If things have seemed a bit slow lately, it’s because I’ve been very busy. Among other things, there’s a paper in preparation based on this post — but it should be submitted soon, and I’ll post a link to a preview as soon as possible.
In the meantime, just a few notes. Arctic sea ice hit an all-time low extent according to the University of Bremen, but not quite according to NSIDC and JAXA. It did break the all-time low record for ice area according to Cryosphere today, and for ice volume according to PIOMAS. Record-breaker or no, this much is clear: the trend continues. And the trend is: death spiral.
Also, the Rabett continues his excellent series on the idiotic witch-hunt against Charles Monnett, one which is turning into an extremely serious embarrassment for the witch-hunters. His series is extremely important, and I urge you all both to support his continued blogging on this issue, and to spread the word about the politically motivated harrassment of a scientist, for no other reason than his exposing evidence of the impact of global warming on the environment.
Open Mind 
As I understand it, Bremen reported a one-day extent that broke the record, and that the NSIDC uses a five-day moving average. Is that correct?
About NSIDC, yes; I’m not sure that Bremen is a ‘raw’ one-day value. I know, to consider another example for a moment, that IJIS-JAXA uses two-day averaging to smooth their data a bit. But that two-day average is reported daily. It’s possible Bremen does something similar.
Perhaps someone can provide that detail?
There was discussion about that over at Neven’s blog. I’m pretty sure Bremen is one-day data – it tends to be a bit noisier as a result. There are also differences in how the extent is calculated – particularly the cell size used, which varies from 6.25km to 25km for the various products, I think.
One way you can all help scientists who are being harrassed is to donate to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
John Abraham and I are grateful for the generous response to this appeal. We are happy to inform everyone that we have met, and exceeded the initial goal of $10,000. This appeal is a great start for a long-term plan to develop a permanent fund for defending scientists against these attacks. Consequently, we are working to develop a funding structure that allows donations to be made to a 401c3 non-profit entity.
All funds that are in excess of those currently needed for Dr. Mann will be placed into this entity for future use defending other scientists. We believe that the existence of this fund will send a strong message that groups like ATI cannot bully scientists.
Thanks for that.
No comment.
I should perhaps also wonder publicly whether the SkS mention that C & S “received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal”–also an objectively verifiable truth–is considered “ad hominem?”
Strawman. The SkS critiques are of public statements of opinion on climate made by C & S, not of the dataset that is their professional work.
And they aren’t “ad hominem” in the slightest, although I suppose you could argue whether or not the C & S connections to the Heartland Institute, etc, are appropriately mentioned in the context of an objective response. (FWIW, it seems relevant and appropriate to me. C & S make no secret about them; why should SkS?)
Just want to reaffirm that Rabbett Run are doing excellent coverage of the Monnett case. The comments beneath the articles there are also enlightening on the finer details. I’ve been following this unfolding story closely since it hit the press, and it’s prime example of the abuse of scientists whose work supports, or seems to support, the mainstream view on climate change. Charles Monnett has suffered a painfully execrable sequence of events, and the perverse ‘investigation’ has jeopardised ongoing and potential future collaborative work between US and foreign scientists. A group of Australian scientists have sent a letter to the White House decrying the treatment of Monnett and the badgering of science. I urge US scientists (or interested others) to do the same.
Every day it seems scientific evidence emerges that global warming is underestimated, and that politics are twisting what we hear in the media.
Take the case of Charles Monnett of the US Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement. Monnett was interrogated by criminal investigators of the Inspector General, suspended by the DOI and stripped of his COR status, and Sen Inhofe (known for issuing criminal investigations of scientists that oppose his views) took the opportunity to take some political advantage of the IG investigation.
Fellow CORs have filed requests to be trained on interpretation of the DOI aquisition manual, since they believe Monnett acted exactly as the Department of Interior tells CORs to act. And note that Monnett has not been officially charged with any wrongdoing at all.
Monnett’s only crime was that he happened to be the first scientist documenting that polar bears can drown when ice recedes further and further from the coast. Something that has been confirmed many times since Monnett wrote his observational note in the peer-reviewed journal Polar Biology.
And if there is any doubt in anyone’s mind that Monnett was correct when he mentioned that polar bears would face inceased risks of drowning due to receding sea ice, please check the distance they need to swim from sea ice to Alaskan coast now, versus 1980 (or 1990 or 2000), on Cryosphere Today :
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=09&fd=12&fy=1980&sm=09&sd=12&sy=2011
Note : Alaska is situated at the top in this image.
1980 distance to sea ice boundary : some 50 km.
2011 distance to sea ice boundary : about 700 km.
Incidentally, Monnett’s interrogation by the DOI, and suspension of Monnett’s employer (the DOI) comes exactly at the time that the DOI signs the go-ahead of exploratory drilling in the Arctic under Chukchi lease sale 193, a $ 2.6 billion lease-sale which has been held-up in court for years because of questions on the environmental impact of drilling in the Arctic. Exactly the sort of environmental impact studies that Monnett was managing as a COR. And interestingly enough, Monnett’s interrogation by criminal investigators seems to be allowed under the new ‘scientific integrity’ rules set by the head of the DOI (Salazar) himself.
Click to access Sec-Order-No-3305.pdf
Makes one wonder how far up the s..t tree this dirty game of “dismissing an Arctic scientist and spinning the story” originated.
Seen this one?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=106&&n=798#59258
More from him: http://www.google.com/search?q=Berényi+Péter
and more (sigh)
Dunno if he’s http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=1542521