In the prior thread I raised a question of why there was a large downward jump in sea ice extent on the graph presented by NSIDC’s Artic Sea Ice News page. The image below was the reason, dozens of people called my attention to it in emails and comments overnight because in the space of a weekend, a million-plus square kilometers of Arctic sea ice went missing. Note the blue line.
Click for larger image
When I checked NSIDC’s web site this morning, about 8:30 AM PST (9:30AM MST Mountain time in Boulder where NSIDC is located) the image was still up. A half hour later it remained. I checked all around the NSIDC web site for any notice, including the links they provide for the data issues.
Learn about update delays, which occasionally occur in near-real-time data. Read about the data.
Finding nothing, and knowing that it was now 10AM in Boulder, which should have been plenty of time to post some sort of notice, I decided to write a quick post about it, which was published at 9:10AM PST (10:10MST) and drove to work.
The corrected image (with the million square kilometers of sea ice restored) appeared on the NSIDC web site just shy of 3 hours later, about noon PST or 1 PM MST.
Click for larger image
About the same time this comment was posted on WUWT by NSIDC’s chief research scientist, Dr. Walt Meier:
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.
First let me say that I have quite a bit of respect for Dr. Meier. He has previously been quite accessible and gracious in providing answers, and even a guest post here. But I was a bit puzzled by his statement “I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about…. That’s not news“
First let us consider a recent event. The BBC ran really badly researched video report just a couple of days ago where the reporter obviously didn’t know the difference between positive and negative feedbacks in the climate. I wrote about it. The video is now gone. Now I ask this question; if nobody speaks up about these things, would the video still be there misinforming everyone? Probably.
The point I’m making here is that in my experience, most reporters know so little about science that they usually can’t tell the difference between real and erroneous science. Most reporters don’t have that background. I say this from experience, because having worked in TV news for 25 years, I was always the “go to guy” for questions about science and engineering that the reporters couldn’t figure out. And, it wasn’t just at my station that this happened, a meteorologist friend of mine reported the same thing happened to him at his station in the San Francisco bay area. I vividly remember one week he was on vacation and I saw a news report about a plane that crashed that had just minutes before been doing a low level run over the airfield as part of a show. The reporter had video taped the plane’s run, and then used that video to proudly demonstrate “as as you can see, just minutes before the crash, the propellers on the plane were turning very slowly”.
The reporter didn’t understand about how a video camera scanning at 30 frames per second can create a beat frequency that give the impression of slowly turning propellers that were actually running about 3000 RPM., and there was nobody there to tell her otherwise. She made an honest mistake, but her training didn’t even raise a question in her mind.
So when I see something obviously wrong, such as a dramatic drop in sea ice on a graph presented for public consumption, I think about a reporter (print, web, or video -take your pick) somewhere in the world who may be assigned to do a story about sea ice today and does an Internet search, landing on NSDIC’s web site and then concluding in the story “and as you can see in this graph, Arctic sea ice has gone through a dramatic drop just in the last few days, losing over a million square kilometers”.
Thinking about Walt’s statement, “ That’s not news” if the NSIDC graph had been picked up by a major media outlet today, would it be news then?
I understand about automation, about data dropouts, and about processing errors. I run 50 servers myself and produce all sorts of automated graphics output, some of which you can see in the right sidebar. These are used by TV stations, cable channels, and radio/newspaper outlets in the USA for web and on-air. While those graphics are there on WUWT for my readers, I also have an ulterior motive in quality control. Because I can keep an eye on the output when I’m blogging. When data is presented for public consumption, in a venue where 24 hour news is the norm, you can’t simply let computers post things for public consumption without regular quality control checking. The more eyes the better.
At the very least, a note next to NSIDC”s Learn about update delays, about how glitches in satellite data or processing might generate an erroneous result in might be in order. And also for consideration, adding a date/time stamp to the image so it can be properly referenced in the context of time. This is standard operating procedure in many places, why not at NSIDC?
NSIDC and other organizations need to realize that the interest in what they produce has been huge as of late. In NSIDC’s case, they have been promoted from relative obscurity to front page news by the recent unfortunate statements of an NSIDC employee, Dr. Mark Serreze, to the media, that have received wide coverage.
As commenter “just want truth” wrote in the previous thread on NSIDC:
Last year Mark Serreze, of the NSIDC (you may know him), said North Pole ice could be gone in the summer of 2008. He said then “The set-up for this summer is disturbing”. This, of course, was broadcast in all news outlets around the world. Everyone on both sides of the global warming debate was watching Arctic ice totals last summer to see what would really happen. You may have noticed hits on the NSIDC web site were high last summer.
Now Mark Serreze is saying North Pole ice is in a “death spiral”.
You can be certain that Arctic ice data will be scrutinized because of Al Gore and Mark Serreze. A line has been drawn by both. Both have placed it clearly on the radar screen. This is why NSIDC data is worth blogging about–especially since Mark Serreze is employed at the NSIDC.
Mark Serreze 2008 North Pole ice free :
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=4728737&page=1
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6e3e4VzwJI
Mark Serreze North Pole ice in “death spiral” :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW9lX8evwIw
and
http://www.nypost.com/seven/08282008/news/worldnews/arctic_ice_in_death_spiral_126443.htm
Given the sort of attention that has been heaped on NSIDC, I think blogging about errors that have gone unnoticed and uncorrected by 10AM on a Monday morning isn’t an unreasonable thing to do.
I also think that reining in loose cannons that can do some terrible damage in the media is a good way to maintain scientific credibility for an organization, especially when predictions like “ice free north pole” don’t come true.
I have no quarrel with Dr. Meier, as I’ve said he’s been the utmost professional in my dealings with him. But I do have quarrel with an organization that allows such claims to be broadcast, all the while producing a data source that is now regularly scrutinized by the public and the media for the slighest changes. It’s a slippery slope.
‘First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win’
Said by the standard-setter for non-violent confrontation and emancipation from ‘elitist’ rule, Mohindas Gandhi.
It’s perhaps a quote you should have firmly popping up on your PC screen as you moderate this excellent website Mr/Dr (sorry I don’t know your official title!) Watts……..
What the good Dr. Meier and the NSIDC seem to overlook is the rather simple task of gating their software to flag abnormal data inputs. Any programmer will tell you that it is standard programming practice to build in Boolean logic to trap extremes (like Mkm2 ice loss) and either halt the process or substitute a trend line.
What this episode brings into sharp relief is the arrogance of these institutional data centers receiving public funds. They seem to believe that certain agendas can infiltrate their operations as long as they have the MSM to defend it. And hopefully censor the few bulldogs who catch on. But that is clearly not the case today. What we have here is… a desire to communicate – the facts. Other government agencies should take notice. You are being scrutinized. By some highly qualified, intelligent people. These are not easily compartmentalized bureaucrats or politicians. They are representatives of the citizens and taxpayers that pay your salaries. And they are concerned about the fleecing of the public in the name of Global Warming.
And so if I happened to represent some government agency, and my agency presented data to the public in ‘real time’, or ‘near real time’, or ‘somewhat down the track’, or whatever…… then any blogger that found fault with my data is the person that really deserves the blame… definitely not me or mine.
Ahhhhh, for a job where one is never held responsible, or accountable, for whatever output I might put out.
Excellent work, Anthony.
Your generous comments about Dr Meier are rather more gracious than the words from him.
His understated attempt to be-little this prestigious site was in poor form, and while I will accept your view of him, in its absence he would be marked as a small man.
I do hope he is big enough to send you a ‘note’ !
Well said Anthony. A responsible and considered post. I must admit that I was surprised that I haven’t seen a BBC or Independent or Guardian article screaming about a sudden loss of over a million square kilometres of ice overnight. I guess that it was just luck that they were not looking into ice extent whilst that erroneous graphic was up.
Previous climate reports show that the lack of scientific understanding and the extent of political bias in this area by the BBC in particular is staggering.
Well if NSIDC are reading this I hope they keep it as it is rather than decide that they’d just post an updated graph monthly to avoid errors and complaints.
They could easily do this and then we all lose out.
Regards
Andy
Obviously errors happen.
The NSIDC seems to be susceptible to them since there have quite a few of these errors posted on this very same graph over time. I would imagine they would have developed some quality control over their public webpages by now.
How long can these errors exist before they are found?
Well, decades apparently since, in May 2007, they restated nearly 30 years worth of data since there were missing days in the database (it was eventually explained 18 months later – I still don’t see how the math works for missing days to affect the data this much).
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
crosspatch
‘… and in the interest if fairness, the data providers should have at least one working day to sort it out before any whistles are blown.”
I think that is a very reasonable statement but, sadly, not applicable in the current climate (no pun intended) of AGW hysteria.
Once a story/fact/opinion from a National Agency is released onto the Internet it has entered the public domain and the public consciousness, for better or for worse!
By reporting such errors, as quickly as possible, a great service is being done by people like Anthony and his team.
Granted, this must be a source of embarassment to the producers of faulty data and in ‘normal circumstances’ such rapid whistle-blowing would been seen as bad form!
Alas, the climate change stakes are too high for chivalrous sentiment. It is in the hands of those who embarass themselves to ensure that they ‘Get it Right First Time’
I would expect that anyone publishing data would appreciate queries on apparently mistaken data points. On the other hand, if the agency received too much criticism for such mistakes, the obvious solution would be to delay posting the data until after the quality checking was completed.
It is silly if either side in this debate puts any weight on the most recent weeks of data whether the data follow a trend or not.
You may have respect for this chap, Antony, but if he doesn’t see why you absolutely MUST keep blogging this type of thing then he is not, quite franklyu, worthy of ANYONE’S respect.
Keep up the fantastic work, not just for anomolies in the US but right here in the UK too.
Ken Hall
‘ I must admit that I was surprised that I haven’t seen a BBC or Independent or Guardian article screaming about a sudden loss of over a million square kilometres of ice overnight. I guess that it was just luck that they were not looking into ice extent whilst that erroneous graphic was up. ‘
I suspect that the reason for that, is less to do with luck than the prompt reporting of the WUWT squad!
🙂
A quick OT question. In the chart, why is the current data being compared to 2006-2007 instead of 2007-2008? I would be more interested in seeing a comparison to a year ago instead of two years ago.
Once again we have an instance where so-called professional scientists are producing and reporting ‘data’ and ‘results’ that are simply garbage. When the ‘data’ is questioned-the questioners are dismissed, insulted and demeaned.
I especially appreciate the remark: “I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about.”
Well, Walt, let me put it this way: ” I’m not sure why you think data like this is worth reporting”
Seems to me that Walt simply doesn’t think his job is very important or meaningful. I think maybe he’d be happier in a differient line of work.
Anthony, OT but you might want to have a look at this … No need for me to point out the legion errors, assumptions etc. I’ve written to the Editor, though almost certainly without success.
I don’t think you can expect much cooperation from Dr. Meyer in the future Mr. Watts. As someone here has pointed out, a good practice would be to get an answer from him before blogging about it. And now you have re-printed his response in a context that he does not deserve.
And what about your own postings together with Basil C. Some of these were hugely criticized, and you even promised to come with updates. None have been presented. How do you think that communicates your intentions?
I still wonder how this was not caught and corrected after such a slope developed. Watching areas of ice come and go (there is a slide show available at one of the sites), it still seems to me that a lot of ice has disappeared in short order, only to reappear, which seems to be a calibration issue with generating digital data from the analog satellite signal – certain parameters are not set correctly.
I’m not at all sure that this data is correct, even if the slope now looks more normal. It would be an easy matter to 1) check for slope in any direction before posting results that improbable by x% confidence. It would also be fairly easy to grid the results and look for dropouts that are not where a previous edge was, or where large numbers of such small grid elements drop out together at an unusual rate, or if one drops out are there nearby dropouts (or whatever technique). Simple stuff.
Again, I think the ability to discern ice from non-ice given that all of these areas are evidently constantly crossing the line in the algorithm puts the algorithm into question, and, frankly, the entire result. (or is it AlGorythm)
If the calibration is set that close, what are the implications for picking up edges around the entire ice area, and is this calibration subject to public scrutiny? Knowing a fair amount about optical recognition, I realize it’s not easy, but I don’t dismiss the fact that there are a lot of knobs to be turned to get the correct answer, parameters which, in the wrong hands, could lead to misleading results… I realize these algorithms are probably shifting by the hour to pick up edges, but again, why if the edge has moved is the algorithm not changed to find the edge near where it was last seen, and if 300 miles off, raise a flag? I asked NSIDC about calibration procedures yesterday, so far have not seen a response.
Well done. Be ready for lib blog hive ad hominem. U B the enemy now whether U no it or not.
Anthoy: since I had noted the discontinuity when it appeared as well and assumed it couldn’t be accurate, I found your post particularly interesting. I couldn’t find a good email address for you, so I post here the note that I sent to Dr. Meier (and tried to copy to you).
Dear Dr. Meier
I was intrigued (but not surprised) when I saw that Mr. Watts had posted an essay on discontinuity in the sea ice data that appeared the other day: it’s the sort of thing that appears to catch his eye. I was also intrigued (and quite surprised) to read that your response to the inquiry was that you were not sure why Mr. Watts would think “things like this are worth blogging about” and that imperfections in near real-time data are simply “not news.”
I thought it might be helpful for you to know a bit more about your audience. I’m a regulatory and transactional attorney in the Washington DC area and have been following the sea ice data series on the NSIDC site for quite some time. I usually check it several times a week along with a host of other data sources. As my professional concerns include trying to evaluate the political and regulatory process in Washington and to some degree in the EU, I view the sea ice pictures as part of my informal “leading political indicator” on carbon regulation. I find it helpful to consider how the charts will look when committee votes begin to occur, perhaps late this spring. On more than one occasion I have pointed to your charts as likely to be used in the political debate by whomever thinks they may benefit from doing so. It is not for nothing that pictures are said to be so much more valuable than words in many contexts. . . .
While I understand that you probably didn’t develop the data series as an adjunct to anyone’s “briefing book” or “talking points” in Washington, there is a not insignifcant likelihood that they will be used in that context (and if you cease publishing your data, they will turn to less credible or less well presented research and data). In sum, the future of billions upon billions of dollars of existing and potential assets may very well be affected to some degree by the Center’s research (much as the Energy Information Adminstration’s data series affect private investment and public debate on a host of energy-related issues).
The very peculiar spike in the chart the other day certainly caught my eye. Like Mr. Watt (whom I don’t know from Adam, although I enjoy his essays), I automatically assumed that there was a glitch since a million acres or square miles or whatever of sea don’t normally just melt (or freeze) on a day-to-day basis. I assumed that some correction would probably be forthcoming and found it extremely worthwhile that the glitch should be flagged by others in the public just in case the actual site maintenance might be automated or the like.
So while I fully understand that data are not perfect and the glitches arise and corrections need to be made, I would suggest to you that striking discontinuities in data series that can influence multi-billion dollar decisions are in fact INTENSELY worth discussing and the level of detailed (and mostly dispassionate!) attention that Mr. Watts focuses on such issues is a terrific enhancement of educated public discourse in this area. The contribution that Mr. Watts (and any other members of the public) can make by providing feedback and comment is invalauble in enhancing the quality and reliability of the ultimate product.
Thank you for all the work that the NSIDC Center does. I thought it might be helpful for you to have feedback from different sectors of your (potentailly worldwide) audience.
Regards,
Philip Marston
MARSTON LAW
Alexandria, VA
Sorry about the misspelling of your name, Mr. Watts. No spell checking in the comment box. . . 🙂
Anthony,
You do a great job of this. You give the data publishers time to correct mistakes and credit them when they do what they should. In the past, this sort of thing might have taken years to correct.
Thanks for the blog and forum!
Anthony,
Thanks for the great detective and reporting work (as well as Joe D’Aleo). At least this time this issue didn’t turn into another Steig et all MSM report.
Tell the truth and serve the public.
Anthony, and others in the private sphere, have had to take over that responsibility for arrogant government agencies that believe that they can go off on a long holiday weekend without any oversight or red-flagging of real time data reporting. At the very least they should have a place on their site where errors are acknowledged and the correction/time is given.
Furthermore, these arrogant tax-payer funded agencies also believe that they can provide propaganda whenever it pleases them. Ron de Haan (01:47:29) is aware that the links for the NSIDS site all last year sang “the alarmist tune”. IMHO Dr. Mark Sereeze should no longer be in their employ. (The Dr. in front of his name should imply some knowledge of his field.)
Dr. Meier has more than egg on his face. Instead of the huffiness he should, with real gratitude, give a great big thank you to Anthony and promise that the organization for which he is responsible will put safeguards in place so that such a huge error will not happen again. Did he do that?
Yes, I believe we should be very angry.
Blogging has become what reporting used to be. There are no investigative reporters left who are well informed about their fields and the relevant politics AND who are supported by news organizations. Anthony and other bloggers are pioneers in a whole new world — with little organizational support. More power to you, Anthony, and I hope you get generous contributions from your faithful readers around the world.
Worth blogging about? Certainly.
Worth your readers getting upset and posting the first thoughts that come to mind without adding much of anything to the discussion? No, at least reading all that was a waste of my time.
Like I suggested at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/13/wasted-effort/ , I think this would have been a good story to disable comments on until NSIDC had a chance to reply. It would have served your readers better and the NSIDC would still have a good idea of how many people see their data as soon as it comes out.
It would also be nice if the NSIDC would write up something about how they produce their products given that I think their input are strips of polar images that have to be spliced together and have clouded out and other data losses handled.
The NSIDC is not the only organization that suffers from these problems that result from favoring haste over quality. NCDC, GISS and others make the same mistake. Data that is preliminary, unverified and subject to a variety of errors has no value and should NEVER be reported to the public (or anyone else).
Don’t these organizations realize they are just embarrassing themselves? The general public won’t remember the disclaimer, only that the organization made ANOTHER mistake.
I would much rather wait for as long as it took to receive data that had been scrutinized and quality-checked. I am only interested in the finished product, not the early draft versions. The immediacy of these reports simply does not exist.
This is just one of those hammers Al Gore would use against logic. The data is not perfect, that is why we have multiple sources, but Al Gore would still use this data to force an agenda costing 20% of our GDP.
Thank you WUWT!