36k, Chukchi +36k, amounted to +170k of the +279k. The other big regional gains came in the Greenland +50k and your selected favorite datapoint of the day, the Canadian Archipelago +43k. Lets take a good look at the archipelago reports. Two days before the CA had 307131.25 k, and the next day… whoa, what's this? Exactly the same number, 307131.25. And now the latest report, shows a gain of +43k. Looking at the records, there were four days with 306k to 307k, then the jump by 43k. Lets go back and look at the Bremen maps and examine the CA during the storm days of August 5-August 10. What do we see? Prior to the storm only the mouth of the McClure strait is blocked, and this continues until some ice moves from the Beaufort into the strait on August 7, with continued big moves into the strait on August 8th and 9th. By August 10, some portions of ice pack extended almost 200km into the Archipelago. And elsewhere in the CA, some ice reappeared on the Bremen map, as the massive storm cold front blanketed the region with snow. Clearly the uptick in the CA data reported yesterday is consistent the storm days impact on the CA. I don't have the time to chase down every red herring you throw at me. If you were interested in the CA MASIE report for this region, why didn't you check it out? I just can't investigate every little dimple in the data. I am focusing on the enormous heat transport during the GAC-2012, and the high heat transfer rates necessary to wipe out approximately 400k sq km of mostly 70%+ concentration meter plus thick ice, and another 100k of 30% + concentration ice, primarily in three regions, and in just a few days. These events don't happen very often… in fact, never before in August during the satellite era. And the MASIE data for these regions for the days this incredible event hit the Arctic, shows no sign of it! How is that possible? You have been trying for days now, to come up with a plausible explanation, and you've failed. You need re-evaluate your position.

And today the detachment almost showed up in the MASIE map, showing an event that occurred on Sunday. Tomorrow the detachment should be complete. MASIE is about 1.0M behind the SIE extent, and will need to turn on the afterburners to catch the other.

Seke Rob: Yes, the "classic signature" response of sea ice extent to a large storm. The initial big drop, as ice is dispersed and pushed around, increasing the heat transport into the ice floe/block area, and the increased heat transfer to the ice by water disturbing the normal stagnant colder water directly next to the ice, and disturbing the protective stagnant film layer of water (laminar layer) that slows the heat transfer. And of course the floes break up, and are submerged, increasing the surface area for heat transfer. As pointed out in some of my comments from last August linked to earlier in this thread, the amount of heat transfer to melt out 100k sq km in one or two regions is enormous. When an event like that occurs, there MUST be a causal factor that increased the heat transfer by a factor of 10x, and probably 30-50x, normal heat transfer rate. So for a one day storm, the SIE falls like a rock on day 1, and maybe into day 2, but after the storm abates, many of the dispersed and flooded floes re-emerge and collect together, or re-flash as Neven puts it, to show up in the count again. Typically the rebound is 20-50% of the melt. In this case the rebound in the MASIE of 279k today, after dropping 731k during the storm shows a rebound of about 38%. This is the kind of SIE response one would expect from a major storm lasting several days. But wait! Where was the storm? We didn't see a major storm in the regions showing the drop and rebound in SIE. So What caused the massive increase in heat transfer to melt out a net of 452k so quickly? Peter and Ned are completely ignoring this, and offer only that the measurements are noisy and vary that much. I don't buy it. The amount of heat to cause this kind of SIE loss requires a spectacular weather event. And the evidence should be even clearer in the regional graphs? Lets check… Beaufort region. Chukchi and the E. Siberian all show the classic storm signature response. As I have pointed out over and over, the regional SIE data response show this was the GAC-2012 storm effect showing up in the data, with a lag of 12 days! It is impossible to transfer enough heat to get this kind of SIE loss, without weather systems playing a key role.

skywatcher: I answered your question (before either of your two recent requests to answer the question). I even quoted your question right at the beginning of the comment. If you are having trouble seeing this comment, I can re-enter it. Let me know, I aim to please.

I suspect all of you have seen the 2007 melt season movie, but I will put a link up to my earlier comment on it. For anyone who hasn't watched the impact of storms on the ice pack, and melt process, watching the movie closely can yield some fairly interesting observations. If you click and hold the mouse key down over the cursor at the bottom, you can reverse or forward the movie at will. Two of the storms are discussed in my comment. Please note the June 9th storm in the Beaufort scattered the ice pack, but it seemed come back together again. Anyway, I thought I'd put it up. It makes an interesting reference point for observing ice pack movements.

I agree. Great site. I have been exploring it, and it has already yielded some very interesting information. And not all of it supporting either side of my discussion differences with Peter. The Beaufort/Chuckchi storm of August 22, 2011 shows up late on August 28. But the GAC-2012 shows up on time, but with some very interesting ice pack movements. I need time to study and digest this. I want to compare to IMS and MASIE maps and data a bit. It seems this site may have been updated to fix a problem…. too soon for me to know.

Yes, the MASIE numbers are noisy, but they also match Bremen map observations well, once the lag is taken into account. And since we have the MASIE regional data to look at, then we can match the regional declines to weather events that affect only one or two regions. Thats how I knew that eventually the Beaufort, Chukchi, and E. Siberian regional extents were going to record serious declines associated with GAC-2012. And that's what happened. Now what if we have a prolonged melt year such that Bremen / IJIS hit minimums after September 18th this year? Then if I am correct, then MASIE will report the minimum extent for an October date. Then this could this lag could turn into a real problem. The skeptics will be all over the MASIE reported minimum, like rats on cheese. They can say: "The ice is still melting, even a week after the sun went down? " And the temperature is minus 10 degrees? Then this issue could turn into a real WUWT imbroglio. Better to get this resolved, and cleaned up if necessary, before the public is really aware of it.

Ned: Please bear with me a bit. First, I apologize for the snarky comment about the 350k projection, I shouldn't have put that up. From when I first came to this site, I have disagreed with many who have tried to forecast the minimum SIE using trend analysis. From my work on heat transfer in these kind of heat transport problems, the ice pack wasn't going gradually melt away into a big ocean of slush. The heat transfer rate picks up substantially once the pack is weakened, fractured, and mobile. The heat transferred from the seawater during the bottom melt season accelerates, and the pack weakens quickly. If combined with a persistent wind pattern, or rough weather, then the pack collapses (basically, what we are seeing this year). In order to forecast this, understanding how the regions of lower latitude "guard" pack that protects the Central Arctic Basin are faring is very important. The guys on this site showed me the MASIE regional data, and I immediately fell in love with it. Being able to track regional ice extent, allows comparison to weather events, pack movement, wind patterns, and even regional insolation changes. Unfortunately the MASIE regional graphs didn't match well with these factors. But yet MASIE showed large drops from time to time, that seemed due to the factors I listed above. What was going on? This is what motivated me to study MASIE regional data. Second, last year I felt the IJIS reported data didn't match pack observations very well. But MASIE agreed with IJIS better on the total extent than the other PM products, seemed to confirm IJIS. The Bremen map, and Bremen SIE seemed like the odd man out. But after I realized that MASIE seemed to be following the Bremen reports and map (with the lag), then I could make the outrageous prediction that the minimum on the MASIE would match the Bremen SIE minimum, and be below the IJIS minimum. This is the comment beginning, "Guys, if I am wrong on this, I am going to look like an idiot." At the time (August 25 data), MASIE was about 500k sq km higher than Bremen, and 200-300k above IJIS. It was a gutsy call that MASIE would blow past IJIS and end up with a minimum near Bremen SIE. There wasn't a lot of time to make up more than 500k sq km difference. But that's what happened. The 2011 MASIE minimum was within 2% of the Bremen minimum. You focused too much on the lag issue, and not enough on my point that MASIE should match Bremen near the minimum, since the smaller grids should capture the minimum better. This year I believe it will happen again. Up until four days ago, MASIE was about 1.5 M sq km higher than Bremen, and still is over 1.0 M higher. So in a way, my forecast this year is even more gutsy. But I believe that MASIE will close the gap, fall below IJIS again, and record a minimum SIE very close to the Bremen minimum SIE. And I say this, knowing that is already August 22, and that forecasting this rapid a decline in SIE seems rash and ill-advised. I was correct last year… so lets see what happens.

Oh, and BTW, at the minimum on September 14, MASIE showed 4.303 M and on that date IJIS reported an extent 352k higher than MASIE. Explanations are welcome.

Ned Ward: I checked my computer, and found the MASIE spreadsheet from last September. MASIE hit its minimum on September 14 at 4.303 M, lower than the IJIS minimum 2-day average reported 5 days earlier on September 9 at 4.527 M by 224k sq km. Your theory is interesting. Does your projection error of 350k apply in mid-September? If so, then MASIE actually shows a minimum of about 574k lower than IJIS. Is this your interpretation?

Downil1: I don't know how the Canadian Ice Service chart information is collected, updated, and used. Why don't you tell me how that is done? What does 6/10 ice mean? Areas of 6/10 ice, or patches, or average? Is the data collected by pixel count? I am assuming the ice charts are for navigation purposes, and swaths of thicker ice is what they might be interested in. But I am ready to learn… How does the ice chart info compare to PM ice extent measurement? Paul

Peter Ellis: Try focusing on just one thing to start with. We know that major storms have an impact on the ice pack. We have the August 22, 2011 storm, and Neven has found evidence of a major storm on the Arctic ice pack from a 2005 storm (on one of the other threads), and clearly the GAC-2012 had an impact. Then why doesn't any of the MASIE regional graphs for the Beaufort, Chukchi, or E. Siberian show the impact of this storm during the megaweek SIE loss of August 4 to August 11. These regional graphs actually show significantly less extent loss for that week than in a normal melt year? This is the HUGE glaring "elephant in the room" problem with the MASIE reports.

Peter Ellis: It might help you to follow the process I followed to reach the conclusions I have reached. The big change in my view was caused by carefully studying the effects of the August 22, 2011 storm in the Beaufort/Chukchi where the Healy was at the time. To start, here I caution about reading too much about the ice pack edge in the Bremen preliminary map (Bremen used to put a preliminary map that showed the side near the Fram fairly accurately, but the side facing Alaska, not as accurately; after the final map came out, the Alaska side of the pack would usually show significant revisions compare to the earlier map, likely due to more satellite passes.) August 21, 2011 at 20:36 Then the Bremen preliminary map came out (note the comment from Chris Biscan directly before mine) : August 22, 2011 at 19:41 Here I agree with Neven, that melting out this much extent in one region in one day is impossible (little did I know what was coming.): August 22, 2011 at 20:16 Here I begin discussing heat transfer rate: August 22, 2011 at 21:30 And here I put some actual heat transfer rates on the table, and end by saying "On this issue, call me a skeptic." August 23, 2011 at 03:01 But then the final Bremen map came out, and showed big pullback of the ice pack edge: August 23, 2011 at 07:07 Here I discuss the next day's map, expecting to see a lot of the missing extent fill back in (didn't happen; some did the next day, but nowhere near the 100 km rebound in pack edge). The photos from the Healy shows very little ice in some areas that even the Bremen map shows ice, let alone the MASIE map. At this point I am beginning to believe a lot of the overnight loss was real… and that we had really observed events that demonstrated the very high heat transfer rates that I thought unlikely. August 24, 2011 at 01:01 Here I begin to get suspicious, and a couple of comments down, I compare the MASIE map extent in the Chukchi with the Bremen map, and end by saying "Confusing." August 26, 2011 at 21:10 And then a couple of comments later, I admit I don't understand why the maps show substantially different ice pack edges. And we had the Healy photos showing the main ice pack edge was around 78N, somewhat consistent with the Bremen map but far to the north of the MASIE pack edge. A couple of confusing hours later, I first express the hypothesis that the MASIE data has been delayed by a week: August 26, 2011 at 23:00 And a couple of comments below that admit: "Golly guys, I am going to look like an idiot if I am wrong on this, but here goes:" …and then I suggest that MASIE, if dated correctly, should (and does) compare closely to the Bremen SIE data, but not the IJIS data. A couple of comments later, I forecast that we should see a big drop in the MASIE reported extent of over 100k centered in the Beaufort/Chukchi by August 31. And later I revised this to September 1st. I was right the first time; on August 31 MASIE recorded a 135k sq km drop, and just as interesting, reported rebounds of 58k and 19k the next two days. These reports were driven by regional drops in the Beaufort and Chukchi, whereas earlier big extent drops in August were attributed mostly to other regions. Since the storm took out the ice in those two regions, the August 31st report was the only report that matched. And the rebound the next two days was centered in the Beaufort, which seemed to match the Bremen map results. Since then, I am convinced that: - dispersed floes on the open sea melt at much faster rates than in a higher concentration pack; - that storms can take out a lot of ice by boosting the heat transfer rate high enough to take out 100 cm of ice thickness literally overnight; - and that the MASIE maps have a dating issue, which if corrected, show the MASIE SIE matches the other small gridded product, the Bremen SIE, very closely. A closing comment from last year: August 27, 2011 at 22:47 Lucia, I put a lot of time and investigative time into my comments. You want the simple answer: No, the Bremen numbers aren't available all the time, but one commenter here who knows what he is talking about, has access to the data, and shares occasionally. But you are really out in the corn field on this one. You are busily crunching numbers with no idea of what they mean, how they were measured, how they relate to the physical system, or even when the measurement was taken. YOU should read every comment of mine on this thread, starting from the top. When you find the comment that starts, "OK guys, if I am wrong on this, I am going to look like an idiot." you should really start reading carefully. You could learn a lot of how a real skeptic works, instead of a fake skeptic. I am not afraid to admit I am wrong, and correct my mistakes. Real skeptics MUST have this attitude to be effective. Posted by: Paul Klemencic | August 27, 2011 at 22:47

skywatcher: The Healy photos start on page 8 with the conning tower shots of the storm (Healy was right in the middle of it). The Latitude can be made out at the top of the picture, if you zoom in on the image. The Healy was around 71N at the time, and should have been running into the ice. As the Healy sailed north, you will notice the big ice wasn't hit until around 78N and the solid pack around 80N. Here is a shot from August 23 at almost 78N, whereas MASIE showed the ice pack extending down to 72N… The photo should be filled with ice. http://icefloe.net/Aloftcon_Photos/index.php?album=2011&image=20110823-1001.jpeg

skywatcher asked: Would you accept that it is plausible that two observing platforms with differing thresholds or measurement systems for determining ice/open water will show similar trends, with a lag between the two? The problem is that the explanation of why MASIE, and in particular, the MASIE regional extent graphs, take this regional graph for the Chukchi , doesn't show SIE losses comparable to actual events, and other SIE measures, or MODIS imagery. A huge storm moved into the Arctic on August 4 and 5, then on Stormy Monday August 6th hammered the ice pack, with huge SIE losses on the 6th, 7th, and 8th. Over the week starting August 4th, the storm took out 900k to 1000k sq km of SIE according to the PM systems. The Chukchi region was right in the center of the storm circulation. Look at the MASIE regional graph. Where is the imprint of this massive storm? Can you see it in the week between August 4 and August 11? No. Not at all. The damage began to show up until 12 days later. The same thing for the Beaufort. And for the E. Siberian, although a little less conclusive. The explanation for this has become increasingly convoluted, to the point where it makes no sense at all (a million sq km of low concentration SIE hanging around for almost two weeks, to suddenly disappear in just a few days). So to answer your question, it is not plausible that the two separate measurement platforms could show the same trend impact of this storm with a 12-day lag.

skywatcher: MASIE is a recent dataset, only initiated in 2010, and has suffered from lack of support. Currently, the response to the big SIE losses from the storm on August 6,7,8 showed up on MASIE on August 18, 19, and 20, showing a 12-day delay in dating the data. The MASIE map matches the Bremen (and CT) map from about 14 days earlier. The combination of the graphs, matched to the events, matched to the Healy sailing north right through the area of the flash melt on August 22 just after the storm that caused it, and not showing ice where the MASIE map showed ice… the combination triggered my suspicions. Then six days after the flash melt in the Chukchi and Beaufort…. bam! MASIE showed big regional drops in SIE in the Chukchi and Beaufort… The same thing has been happening time after time, but now with a much longer lag time.

skywatcher: look at the graph of various SIE from last year that I linked to. And I am not proposing a "variable delay"… I am suggesting that the delay (lag) is getting worse with time. Last year I thought it was due to missing data days…. But now, I suspect a different problem with dating the observational data at the NIC, and then used as input to the MASIE project. I got caught up in other work last September, and couldn't keep the graph going. The reason I think its a dating problem, is that the MASIE map is two days older than the data… the same difference in dates was apparent last August/September. The storm damage is very useful to diagnosing the delay (lags), because the big drops stick out in the data. Unfortunately, last year I only had spotty Bremen data to compare with, and "averaged IJIS" data. This year we have one day NSIDC data, so we have another PM product to compare to. I haven't had the time to plot NSIDC data versus MASIE yet.