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.
Is it just me or does the majority av errors found in datasets get an adjustment that fits the AGW theory more?
It almost looks like there is an bias when searching for errors.
If data fits AGW theory it must be correct and there are no reson to search for any errors.
If it does not fit AGW theory it must be throughly checked to see whats wrong with the data.
Coinsidence or biased error finding?!
Pugh should go for another paddling expedition – obviously there is now so much less ice…
The fact that the AGW conference in Poznan is ending and they are about to announce their results might have something to do with it…?
Me!? Cynical? Naaaa…
OT: Here im Portugal, November os the 3rd coldest November since 1931! – What the hell is going on?! – Now it’s cold and raining… I’m not thar old, but it reminds me of winter in the … 70/80! Whats going on ?!?!
Perhaps the ice has actually being melted.
Natural Habitat Adventures run a tour to the North Pole.
They us the NUCLEAR Russian ice breaker “50 Years of Victory”.
http://www.nathab.com/destinations/index.aspx?pageID=7&tripID=153&action=full_itinerary
If Al Gore is right then we only have five years to make this tour.
The expedition video shows the “50 Years of Victory” smashing or vandalising its way through the ice. No mention of the nuclear reactor pouring tons of boiling water out into the ocean.
http://www.quarkexpeditions.com/our-fleet/50-years/victory-video
If you view the video try and count the number of immersion suits the tourists are wearing as they board the helicopter. Yes the helicopter which is going to fly them out over the Arctic Ocean.
Chilling!!
Might be best thing if these organizations keep changing their graphs to suit AGW. Eventually the people will cop on and this will end AGW sooner than later. They are in fact digging their own grave by doing this LOL
To Michael J. Bentley (19:09:17) :
“Watch “the baby with the bathwater” thoughts. There are plenty of good scientists out there trying to do a good job.”
But there might be some bad ones out there trying to scam the rest of us.
There are also plenty of good bookkeepers, accountants, and auditors out there, trying to do a good job.
And then there were the bookkeepers, accountants, and auditors for Enron and WorldCom.
The question is how do we separate the good ones from the bad ones?
The unidirectional data adjustments I keep reading about are starting to look like someone cooking the books of a failing enterprise in order to stay in business.
Dear Anthony,
i know that site. The graphs in the top and in the bottom were always different, but they seemed to show the same data. I could not figure out the problem. Now, it is clear, the graphs in the bottom were just wrong.
So, why do you make a big deal out of it? Have you not noticed the differences in the graphs? You are the expert, I am just a small normal layman.
Cheers.
If errors can change the graph that much, I don’t see what the all the fuss is about over ice extent. All the noise about “lowest year on record” only means something if the record is reliable. Small errors, finding things which improve accuracy, are fine. But this? It shows their methods are unreliable.
“David Y (00:10:31) :
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.”
David,
No need to call on Sir Anthony for this…it’s really quite simple. Draw a graph of your current temps. Maintain the graph for a period of time, let’s say a few weeks. Then alter the graph to show that the last week of the 3 week period is warmer. Then you’ll realize that you only THOUGHT it was -11deg, but it was actually much warmer than that.
Easy Peasy.
Roy:
“I take if for granted that the revised graph is actually a correction; the old graph was just wrong.”
I will take no such thing “for granted”…and I don’t feel that anyone here has any egg on their face. We still don’t even have a complete explanation of what happened. The only explanation given doesn’t fit the action.
And as for Gore getting his come-uppance if the caps don’t melt in his 5yr prediction?…won’t happen. These folks are like the barkers that repeatedly predict the end of the world on a specific date. When it doesn’t happen, they come up with a reason, and move the date.
And that’s exactly what Hansen/Gore will do, and they’ll do it successfully…because there are millions and millions of people who believe they are doing a great service to the planet…and simply will NOT let facts stand in the way of that belief.
JimB
Richard111 (01:02:00) :
See http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.13.html for how Hudson’s Bay has behaved over the last year. Last December it froze early, this year it is freezing late. I think the issue this year is that the jet stream has been forced to go a little west of north by the blocking High over Greenland. So while New England has had the expected cold weather, I think the strom track has brought warm maritime air to the eastern part of the Bay. It may also have brought storm winds that could have kept the Bay open.
Caveat – rampant speculation above.
The 2008 sea ice figure was just a millimetre short of getting above the 1979-2007 average for the first time, about to make a rather steep intersect too, when the ‘correction’ just happened. OK boys–panic over–we can all relax.
Roy,
How is it we who have egg on our faces?
Certainly we cheer when observation appears to falsify yet another AGW claim, and we’re outraged when yet another adjustment goes back in time and gets (ahem) Corrected in favor of the AGW industry. An AGW industry which is financing much of this “science”.
When such adjustments are done, with no announcement and no audit trail (and apparently in the dead of night), then how are we expected to accept that it was all done in good faith?
The AGW industry has a long history of such adjustments. If they wish to call their activities “science” then they need to do this stuff out in the open, in the light of day, and they need to leave a full record in their wake (e.g. algorithms, and the unadjusted raw data that those algorithms used to produce the published results).
Such a simple thing, and they can’t bring themselves to do it. It is they who should be embarrassed, not those of us watching the earth apparently beginning to cool back off again, in the face of all their pronouncements.
Ah! Entrepreneurship! To change graphs and sell them to RealClimate, Al Gore, IPCC etc would compensate financial crisis losses and enables me to afford a much needed winter fur. Thanks!
Hudson Bay is freezing rapidly right now because the Arctic air has moved down. -35C at Churchill this morning on the western side of Hudson Bay.
Its a little warmer at -25C on the other side of Hudson Bay but that is cold enough to freeze Hudson Bay completely and it will stay ice-covered until July next year.
http://www.weatheroffice.gc.ca/city/pages/mb-42_metric_e.html
Here’s a reminder of the unexplained Cryosphere Today change of 25 July 2007.
The BEFORE image refers to 23 December 2006, an image retrieved from the waybackmachine website archive site.
Anyone for hockey?
As it gets colder and colder, the AGW people will just make adjustments and more adjustments. After all, Obama is coming to make CO2 a pollution and add major taxes on all that release it. If you think they are going to let this chance slip away, you can forget it. CO2 is going to get slammed in 2009 before it gets too cold to go after it. Once it get slammed and it’s still getting colder, the AGW people will get the credit with CO2 adjustments in that data as well.
Hum, I wonder what will happen if we have another 1977 after they cut CO2 and energy bills are $1K per month. Nevermind, they will just bail everyone out.
Don’t forget the motto…..
Crisis is a great opportunity for change!
I have a problem with constantly changing algorithms and then expect a comparison to previous years to still be valid. A comparison to previous years should use the same algorithm for all years or prove that previous years are not changed with the new algorithm. I don’t care that the new data agrees with Cryosphere Today since they have the same changing algorithms issues. All these guys are out of control. A complete independant audit is neded. Good luck on that though. I do not trust these men at all. The fox is in charge of the hen house.
I’m having trouble with the explanation “There has been an error in the ice area calculation since about 22 October, causing too steep slope of the 2008 curve.” I wasn’t aware that mathematical equations had “use before” dates on them. Either they are always correct or they are always wrong! If they’re futzing around with the algorithm as they go along then it could be argued they are manipulating data to try to fit it to a preset outcome.
I was just thinking of the many AGW predictions I have seen over the years. I remember one ten year warning from the UN in 1988.
Has anyone, anywhere recorded all or many of these predictions?
I believe another ten year warning has been issued in the last four or five years. It would be nice to have a list of the easily quantifiable AGW predictions of the last twenty years or so.
This is an extract from one of the founding papers of the NANSEN project. It’s dripping with mission statements that would be meaningless if the arctic were shown not to be melting on a sustained basis. If you think your going to get any reliable data from this heavily governmental and NGO funded organisation, you’re living in cloud cuckoo land.
PDF here:- http://tinyurl.com/5w93r3
Page 18 is the introduction.
I wonder, why the two graphs of Dec 10 – 11 are different? In particular, why are the 2006 and 2007 lines varying between the graphs that are otherwise identical?
Oh, while I’m here: What happened to the GISS’s monthly average for November?
It is almost always out by the 10th of the month.
They seem to be camera shy after last month’s screw up.
I find Stein’s explanation to be believable, though he should release more details about the source of the error. I don’t see any reason to believe that he has an agenda, and the new data lines up somewhat better with UIUC area data than the older versions did, at least for September and October. The new November/December data does look low relative to UIUC.
http://temperatureadjustments.blogspot.com/2008/12/nansen-vs-cryosphere-today.html
Either way, the data is right on the edge of one standard deviation, and extremely cold weather in the Sea of Okhotsk will likely cause a narrowing over the next week.