NSIDC makes a big sea ice extent jump – but why?

Here’s their satellite map –
It has been all over the place the past two weeks with lots of triangular blank areas.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
If you look closely there are three main areas that have changed OVERNIGHT.
1. The Gulf of St. Lawrence has had a major ice breakup?
2. The entire SW quadrant of Hudson Bay has had an ice breakup?
3. The Chukchi Sea in eastern Siberia has had a major ice breakup?
I have contacted Environment Canada in Manitoba and left a message.
I wish confirmation whether or no such a breakup has taken place on Hudson Bay since it would be a major news event. If not, then it is another “October Surprise” for agencies that are entrusted to provide accurate data.
Just FYI –
For the past three days the temps at Churchill, MB have been steady in the 0 degrees F range dropping to the minus teens yesterdays. Winds have been generally moderate.

I saw this as well. The NSIDC “recent” graph has been weird for a while, but not that bad. Neither AMSR-E nor NANSEN are showing anything like that:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic

Slightly OT but U of Colorado sea level data is a bit more up to date: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Also these curves are inconsistent with NSIDC too.

I have been head scratching over this one all weekend.
if you look at the latest daily image I think you will see a couple rather unique features, like straight line swathes of missing ice ( or data ) around Chukotsky. Both on the Bering side and the Chukotsky Sea side.
Plus Hudson’s Bay seems to have a large crack running through it. Are we perhaps seeing athe result of satellite repositioning in response to the latest “incident”?
Anyone have a better thought?
I would expect some sort of comment if this data is validated as the NSIDC is keenly aware of the interest in this data.

I’ve found the NSIDC to be exceptionally open with their data and methods. I’ll download the gridded near real time data tonight and take a look at what’s happening.

absolutely crazy! how can that much ice disappear in a day (response to the cryosphere data) it takes weeks to melt a large snowman !!

Funny data? Or funny data readers? The Arctic will be ice free by March.
Two points:
It is possible the frigid massive Arctic cold front winds are pushing and stacking the ice up.
Is the raw, unprocessed satellite data available anywhere? Or a competing data reduction group?

Unless there’s a major eruptive event happening,I would bet there is a data problem.This time of year it’s nearly impossibel to have that kind of breakup…

OT but still icy hot: First Carbon-Free Polar Station Opens In Antarctica
Read the BS (Bad Science) Arguments and never trust any data coming from this station.
“Thomas Leysen, chairman of Belgium’s Umicore, a leading manufacturer of catalysts for cars who attended the ceremony, said it made good business sense for companies to help protect the environment.
“The global credit crisis is a result of unsustainable behaviour. We can’t deal in an unsustainable way with our planet otherwise we will also face a crisis which will be even bigger than the credit crisis,” he said”.
Scientists monitoring global warming predict higher temperatures could hasten melting at Antarctica, the world’s largest repository of fresh water, raising sea levels and altering shorelines. If Antarctica ever melted, world sea levels would rise by about 57 metres.
This will have affect some 146 million people living in low-lying coastal regions less than one metre above current sea levels, researchers said.
Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said failure to reduce emissions by 50 to 85 percent by the middle of this century could be catastrophic.
“Globally we will be in a temperature increase zone that the earth has not known for the past two to three million years,” he said.
http://planetark.org/wen/51629

I know what happened. Debris from one of the smashed satellites got in the way of the NSICD satellite camera / sensor, causing a false reading of diminished Arctic ice extent! 🙂

If you have been following the Cryosphere maps it’s obvious that there are serious data problems. The ice in the St Lawrence area, off Labrador and in the southern Hudson Bay has been popping in and out of existence repeatedly the last few weeks, though the Bering Sea is a new problem area.
There are other smaller scale anomalies. For example the Bothnian Gulf is shown as ice-free, while it is actually completely frozen.
For a reality check it is a good idea to use national ice sites which are for the use of sailors and fishermen, not politicians:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/Ice_Can/CMMBCTCA.gif
http://retro.met.no/kyst_og_hav/iskart.html
http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/gronland/iskort.htm#ugekort

Perhaps this has been noted already. However this site also doesn’t show any dramatic ice loss.
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
As other has observered the images seem odd with straight lines missing. It is a similar problem seen sometimes on Cryosphere todays regional images. There are vertical “blips” here and there.
In my simple opinion it is either “lost” data or some corruption. This should be corrected in the next few days.

It appears that Cryosphere Today posts data to their coverage vs. time plots about a week after the fact, that is why it is likely not showing on the plots on their site yet.
Also, in Cryosphere Today, my feeling is that there are frequent graphical or satellite errors. Sometimes they are corrected for, sometimes they are not. I do not follow the NSIDC data as much, so I do not know their patterns.
Is an agenda at play? I don’t know.

Readers,
Use these 2 sites:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
and
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
[snip]

Make sure someone downloads their data.
LOL! Maybe Obama and Holdren are getting ready for stage 2 of their Power Grab.

Eyeballing the graph, ice extent is about the same as it was back on January 10, 2009.
Now compare January 10 to February 15 here:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
I rest my case.

Peter Hearnden
It gets down to credibility. What would happen if the Commerce Dept managed their data that way?
These climate departments screw up the data more often then they get it right. It’s a bleeping circus!

Sad though it is to admit, I follow the NSIDC ona daily basis! Some may now understand why I have been drawing attention to NSIDC on other recent topics asking if anyone knew what was going on. I have tried to contact NSIDC regarding the sudden re-alignment of the up spike shown last week which was very quickly smoothed down the way. No response to date.
This sudden ice loss shown today though is a complete joke! Just yesterday all was well in the Arctic (albeit the line looked suspiciously close to the 06/07 line). But today another (this time) major re-alignment down the way. Has anyone noticed how during the freeze season, the re-alignments are always down and during the summer melt season the down spikes are never re-aligned up the way? I personally find this very odd – a simple law of averages would suggest there’s something a bit fishy about that alone!
I have also checked archive temperatures on “Wettercentral Top Karten” for the affected areas for the past week. There is no way that temperatures have been anywhere near the values required to melt that volume of sea ice.
I smell a rat!
Ben

Valentine’s Day & President’s Day together give gov’t & university workers a three-day weekend. Is anyone minding the store? Or maybe NSIDC is too busy gearing up for a visit by Pres Obama tomorrow; he’s to be in Denver; maybe hoping for a little show-and-tell?
Do all entities share data from a single satellite or do they all have their own satellites providing imagery/data? For example, do JAXA & NSIDC each have their own satellites or does a single satellite send each the same data?
Whatever the case, NSIDC has got a problem. They’re showing the sudden appearance of large swaths of open water (noted quite accurately in several previous comments).

OT but Sky & Telescope magazine, March 2009 has an interesting article “Should we blame the SUN for Global Warming?”, also the main front page story.
On page 32, one can read: “The Little Ice Age can be explained in the models through a combination of the fairly intense volcanic activity and the relatively low solar output”, says climatologist Michael Mann (Penn State University). “When you decrease solar output by the amount we think took place during the Maunder Minimum, the models predict that has enough influence on the North Atlantic jet stream to cool parts of Europe a couple of degrees Celsius, even though the that same change in solar output cooled global temperatures by only a tenth as much”.
Interesting, I thought the Little Ice Age didn’t happen according to Mann and his hockey stick?

The data has been fixed and updated. I guess it was a problem.

Anthony,
We’re looking into it. For the moment, we’ve removed the data from the timeseries plot.
You need to remember that this is near real-time data and there can be data dropouts and bad data due to satellite issues. While the processing is automatic, the QC is partly manual. Thus errors do happen from time to time and one shouldn’t draw any dramatic conclusions from recent data.
I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about. Data is not perfect, especially near real-time data. That’s not news.
Walt Meier
Research Scientist
NSIDC
ps – FYI, the JAXA data is from a different sensor, so it is not consistent with our data, but it provides a good independent check. If the JAXA data does not show a dramatic change while the NSIDC data does (or vice versa), then it’s likely an issue of missing data or bad data.

One thing I noticed watching the AMSR-E ice chart that Mr. Watts has a link to, is that every single time the current trend line is about to cross the “high” 2003 line, the slope instantly drops to zero, or negative. I’m sure its a coincidence, but just watching the curve while it was increasing last week approaching the magical “blue line”, I predicted a sudden drop in ice, and lo and behold it occured.

I still stand by my prediction posted in another thread. Extent will grow to normal levels and thickness around the edges will be resistant to summer melt, especially if the wind continues to compact.

It’s fixed now.
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
I guess that Anthony was a bit worried that the death trains finally began to quickly liquidate the remaining millions of squared kilometers of ice, before they would swallow all the humans. 🙂

Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
Anthony,
We’re looking into it. For the moment, we’ve removed the data from the timeseries plot.
You need to remember that this is near real-time data and there can be data dropouts and bad data due to satellite issues. While the processing is automatic, the QC is partly manual. Thus errors do happen from time to time and one shouldn’t draw any dramatic conclusions from recent data.
Thank you for your prompt response in clearing this issue for us.
I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about. Data is not perfect, especially near real-time data. That’s not news.
You would be right, if climate had not become newsworthy. Would you look at it and remove it as fast if you just got an e-mail from an interested outsider? Maybe yes, but my experience is that the random individual is sort of ignored by whoever sits behind the the “communication” link in all these data web pages.
Walt Meier
Research Scientist
NSIDC
ps – FYI, the JAXA data is from a different sensor, so it is not consistent with our data, but it provides a good independent check. If the JAXA data does not show a dramatic change while the NSIDC data does (or vice versa), then it’s likely an issue of missing data or bad data.
This is good to know.

Everyone on both sides of the environmental debate love jumping to sides on ice in the polar regions season to season. While study of this is good, and ongoing I do not see enough evidence from the existing data sources to determine anything other than ice melts, and water freezes.
Wind patterns, Ocean cycles, Lunar and Solar cycles, shifts in the poles exact position, under sea and under ice volcanic activity, and other factors play a roll, and without taking that into account you can not make a determination as to why year x is more than year y.
I also fine it Ironic that people Pro and Against AGW use select years to demonstrate an increase or decrease in polar ice. That is fairly selective. From a graph standpoint it appears to be reducing very very slowly, but nothing to be worried about. Still without all the data, everyone can guess but nothing more.

The blog Mr. Meier is an important reassurance that there are plenty of watchdogs on this climate front. Like having independent reporters on-scene. The benefit to the public is a prompt and reassuring correction of error as witnessed today.

Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
Thank you sir for your timely contribution and honesty.
DaveE.

Thank you very much, Dr. Meier, for the update!

“Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about. Data is not perfect, especially near real-time data. That’s not news.”
Oh no – it’s just a graph used for world politics, reallocation of billions of tax dollars/euros, closure of power plants etc. – who cares if you mess up data some times.

http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
looks to me like last years slope exactly.
sun alignment? YTD would be tilt sun etc.

@ Pamela Gray (12:24:05) :
Do you have some data about ice thickness from different places?

During the month of February, the Ice Extent MONTHLY trend charts for Antarctica began swinging wildly.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html
I did an overlay of a previous chart from December to compare year by year values only to find that the % change from their 1979-2000 “mean” were not the same at all. I emailed to them a few times complaining that, first of all, using 1979-2000 as the average (“mean”) basically throws out about 30% of the available data (what is wrong with calculating the mean with ALL data from 1979-2008?). Somehow, they think 1979-2000 was somehow “normal”? They basically said no to using all the years for calculating the mean.
Then, when I told them the trend graph overlays from month to month showed different departures from the average (mean) on any particular year…they countered with:
—–Original Message—–
From: nsidc@nsidc.org [mailto:nsidc@nsidc.org]
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2009 03:01 PM
Subject: {nsidc-178955} Re: Antarctic Ice Extent Trend Graph Is Messed Up
Dear Mr. Strong, Thank you for contacting NSIDC. It appears that you are trying to overlay December with February. The points in the December graph are specific to data in December, and points in the January graph are specific to data in January. Overlaying these graphs is not recommended. You may see some differences in time with the graphs because the passive microwave satellite data we use became operational in October 1978. So Oct, Nov, and Dec graphs may show 1978, whereas the other months start in 1979. The scales are not equal between months because they are scaled dynamically to fit the data being plotted. January has higher values, so the scale now goes from -20 to 40. If you wish to do intercomparison of differnet months, we recommend you the extent values in the .txt files we make available at ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best regards, Donna Scott NSIDC
But I sent them the overlay I did, they must have never looked at it. I used Photoshop to stretch and perfectly match the scales on each. i.e., I matched the values on both the X and Y to the correct values: each year lined up and well as the Y-scale for % change from the mean. The chart overlay was wildly different for each successive year for each plot date.
Now, if you look at the February Antarctic trend plots today, they have swings as much as 30% from “normal” .
I also took a look at their data sets. They are missing averages in some years: i.e. 1987 data is immediately followed by 1989 data with an entire month missing. This happens 3 times Nov, Dec 1987 and Feb 1988
Someone is being sloppy over there ad the NSIDC.

They changed it back, it looks more ‘normal’ today. I suspect human error and we will not hear about it from them.

Lee Kington (12:53:34)

That is a good thing. If Al Gore and James Hansen saw it they would be preaching that all of the Arctic was going to melt before the end of the month. The biggest problem being that it would spread through the media like wildfire and the ‘real’ situation would never get mentioned.

We should have alerted the BBC of another catastrophic climate event.

I am not a scientists, so I may be way off base, but could the decrease in NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice have anything to do with the Sudden Stratospheric Warming in January and the split in the Polar Highs.

DanD (12:30:25) : Data ARE, Walt. Data ARE.
No Walt data is; data is an English word. English includes many words originally press-ganged from Latin, which have changed their grammatical type.
As has been pointed out far more eloquently than I can:
“The majority of writers who would dutifully pluralise `data’ in writing naturally and consistently use it as a mass noun in conversation: they ask how much data an instrument produces, not how many; they talk of how data is archived, not how they are archived; they talk of less data rather than fewer; and they talk of data with units, saying they have a megabyte of data, or 10 CDs, or three nights, and never saying `I have 1000 data’ and expecting to be understood.
If challenged, they will respond that `data is a Latin plural’. Agree to this, for the sake of professional harmony, and carry on the conversation, making sure to mention that `the telescope has data many odd images tonight’ (it’s a past participle after all), suggest looking at the data raw images (…or an adjective) and that you both examine the datorum variance (surely they recall the genitive plural); suggest they give you the datis (…the dative), so that you can redo the analysis with their datis (…and the ablative). If they object ask them to explain their sentimental attachment to the nominative plural, that they would use that in all cases, in brute defiance of good Latin grammar.
Isn’t it lucky English is now genderless, making `data’ neuter, else we’d have to memorise masculine dati (dati dati datos datorum datis datis) and feminine datae, too? Isn’t it simpler just to speak and write English?”
It’s as bad as affecting “an historical” and pronouncing the ‘h’.

I was always told to simply substitute the word ‘figures’ for ‘data’ if you wanted to explain the word. Not sure if that’s correct or if it helps. Let us not forget though that English is one of very few languages that actually doesn’t have rules set down. People forget that, but it’s a fact. You may see ‘how to say/pronounce/write’ etc. in a book on grammar, but it’s just the author’s guide – it isn’t law. English came about on the very fact that it adapts and changes. Only two decades ago people wrote “developement”, which has changed to “development”. And it’s perfectly okay to split an infinitive! I’ll take anyone outside who says it isn’t.

I contacted Ron Goodson at Environment Canada, Edmonton office. He assured me that there has been no break-up what-so-ever of Hudson Bay ice. He looked at the 2-16-2009 image posted as NSIDC and suggested that there algorithm for translation of satellite image date to ice coverage may be at fault. There has been some low cloud coverage in the Hudson region.

just me (13:08:57
“it is constantly smoothed and error corrected… . But: there is an important thing: it is about climate monitoring, not about Titanic controlling.”
I do understand that there is constant smoothing and error correction but I do NOT understand why the correction is virtually always down! Neither do I understand why the News Releases always focus on the most negative slant possible. For example, Autumn ice recovery was actually at a record breaking rate. Surely balanced reporting would have made a head line out of this? But far from this being the case, the stunning ice growth was side lined and barely mentioned in the passing. OK, so more exposed water meant more water to freeze, but this process continued to accelerate even after it had exceeded the mean values of recent years. There was a focus instead on the relatively high temperatures despite rapid ice recovery. Clearly this was due to the fact relatively warm water was being frozen due initially to very cold temperatures with the resultant latent heat of fusion then being released back into the atmosphere. It stands to reason that it would not have been possible for the unusually warm waters in the Arctic (which NSIDC identified) to freeze without abnormally sustained cold temperatures. But we all know that the heat has to go somewhere hence the warmer atmospheric temps. But the headline of course was… “Expected Paradox: Autumn warmth & ice growth”. No real mention of the fantastic rate of ice recovery or where the Autumn warmth had come from.
So, my question here is, if indeed there is absolutely no agenda, then why is both the smoothing of the data and the reporting so one sided? If you watch carefully all the adjustments that are made over time you will see what I mean. Also look at all the News Releases and you will get the same picture. OK, maybe it is for the most part a gloomy picture, but you would think that in the interest of balanced reporting, the occasional bit of positive spin on something like the example I have given would be in order. I personally have no agenda, I’m just really obsessed with snow & ice – that’s why I watch charts such as those produced by NSIDC so closely!!
Ben
Ben
Ben

“Look at the Sea of Okhotsk. It looks like the ice disappeared there overnight in the graphics.”
That happened once before on Jan 21/22 2009. Look for the lower leftmost ice. around Labrador
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=21&fy=2008&sm=01&sd=22&sy=2009
I never heard any explanation. Just how can that much ice dissappear in 24 hours?
I don’t think I’m being paranoid when I say there are a lot of people with reputations and livelyhoods on the line. They may feel desperate enough to “correct the trend”.
Remember the biologist whose white rats had rectangles of black fur, proving a new anti-rejection drug? Somebody pointed out a few white hairs and he whipped out a magic marker to touch ’em up.
Keep your eyes pealed!

For another view see
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/maps_daily_ncepice.html
Yesterday this map showed a big chunk of ice completely missing from SE Greenland coast.
Anyone care to figure out just what this means?
http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/seaice/support/land.html
“Since we can’t have sea ice on land, it is a requirement for sea ice products that land be represented reasonably. This turns out to be a nontrivial process. Over the years that NCEP sea ice products have been constructed, different versions of land have been used in response to interests and concerns of users. This has resulted in improved products for daily usage, but has introduced artefacts into the record for those users who are interested in long-term effects.
The potential effects of different land definition policies are not trivial. Approximately 1.6 million km^2 can be moved into or out of the ‘land’ category, depending on how ‘land’ is defined. Much of this occurs in areas with complex coastlines, such as the Baltic Sea or the Canadian Archipelago. Since both can include an ice cover, this represents a significant fraction of the total Arctic ice pack (which reaches a maximum extent of approximately 14 million km^2).
In order to stabilize time series which may be derived from the NCEP ice products, we have recomputed the land masks all at the same time, and then recomputed the products. The hemispheric products have not included (in their data files) land, but the global fields do include land as part of the processing. Since it is also the global products which are most used for time-series purposes, this does require revisitation by those users.”

Mike Bryant said:
“How much more gracious would it have been to say, “Thanks, Anthony, for bringing this to our attention. It will be fixed shortly.”?”
Grace is in short supply in the AGW war – and is likely to remain so. Desgraciadamente.

http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html. I find this also useful if it shows minus 2c if its not ice it should be soon with freezing temperatures.

A look here shows almost the entire sea of okhotsk is minus 2c but very little ice. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html

Paul Friesen (18:24:11) :
A look here shows almost the entire sea of okhotsk is minus 2c but very little ice. http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst.html
I’m assuming that is satellite data and as I recall, they quoted an uncertainty of 2 – 3ºC
Not saying it’s wrong of course and no, I’m not a believer.
DaveE.

Walt Meier (18:35:27) :
Sir I believe you are being a little disingenuous to Anthony. The following from the original blog article…
“If this were real, we’d also expect to see something also on Cryosphere today plots, and while that group does not do an extent graph, they do make an areal graph. It “should” show something that reflects the drop but instead goes up. WUWT?”
I think makes it clear that whilst the error has been noted, it is noted as an error.
The whole point of the article is that the discontinuity had been noted by several people and Anthony has defused it as an error that has somehow slipped by QC.
DaveE.

Walt Meier (18:35:27) :
My previous comment took a while to type and then check over before posting it. I didn’t see your latest comment until after I clicked “enter”. I would have changed it’s wording if I had known how your latest comment read.
My apologies,
Gene

Again, Walt Meier, thanks very much for your response and concern.
My suggestion would be, if it doesn’t absolutely have to be posted immediately, I’d delay all data postings a couple/few days, to avoid situations like this, if nothing else. If you’re going to check the data over the following days anyway, why not just wait until that check is done and then post it? I know people tend to enjoy instant gratification these days, but haste does make waste 😉

I don’t know Walt, you’re just not selling it. Here’s what I hear you saying.
“Tsk tsk Anthony. Publicly revealing errors. Mustn’t do that. Did you not learn your lesson by revealing the error which would have been more conveniently ignored concerning the warmest October ever. The proper procedure with errors is to contact the proper bureaucracy where they can be dealt with the same crackerjack efficiency these continual errors in surface station measurements you’ve been reporting on for the last how many years have been.
When you, or your compatriots reveal errors such as “the trouble with Harry”, it allows the great unwashed to leap to the conclusion we the scientific elite actually make them. This is a thing we prefer to keep on QT.”
Now me, if errors are being made, I want to know about them. It leads to striking revelations like how there is no quality control concerning data gathering at GISS.
So keep up the good work Anthony, and thanks to the posters in this thread for all the links to all the other sites allowing updated viewing of Arctic ice.

Walt, you must admit that your sea ice site and its explanations are decidedly biased towards CO2. A case in point, the very page that explains climate forcings and sea ice completely fails to recognize the very strong influence of ocean decadal oscillations as major (if not THE major) contributors to sea ice change over longer periods of time under the answer to the question: “How do we know human activities cause climate change?” You would look a lot more balanced if you were to include the major contributors to sea ice behavior in your examples of forcings. Certainly you will have to admit that the highly variable Arctic Oscillation and contributing Atlantic Oscillation have a readily verifiable influence on sea ice behavior and by extension, sea ice area and extent. Since you include the questionable affects of TSI in your answer to the question, you are, in my opinion, scientifically bound to include a much more direct and easily demonstrated influence on longer sea ice trends, no?

Why?

Phil. (20:05:05) :
Thanks for pointing out the link ‘Learn about update delays’. It in fact led to the following drivel about the “causes of global climate change”…
“Causes of global climate change
How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.
The most fundamental measure of Earth’s climate state is the globally averaged surface air temperature. We define climate change as an extended trend in this temperature. Such a change cannot happen unless something forces the change. Various natural climate forcings exist. For example, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun alter the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the planet’s surface; such variations can be linked to Earth’s ice ages over the past two million years. Changes in solar output influence how much of the sun’s energy the Earth’s surface receives as a whole; more or less solar energy means warmer or cooler global climate. Explosive volcanic eruptions inject sulfur dioxide and dust high into the stratosphere, blocking some of the sun’s energy from reaching the surface and causing it to cool. These are climate forcings because they alter the planet’s radiation or energy budget.
An increase in the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide is also a climate forcing: it leads to a situation in which the planet absorbs more solar radiation than it emits to space as longwave radiation. This means the system gains energy. The globally averaged temperature will increase as a result. This is in accord with a fundamental principle of physics: conservation of energy. As humans burn fossil fuels, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, globally average temperature rises as a result.”

Dr. Meier,
Were you aware that Cryosphere Today has a product that purportedly compares images from your data for any two days in the satellite era? This product is very misleading and I believe it should be corrected or removed. Please see this overlay along with Steve Keohane’s explanation:
“Regarding another popular depiction of NH ice, I spent a little time on Cryosphere the other day and noticed something odd in comparing 12/20/80 to 12/22/08 NH ice extent. Hudson Bay and the outlet of Ob river in Russia, the boot-shaped inlet next to the arctic, appeared larger in the 1980 plat. I took the landmass/shoreline from 1980 and overlaid it on the 2008 plat, and got this: http://i44.tinypic.com/330u63t.jpg
Please note that I retained the star background in all images, and used their pixels for image registration. At full size, I see no perturbation of those pixels from one image to the other, and therefore assume they are correctly registered.There was no rescaling of any image, no change was made to the pixels, with the exception of tinting Greenland and a few islands blue so they would have contrast when overlaid.”
Here is the Comparison Product:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=20&fy=1980&sm=12&sd=22&sy=2008
I am sure that you want your images to be used properly so that they convey a proper comparison. I have already E-mailed Dr. Chapman:
Dr William Chapman,Can you please explain a couple of things on the Cryosphere Today “Compare side-by-side images of Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent” product, please? Why does the snow in the more recent dates cover areas that were previously sea inlets, fjords, coastal sea areas, islands and rivers? (Water areas, most easily discernible in the River Ob inlet. Why does the sea ice in the older images cover land areas? (Land areas, most easily discernible in River Ob inlet)See this overlay: http://i44.tinypic.com/330u63t.jpg Looking forward to your answer,
Mike Bryant
I have received no response.
I am sure that you do not condone the use of your images and data in this way. I am looking forward to your response.
Thank You,
Mike Bryant

Everybody needs to visit http://green-agenda.com to see who has an agenda. Read down at least as far as Maurice Strong’s call for the destruction of the industrialized world.

People, just chill a bit.
There are at least two things at work here – error correction/QC, and data smoothing/averaging.
First, I see NO delay (not ‘two or three days’) in the posting of data – what we see on the charts is RAW data… why? I assume, because people want the true data right from the sensors, as untouched as possible. Would you prefer they sit on the data for two or three days, adjust as necessary, then post it? Even if you do, there will be just as many people who will point to that and say “AH HAH! You are HIDING something!”
So, either way they’re gonna get bricks thrown at them. I would think their solution is clearly the most scientifically optimal method possible – show the raw data just as THEY see it, but give the proviso that there may be errors until QC checks it, and then refer to those ‘finished’ products.
Yes, some people will ignore the disclaimers and use it to fit their agenda – do you really think that justifies not making the raw data available as soon as possible? Don’t abuse the data yourselves, that makes you just as bad as the ‘other side’.
Second, is the ‘data smoothing’. As I understand it, the previous day’s change may be adjusted away almost entirely, with the last 5 days or so subject to some lesser smoothing.
I watch NSIDC almost every day also… I noticed that over the past two weeks, excluding the last 2 days, that the data has consistently come out a bit below the 2006-2007 line just about EVERY day, but then as it recedes into the few days past, it is also consistently adjusted UPWARDS, so that the end result is that the average is almost exactly the same as 2006-2007. If I really thought there was a conspiracy here, to me it would look like there is somebody that doesn’t want 2008-2009 to look like it is below 2006-2007.
Why either way would be considered an ‘advantage’ to anyone, I have no bluddy idea… unless there is wholesale corruption of the data, the truth will out in a few weeks or month, and then there would be hell to pay (we would make sure of that, yes?) And if wholesale corruption of the data does exist, it has remained hidden for years and none of these comments matter in the slightest.
Finally, the sarcasm is so thick here, it almost seems like entertainment. Does that really make anyone feel better even slightly? Amused? Gratified in some way? There’s enough data here that I find it worth reading, and some may end up providing a truly valuable public service (the climate station audit, for example). But all the snarky comments just make it look like the poster is primarily interested in how the information fits their agenda, rather than truly taking an unbiased look, and following where the data leads.
A final note, in summary:
Be careful what you wish for.

Phil. (20:05:05) :
Just want truth… (18:48:28) :
Secondly, post some sort of disclaimer on the “Daily image update” page of the NSIDC web site, that is easily visible to the casual eye, that small errors could occur in NSIDC data from time to time and that the NSIDC is always working to amend such errors as quickly as can be reasonably expected. Also you could state that the NSIDC knows there will be scrutiny of it’s data, and that you understand the reasons for, and welcome, that scrutiny.
You mean like the ones that’ve always been there in a link immediately below the graph entitled: ‘Learn about update delays’ and ‘Read about the data’
“The daily image update is produced from near-real-time operational satellite data, with a data lag of approximately one day. However, visitors may notice that the date on the image is occasionally more than one day behind. Occasional short-term delays and data outages do occur and are usually resolved in a few days.”
“The daily and monthly images that we show in Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis are near-real-time data. Near-real-time data do not receive the rigorous quality control that final sea ice products enjoy, but it allows us to monitor ice conditions as they develop.
Several possible sources of error can affect near-real-time images. Areas near land may show some ice coverage where there isn’t any because a land filter has not yet been applied and the sensor has a coarse resolution. Sometimes, the data we receive have geolocation errors, which could affect where ice appears. We correct these problems in the final sea ice products, which replace the near-real-time data in about six months to a year.
****************************
Very interesting, Phil. So we shouldn’t rely too much on this data till it goes through “rigorous QC”, which lags the error ridden (as we have seen and Walt has cautioned us about) “near real-time” data by 6 months to a year! I wonder whether NSIDC newsworthy status reports take this into account…
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“As is typical during mid-winter, sea ice extent increased overall in January; maximum monthly extent is expected in March. However, January ice extent remained well below normal compared to the long-term record. Ice extent averaged for January 2009 is the sixth lowest January in the satellite record. Also of note is that from January 15 to 26, ice extent saw essentially no increase; an unusual wind pattern appears to have been the cause.
Arctic ice extent averaged for the month of January was 14.08 million square kilometers (5.43 million square miles). ”
Not 14.07 or 14.09. Not newsworthy? Oops. “Several possible sources of error can affect near-real-time images.”… “We correct these problems in the final sea ice products, which replace the near-real-time data in about six months to a year.”

Just curious- since the discussion here has been one concerning the graphed data, can anyone shed light on the apparent massive breakup of ice in the image data corresponding to this? See:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_hires.png
[NOTE: for future reference, this link is to a continually updated image- the image referred to will shortly no longer be available on this link, and if representing a corrupted data set, as I think, will likely no longer be available anywhere.]
The areas in question are around the Bering Strait, the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Hudson’s Bay, and other sea areas to the North of Canada, as well as an apparent smattering across the whole of the western Arctic.
See the Dec. 2008 image for comparison:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/200901_Figure1.png
I suspect that the image captures the data failure very well, as it seems impossible that this is an accurate representation of reality. If the graphed data corresponds in some at least semi-automated fashion to what is represented by the image, as one must assume, then the image appears unequivocally to show a significant data failure. Or can Hudson’s Bay really be suddenly in the advanced stages of breakup, halfway through a particularly cold February?

This is actualy ridiculous. When you look at these graphs look, at the average from 1970’s-2000’s compared to how much ice there has been for the line in the past two years. OMG REALLY it went down? Oh man scarry. Wait soo doesnt that also mean HIGHER average tempuratures? You know less ice is usualy due to higher tempuratures, or is that just me trying to conform to the modern theory? This isnt about how much ice there is on a daily basis, its just showing you how on avergae there is LESS ice recently then there has been up untill now…. probably due to global warming. Also global warming doesnt say that every day of every year is going to be nessasarily warmer then that of the previous year, all it states is that there has been a increase in AVERAGE tempurature over the past 20 years or soo, and that is has been caused by greenhouse gasses AND its has cause a drop in the average ice covering in the artic? get it? omg makes sense now eh?

matt (08:25:22) :
Probably due to NATURAL OMG causes. Not CO2 OMG doing some convoluted waltz.
What happened prior to the satellite era? The Northwest Passage is called that for a very good reason. Ask the Russians. When you see quoted “The Northwest Passage was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906” you must add the pinch of salt – first time we know of.
“omg makes sense now eh?”
Sekerob (09:19:07) :
“…..it required manual intervention and algorithm changing to keep the plot on course…”
This is why we must question.

Walter 21:54
Most of the NOAA graphs I checked show day of year as 46 just now.
FYI
Ed

OptiSkeptic (22:46:56) :
“I watch NSIDC almost every day also… I noticed that over the past two weeks, excluding the last 2 days, that the data has consistently come out a bit below the 2006-2007 line just about EVERY day, but then as it recedes into the few days past, it is also consistently adjusted UPWARDS, so that the end result is that the average is almost exactly the same as 2006-2007.”
Sorry, but I don’t think you’re correct in this assessment! You obviously missed the very definate up spike last week around about 11th & 12th which subsequently disappeared. There have been numerous other examples of this, while the corrections up the way to which you refer are very few and far between as well as marginal.
I don’t actually believe there is a conspiracy either, but I do believe that even the most ethical of scientists is capable of allowing his/her data analysis to be swayed by stongly held hypothesies, projections & resulting expectations.
Ben

matt (08:25:22)
Actually, as most AGW pronouncements, you are empty of facts. NASA announced around 2000 that changes in currents and wind were causing increased ice loss. Early last year they announced another change in current and wind to a pattern similar to the 70’s when ice levels were higher.
So tell me, why is ice increasing again even though the temps are HIGHER THAN NORMAL??
Answer, 10c higher than normal makes little difference when normal is -30 to -40c. Ice being pushed into warmer water and air temps OUT OF THE ARCTIC WILL MELT IT!!! Ice staying home tends to stick around longer!!

NSIDC has just committed a whole webpage to this latest error:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Something curious here. Notice the greyed out areas over ice areas in the
Bremen AMSR-E, off Labrador, the eastern Hudson Bay and Chukchi Sea by Alaska:
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png
Those areas pretty match the same problem areas on:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090217_Figure1.png

Anyone have an idea how to verify the NSIDC “partly volunteer” website claim
that there has been a channel malfunction on the SSM/I? A tech bulletin from an official source, like the DOD, maybe, but might be security sensitive info.
NDISC is a major source of scientific information to the US. And this whole issue is beginning to look similar to the land temperature “adjustments” fiasco. Instead of there being a satellite sensor malfunction that wasn’t automatically caught, I think someone up in Boulder been dinkin with the code circa early January to more “accurately” reflect ice extent, and got bit by the beta bug.