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.
Actually, the two sets of of graphs have had a problem since about October. The two bottom graphs in the set always seemed to show area and extent (respectivley) higher for the 2008 data by about .5 million sq km than the upper graphs in the set. I noticed this previously, but could never figure out where the raw data were kept to check out whether the top or bottom graph was right. It appears that the top graphs were correct. The question is, why did NANSEN plot the bottom graphs incorrectly for about 3 months?
And now JAXA is showing a negative extent change:
-0.018750 mil k2
“And now JAXA is showing a negative extent change:
-0.018750 mil k2”
Well, that’s normal 🙂 After a week of fast refreeze, we will now have a few days of slowdown or even retreat. Water must cool down.
A little non-scientific experiment, purely using mark one eyeball, for fun only, no major conclusions to be drawn.
One thing we can do is find where the revised 2008 line is very close to the 2007 line on the same date and see if there is much obvious difference in ice on the Cryosphere polar maps.
I chose 21st November as that seems about a minimal distance on the plot and brought up the maps:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=21&fy=2007&sm=11&sd=21&sy=2008
2007 shows more ice in Hudson Bay, also around Kamchatka, Arkhangel’sk and the east coast of Greenland.
2008 shows more ice round Svalbard and the Chukchi Sea/Bering Strait.
A difficult call – it does look pretty similar.
Next we try to match up a 2007 date with a 2008 date where the ice should be about the same. For 21st November 2007 it looks as if 4th November 2008 fits the bill for the unadjusted date:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=21&fy=2007&sm=11&sd=04&sy=2008
To me there looks to be considerably less ice in the 2008 map. Hudson Bay, Arkhangel’sk and the east coast of Greenland in particular, are below the 30% threshold.
Now we try it with the adjusted date – 16th November 2008 seems to line up nicely:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=11&fd=21&fy=2007&sm=11&sd=16&sy=2008
The weird thing is – there still seems to be insufficient ice in the 2008 map.
So what do we conclude? The experiment is rubbish 🙂
“I find Stein’s explanation to be believable”
Me, too. Actually it is more comforting to see the several different data sources in closer agreement. It was concerning to see such widely different reporting of the same thing as one could not be sure which data set is correct. Now that they are in closer agreement, a better picture of what is the likely reality can be obtained.
Some of you guys are entirely too quick to claim some sort of conspiracy rather than a sutpid mistake. I haven’t paid any attention to the bottom Nansen graphs for months because they were clearly wrong. All you had to do was overlay the upper and lower plots in Paint to see the problem. It was also not difficult to determine which plot was correct. I can take the Nansen (upper plot) and CT area data and do an overlay in Paint and get an excellent match for most of the curve by offsetting the CT data to the left and stretching or squeezing the y axis. I can do the same thing with JAXA extent data and the Nansen extent plot (no need to offset the date for that data). The minimum extent doesn’t match, but that’s to be expected given the higher resolution of the JAXA (AMSR) data compared to the SSM/I data used for the Nansen plot.
Re my egg-on-face comment: many of us (and I count myself here) have been exulting in the apparently rapid recovery of arctic ice extent this year, based on the now-repudiated NANSEN graphs. We now either have to show that the new “corrected” graph is badly wrong–or at least more wrong than the old one, or accept that we should have been asking long before now why the NANSEN graph didn’t tally with other sources. We can’t have it both ways. I am putting my hand up and saying the earlier graphs suited me so I didn’t bother asking questions even though I had noticed from looking at ice-extent maps from other years that we do seem to be a few weeks behind (e.g until a few days ago Hudsons Bay was basically clear). Now all the warmists I challenged to explain the rapid arctic freeze can rightly call me a twit, and I shouldn’t be surprised if they don’t feel the need to waste time talking to me in future. I am pretty annoyed at being wrong-footed like this, but do I think the new graph probably is pretty close to being right.
This in no way excuses the conduct of organizations that just restate their results with no explanation. That is inexcusable. Heads should have rolled and we should have been given reasons to expect such an error can’t happen again. As far as we know the same half-wit that messed it up this time is still in charge of it and can easily do it again.
Michael J. Bentley (19:09:17):
The “baby with bathwater” analogy doesn’t hold.
As a practicing scientist I know all to well that too many of my colleagues are perfectly willing to follow the the AGW creed in order to advance their careers or because the “believe in” the the underlying rationale of the “precautionary principle”.
Those of us who dissent are marginalized and usually not considered for advancement. I personally am safe and satisfied in my position, but many of my younger colleagues are not. All the same I have little sympathy for their position.
A really cold winter followed by a really cold summer may shake up the scientific community, but the AGW train is running pretty fast now and it will take many years of this to bring it to a halt.
Most people will react strongly when the realization hits that they have been duped. Political leaders will follow the herd once again and come down hard on the sciences.
This will be a bad time for all sciences and scientists will pay for their support of AGW. It will take a long time for most people to trust science again.
BarryW (08:24:40) :
And now JAXA is showing a negative extent change:
-0.018750 mil k2
JAXA day by day numbers are preliminary and are subject to change over a period of a few days,
BarryW says:
This is quite possible, depending on what they are measuring. For example, strong winds might have pushed together ice fields that were over their threshold (30% or whatever) and compacted non-fast ice around the edges.
I know where all the missing ice has gone! It’s just arrived here on Vancouver Island in the form of fourteen inches of snow overnight. Please adjust figures accordingly.
Roy, this is why the NSIDC is despite its obvious bias -and perhaps because of its obvious AGW bias- a good site to get information. Again, Nature is not cooperating: Arctic sea ice extent is only 4% below the average 1979-2000 that is the highest average they can find… and closing.
Have any of the weather reporting agencies tracked here EVER made a correction in the direction of a cooling trend, or moderation of a warming trend?
Just curious.
Go to Daily Artic Sea Ice Maps site and compare the Ice by date from last year to this year and see for yourselves the greater extent of the Ice this year vs. just last year same time.
Edward (07:13:32) — Terrific GIF! Did you save these two d-bases & graphs yourself, or are there reference links?
I trust Cryosophere the most for Arctic ice info.
Until the AGW mafia highjack them, they are at least showing the pictures.
It is so obvious that the entire hysterical focus on ice was just the latest in an AGW phony fear, if you simply look at the photos.
Remember: Hansen’s first prophecy was that if CO2 was where it is today, we would be facing a much warmer world by now.
That was wrong.
Then in 2005, the aGW fear mongers grasped onto an active hurricane season and claimed that was global warming.
That was wrong.
Then as the Arctic ice went towards a cyclic minimum, the AGW industry grasped onto a melting Arctic to claim *that* was the apocalypse fer sure.
That is being proven wrong.
The AGW industry, as always, depends on its believers to willingly suspend their critical thinking skills and to participate in the latest version of the scary end of the world story they are peddling.
That participating AGW believers with access to data would doctor it or play with it is not to be unexpected.
Ric Werme (05:35:33) :
“Caveat – rampant speculation above.”
Accepted. How I tend to progress. 🙂 Thanks for pointing me at the link. I usually only check NH ice only on Cryosphere. I must broaden my viewing. Watching intently for the west coast of Svalbard to ice up before March.
“Have any of the weather reporting agencies tracked here EVER made a correction in the direction of a cooling trend, or moderation of a warming trend?”
Only when the error had been spotted by diligent bloggers.
I found out that there was an error in area calculations from 22 October. This has been corrected. Strange how it was found just as both the area and extent reached normal levels.
The problem with those that are playing ‘hide the data’ is it is getting cold, people know it, see and are forced to shovel it. And there is nothing they can do which will fix that fact as easily as they can fix the headlines in the media. When you try and tell someone who is sitting in their darkened house, looking out the window at the building ice and snow, the lie becomes obvious, even to the oblivious.
Government scientists. fixing government data, so governments can collect more taxes is an ovbious scam, that will not work.
And if current solar trends continue, it’s going to get colder and colder.
Well,
Here in Stockholm Sweden, we are still warm – about 2 degrees
above average. Its a colder than last year when we had 5 -10 degrees centigrade above normal during november – february .
I do realise that North America is Cold right now, but
northen Europe is not particularly cold. Jan & Feb . needs to be below -5 to -10 degrees Celius for us to have a normal Winter.
Last year it was + 5 C all “winter”
Deadwood & Person of Choler
Let’s see if I can clarify my remarks – Some posts talk about all scientists and all reports as having an agenda. They lump every scientist into the same bucket so to speak.
I think that’s unfair and very short sighted. I think P of C hit the nail when the post asks “How do we know the difference” (between those practicing science and those practicing alchemy)? And the answer is by the body of their work. Are they willing to admit error, seek new direction, and change long-held beliefs? Do they follow the lead of the evidence, or the dollar?
I’ve found I learn best from those who I disagree with. I’m sure both of you know people who pursue their learning because they want to learn. I’m sure both of you know people who plod through learning because that’s the way to a paycheck. I may disagree with the former, but I’ll review their findings. We have way too many of the latter – and they are a waste of time.
Yea, things are moving too fast with politicians falling all over themselves to “Save the world” (N. Pelosi). Yes the train will be hard to stop. No question of that. After all we need to save the poor Polar Bear. We will probably all suffer some economic “flushing” with carbon taxes and all. Scientists as a group will suffer for the actions of some, and that’s unfair too. Still, it will happen.
The baby is those who practice good science, even at their professional risk. The bathwater consists of the dirt that prevents a healthy society from growing. The babies involved are those I named and those like them. Once again, I disagree with many on this blog, but they do seem to have good ethics. I’ll listen to them until they prove unworthy of my attention. I don’t expect perfection from them, but I do expect good science.
I once had a supervisor who, after taking about six pounds of posterior off me said; “Son, if you’re not in trouble, you’re not working hard enough.”
I continue to be in trouble.
Mike
“There is no connection of any sorts to the presidential election” – Anthony
With respect, it does seem you’ve been catching more of these adjustments in the last year than in the previous two. Maybe this is my imagination.
Wall Street recently ran an article on the number of lobbyists being hired to work for “green” outfits. The numbers increased every year between about 2005 and 2007, with a six-fold increase in 2008. Your U.N. thread had interesting information at the end about the business in derivative- based carbon trading they are expecting.
It appears to me that efforts to fix data and emphasize the negative effects of AGW are intensifying as the inauguration approaches.
TWC (after sitting through endless green nagging) finally did a weather report… It looks like ALL of N. Dakota is a Blizzard Warning area along with lots of area in near by states. Repeated “negative teens” twice with “whooo hoo” emphasis..
They are saying “historic December” for storms. One map showing national weather advisories was so complex the commenter commented on the large extent and types of weather advisories on the map and encouraged folks to stick with him as he explained them all. North East ice storms and disaster area declarations, power outage updates, freeze warnings, …
Yeah, it’s only weather… but… After the 2007-2008 winter, this one is off to a Big Bang (oh wait, it isn’t winter yet … one week and counting to Winter Solstice – any pagans want to party in the snow? 😉
Is there an archive of the polar ice images? Would it be possible to simply compare the white area on historic satellite images as a basic sanity check of the “processed data food” we’re being fed?
And oh yeah, we’re back at zero sun spots again…
WHEN folks are frozen and up to there necks in snow for the 2nd or 3rd year running with record cold, I think they will start to revolt against the AGW agenda pushers.
I’ve been rather adamant about hollering at folks who use the ‘denier’ label to slam skeptics that we prefer to be called skeptics because that is more accurate. I’m about ready to get my “AGW Denier! And Darned Proud Of It!” parka printed up… we are at an inflection point, the only question IMHO is how many years of cold constitutes cause for active and public Denial of the whole AGW thesis…
FWIW, one of the inflection detection rules in stock trading is ‘failure to advance’. If uptrending, then lack of higher highs. If downtrending, then lack of lower lows. This manifests as a moving average taking a flat slope. On the present sea level and temperature plots, I see a ‘failure to advance’ in the moving averages…