I had planned to do a post yesterday evening about how sea ice area and extent had returned to very near normal levels. But I was tired, so I saved off the graphs from the NANSEN arctic sea ice site.
This morning I was shocked to discover that overnight, huge amounts of sea ice simply disappeared. Fortunately I had saved the images and a copy of the webpage last night. Here is the before and after in a blink comparator:
There is no mention on the NANSEN website as to this change. So either it is an automation error or an undocumented adjustment. Either way, since this is for public consumption, NANSEN owes the public an explanation.
And there is more, see additional blink comparator graphs I’ve added below:
After examining the above, it appears the issue only manifests itself when comparisons to the 1979-2000 monthly average are made. The adjustment starting point appears to start around September 10th – at the summer minimum for both area and extent.
This could be a data processing error, though if so, it is so blatantly obvious to anyone who follows the NANSEN presentation that it immediately stands out. Many people commenting on this blog and others also saw the change without the benefit of my handy-dandy blinkj comparator above.
That fact that it occurs on a weekend could be viewed as suspicious due to fewer eyes on the website , or an indication that they have sloppy quality control there at NANSEN and this was published via automation with no human inspection prior to the update.
Steven Goddard writes via email:
The explanation (if one is offered) will be interesting to say the least.
UPDATE:
I received this email from Stein Sandven at Nansen in response to my query:
Dear Anthony,
The ice area calculation has been too high since about 22 October, causing too steep slope of the 2008 curve. We corrected for this yesterday and recalculated the ice area for 2008. The slope of the 2008 curve should now be correct and can be compared with 2007 and the previous mean monthly ice area.Best regardsStein
For my opinion though it seems to be an incomplete answer, generating even more questions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It melted.
Perhaps Mr. Gore should do a little reading.
The arctic has had several periods when it has been “ice free” in summer. This interglacial isn’t particularly warm but it has been a long one. The last interglacial (5e) was warmer (though shorter) and saw higher sea levels and less polar ice than we see now.
If I am not mistaken in September there was some bad data at NSIDC for a few days that showed a kind of crazy fluxuation, this appears to be what was taken out in the comparisons.
Perhaps they were appendig data rather than replacing it and someone decided to do a full update to correct the entire record.
Just something I remember from September….
… and in Michigan, beaches have reopened for the holidays with lifeguards present from sunrise at 5:00 am to sunsent at 11:00 pm. There have been flash flood warnings in some areas as melted ice-water surges from Lake Superior to Lake Huron to Lake Erie; however, massive atmospheric heat buildup over the Great Lakes area has eliminated any danger of hypothermia by warming the water to 74° as it approaches Toledo.
Oh, wait, that was just CO2 buildup from Al Gore’s jet flying by on his way back from Germany. Time to close the beaches again.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/12/al-gore-north-pole-will-disappear-in-5.html
Is it just me, or does the NSIDC Extent graph extend a week and a half into the future? Do they know something we don’t?
My friends in Fairbanks tell me it’s bloody cold. Not much ice vanishing on land. I thought Arctic ice was mostly fresh water. (freezes easier) Might not do that Margarita much good.
Steven Hill (16:46:03) :
What is Al Gore using to make this statement?
We simply can’t ignore the risk of WMD (Warming of Mass Destruction). So what if there are a few casualties along the way?……
Arctic sea ice is frozen sea water but the longer it lives the more the salt works out of it. The older it gets, the fresher it gets.
Let’s stop for a second.
Watch “the baby with the bathwater” thoughts. There are plenty of good scientists out there trying to do a good job. Do they make mistakes? Sure, just as we all do. Some of the above even buy into AGW. If what we buy into (I’m trying to avoid the word “believe”) is true these people with good ethics will eventually tumble to the facts.
Gore, Hanson and others will not, for whatever reason. There is no hope for them.
I can use the example of the Pielke’s who are working on the assumption that land use is an AGW driver. They have a great rep on this blog, and deserve it. Could they be right? Sure – and with that man (us) is degrading the climate. Could they be wrong? Yup. But I bet there’s no gloating if that occurs, because these are excellent people, doing their best, and willing to be “””””wrong”””””” in the name of science. Lief likewise, and many others too.
We need to separate those with science ethics from those who have no ethics except the search for money. Allow honest mistakes, skepticism is good and welcomed by those who deserve the title scientist.
And yes, I’d sure plant some trees for the Pielkie’s even at this point if that’d help – because their research makes some sense, while the CO2 “stuff” doesn’t.
“nuff said”
Mike
In my opinion, the reason NSIDC uses the 1979-2000 average is clearly because this statistical mean offers the highest average for any months during the period of satellite observation. Therefore any other year would lower the value and defeat the purpose. Other years “should” appear well below this arbitrary mean and as a consequence expose graphically the effects of AGW so some scientist could safely make alarmist predictions.
The problem with this average is that it masks each year specificity of phenomenons and events thus making analysis more difficult. In the end this average has no physical significance. However the subsequent years taken individualy do show their own specificity. This data processing is a mis-representation.
Even using NSIDC data, 2008 ice extent is now only 4% below the 1979-2000 arbitrary average and closing: there is no escaping Nature’s denying power!
In here ( http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php –the best and most clear graph) the increasing ice trend has stopped abruptly, tough it was rising faster than ever. It shows no change for previous possible “errors” around October or September.
The rate at which Hudson Bay was replenishing is amazing. Now it is 99,9% full.
I don’t know the differences in the algorithms but at UIUC the data has an offset relative to the NSIDC data which is a visible upward correction prior to 1998.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/13/sea-ice-area-or-anomaly/
Also the sea ice AREA from the SH has a positive slope greater than the negative slope in the NH.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/14/sh-sea-ice-data-and-anomaly/
Everywhere I look there is another oddity in method which universally benefits AGW, often without explanation. I am starting to be skeptical of my skeptic status. Something I won’t let go of easily but in time these guys will beat me down.
The question is are they dispassionate observers?
http://tinyurl.com/6dnpft
Hello,
There has been an error in the ice area calculation since about 22 October, causing too steep slope of the 2008 curve. We corrected for this yesterday and recalculated the ice area for 2008. The slope of the 2008 curve should now be correct and can be compared with 2007 and the previous mean monthly ice area.
Best regards
Stein
What was the error? This is the crucial point. If they don’t release that information this site will be considered suspect. Its still at odds with jaxa 11.6 million km2 so who is right. The whole thing stinks
Hi guys,
I am a neophyte to the ice watch, but have been watching the AMSR-E link which was poised to breakout above the other years on the graph, and then we see this story and now the 2008 line appears to have taken a right turn. That isn’t possible in reality (given we all know its colder than blue blazes up there right now) because Nature simply doesn’t do that many right angles. Whaaa?
So I think more than one graph is being rigged.
I too am suspicious of this apparent “adjustment.” Even if it’s perfectly defensible, there is a huge danger of bias since more ice has a natural tendency to draw more scrutiny. There are probably errors in both directions, but the ones showing less ice (perhaps) don’t draw much attention since they are helping show what conforms to the popular view.
It would be interesting to do a meta-analysis of “adjustments” Just as errors in restaurant bills have a strong tendency to go against the customer, I would guess that adjustments to weather and climate data have a tendency to favor the CAGW hypothesis.
As far as ice extent is concerned, I was on a troop ship in May 1953 that made stops at air bases at Godthab or Julianehab and Sondre Stromfijord that is near the Arctic Circle. Before reaching the first air base in Southwest Greenland, we went through continuous sea ice for days with an icebreaker and helicopter leading the way. This may be anecdotal but in May 1953 the ice extended some distance south of the ship’s first stop in Greenland.
The science is settled. Move along, nothing to see here.
Actually wasn’t October, even after correction, supposed to be very warm in the Russian Siberia? Could this have caused the ice growth to slow in October?
Clearly they hired some JPL engineers from one of the Mars Lander operations. It’s got to be a units conversion problem.
explanation is in order… please keep it up top so we can catch it
thank you Anthony for all your time spent, we can see the results of your tireless efforts Tiny Tim 🙂
Steven Hill (14:37:52) :
I am about sick of paying taxes for false data, bailouts, criminal politicans and on and on and on. Is anything correct any more or is it all incorrect?
Something is correct. It is correct that you are about sick of paying taxes. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done to improve this condition… I think I’ll change my name to Chrysler and move to Detroit…
Is there no archive of the raw unfiltered unadjusted real data anywhere? In accounting you must leave an audit trail of all adjustments. Any SUSPECTED errors in a copy of the Torah REQUIRES a footnote. Email archives must be kept accurately and intact for years by law (Sarbox). You’d think we could get accurate audit trails on this…
I was thinking about the invariant reaction of crops to ‘degree days’. If there are any public records of ‘first harvest’ for wheat, grapes, whatever, they ought to be a very precise measure of degree days from when temps rose above 0C (for most plants other than Kale and Fava beans that grow in the cold…)
Small town newspaper archives ought to record when the harvesters went through on the south to north yearly wheat harvest pilgrimage…. there must be SOME way to validate / invalidate the formal data.
Umm…..yeah….Hi Anthony. I need a favor.
I notice tomorrow’s high temperature in Bismarck ND is forecast to be -11 degrees F.
Would you mind teaching me again (I forget easily) how Global Warming is making winters warm in unprecedented ways in the Great Plains? Thank you.
Just a bit of sarcasm in that last post…
> Grant Hodges (20:13:51) :
> I am a neophyte to the ice watch, but have been watching the
> AMSR-E link which was poised to breakout above the other years
> on the graph, and then we see this story and now the 2008 line
> appears to have taken a right turn.
Actually, there is a simple, legitimate explanation for it. Hudson Bay and Ungava Bay were both getting close to freezing, but were still wide open. Then they almost flash-froze over in a few days, resulting in a short wild upward acceleration of the ice extent curve. See the time series…
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=07&sy=2008
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=08&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=09&sy=2008
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=10&fy=2008&sm=12&sd=11&sy=2008
Of course, once Hudson and Ungava bays are covered, the wild uptick stops. There are other growth spurts, e.g. the Arctic basin freezing over. While a big open area is filled, the growth goes up, until the area is filled. Then the rate slows down. To get an idea of what’s going to freeze up (or not) next, see http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html and select “Full_Global” from the latest date. It’s updated Mondays and Thursdays. Looking at the December 11 image, I expect little, if any northern freezup in the next few days. Maybe minor expansion of ice cover in the Bering Sea.
Notice how the new minimum is now slightly later than the mean showing how onset of refreeze is later each year supporting the claim of a warming Arctic.
Does Hudson Bay freeze solid every year? Looks like it is about to this year.
UK Weather: Coldest start to winter since 1976
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3724518/Weather-Coldest-start-to-winter-since-1976.html
I take if for granted that the revised graph is actually a correction; the old graph was just wrong. It is understandable that so many of the comments here are indignant because many of us were probably feeling pretty smug that “nature is not cooperating [with AGW fears]” and we’ve just had a seemingly irrefutible observation refuted. Into the bargain we have quite a lot of egg on our collective face because we didn’t query the graph as eagerly as we really should have done before now. The “observation” suited us. We are (or at least I am) as guilty as any AGW-ist who fails to skeptically evaluate the evidence. That’s what really hurts. I hope I learn a lesson from this. Having said all that though, there is still more ice this year. It’s just that it’s a fairly ordinary amount. But that’s OK.