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.
Mikey,
I see your point. Looks like someone has Dr’d the data. Looks like they made sure there was some ice left in the graph where they removed large areas of it.
I used to work in the City of London on the display systems which showed the latest prices. We often built in code which threw out numbers which fell outside an expected range. This was seen as important because people could lose money – nothing more important than money, certainly not “saving the planet.”
I’m a bit confused, Anthony. You and your readers found lots of time to post the news (on your part) and discuss it (the readers). Had anyone bothered to send a short note to NSIDC (I haven’t scanned all the comments)? The e-mail link is in the menu to the right, would have taken 2 minutes tops. You may have sent a message, Anthony, but you don’t mention anything like that in your time line.
REPLY: See my response to a previous poster above. – Anthony
I wouldn’t trust Cryosphere today (or perhaps anybody else using their methods). They cronically miss low-latitude ice in the St . Lawrence seaway, around Newfoundland, eastern Siberia, etc. Tho I wouldn’t use it for calculations, a site:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_usa.gif
always gives a more accurate (laymen’s) view.
Lucy – you have this footnote on your site about the Antarctic study published as a Letter in Nature
… Looks like a paper, but its letter status means it has not been peer-reviewed. This URL, which originally went to the document pdf, now yields nothing. I downloaded the document, evidently just in time.
Can I suggest you do a little homework about the journal’s publication process for Letters and Articles? (and ask yourself why there was nearly a year between submission and publication of the study)?
If the pdf mentioned contains the full journal article then it was possibly withdrawn for breaching copyright, the article is clearly marked ‘© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved’ and is part of Nature’s subscriber-only content. However co-author Michael Mann has now made it available on his website:
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/SteigetalNature09.pdf.
I would advise you to direct your readers there.
cheers.
Onanym (04:47:18) :
“I don’t think you can expect much cooperation from Dr. Meyer [sic] 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.”
OK. So what will Dr. Meier do in the future – ignore that the real time data are erroneous just because WUWT or Joe D’Aleo point it out?
Overall, I think Dr. Meier did the right thing and appeared to be appreciative of the notice. However, to think that this is just another data product that only ice geeks can appreciate, consider the following facts:
(1) This plot appears on the “Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis” page! It not some obscure data file that someone pulled from an archive and decided to plot up in Excel. We should assume that whoever is responsible for the “News” page would be responsible for the content as well.
(2) From the News page, I can see that the NSIDC is all geared up for press coverage! There’s a special phone number for the press only, press resource links, etc. So where do you think the press goes to get its sea ice stories? If I were a reporter and visited the web site two days ago, I could have written – “According to data provided by the NSIDC, there has been a shocking drop in the arctic sea ice extent. NSIDC scientists attribute arctic sea ice loss to global warming, and recently Dr. Mark Serreze of the NSIDC has stated that arctic ice is “a death spiral”.” I could then have splashed this on the front page of my newspaper. When the data were subsequently corrected, I would then have issued a correction to the story (on the back page of the newspaper, next to obituaries) – “The data used in the story “Arctic Sea Ice in Freefall” in yesterday’s edition has been corrected by the NSIDC and now show the ice reduction to be smaller than before.” Unfortunately, that’s how it works – stories get written with an agenda, and corrections get relegated to the back page.
(3) One final comment – why wasn’t a correction notice displayed for the graph? For example – “Yesterday’s graph displayed an anomalous drop in sea ice extent. This has been corrected. The NSIDC wishes to thank Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts for bringing this to our attention.”
Mikey (01:50:32)
No it wouldn’t. The link below is the sea ice concentration and so would be slightly less than the extent.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
Hello Anthony, you did the right thing pointing out these data errors, absolutely.
In my opinion, these releases with data errors are inexcusable. And it is sloppiness,pure and simple.Where is the quality control? These guys have PhD’s. In manufacturing, guys with high school educations are expected to find errors and stop bad production so it doesn’t get into the market. Depending on the error, these guys might make it once and be excused, a repeat would be grounds for firing.For instance, what if the manufacturing error resulted in a failure in a laptop where it would fail like a cherry bomb going off on your lap.
These data, analyses, and releases are used for policy and must have better quality control.How many errors do these guys get make and still get a free pass? I don’t trust any of the data from these agancies, anymore.
“Mikey (01:50:32) :
Speaking of weird disappearing ice, can somebody explain this one to me?
http://tinyurl.com/cpymd3
It’s the latest entry from the Cryosphere Today map compared to two days ago.”???
They seem to be having trouble…look at the ice disapear by the Sea of Labrador betwenn Canada and Greenland Feb 9 v. Feb 10:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=09&fy=2009&sm=02&sd=10&sy=2009
It’s just lovely listening to authorities set themselves up as deciders of what it is ‘fair’ to talk about. We are kissing the enlightenment good-bye.
==========================================
It was just a “melting down” of curves, they just slipped down!
As a philosophical matter, I would think it would serve the interests of science to minimize the amount of drama surrounding innocent mistakes, as much as it serves the interests of science to correct the mistakes. Comments about this or that error proves that the source is “in the tank” for one side or another are not helpful. I think best practice would be to privately notify the data supplier of the error and give them a reasonable period of time to correct it. If they don’t, then feel free to bring it to public attention. At the same time, data providers need to realize that some of their colleagues have behaved shamefully regarding errors and corrections to their public data sets, and this impacts the reputation of every data provider.
Of course Anthony was right to report the unexplainable dip in the graph. All to often we are fobbed off with stone wall silence or direct hostility when errors have been made by those who would seek to guide policy by corrupting science in the pursuit of their ideology or personal gain.
This however was nothing more than an error. Dr. Walt Meier was a bit testy in his first response but we are all a bit like that when our faults are made public.
He subsequently posted in a more collected and reasonable way. What on earth do the people who continue to criticise him hope to achieve? Do you think that scientists and researchers are going to be more open about errors knowing that they will nonetheless be vilified and have their abilities questioned?
It was an error. Get over it.
Anthony said: “As most readers know by now, the problematic GISTEMP global temperature anomaly plot for October is heavily weighted by temperatures from weather stations in Russia.”……lack of quality.
Walt Meier…..yesterday a big mistake a lack of quality …
Pieter Tans, a small error, lack of quality. (twice)…( CO2- Mauna Loa)
Conclusion: Increase in concentration of CO2 >>>>>
>>>>>cause increase in temperature >>>>>causes loss of ice in the Arctic.
perfect
On the spectrum of blog types, I’d say this blog is a “Level 1A”.
Level 1A = Really, really good
Level 1B = Really good
Level 2A = Kinda bad
Level 2B = Just bad
Level 3A = Really ugly
Level 3B = Really, really ugly
If reporting that addresses science was a blog, it would be somewhere between level 2A and 3A.
It’s also worth pointing out that yesterday was Presidents Day, a federal holiday.
REPLY: Now that’s an excellent point and one I had not considered, since I’ve never had Presidents Day off in my life. In TV and in business, it is just another workday. All the more reason to worry that somebody in media will make use of it. I never gave the holiday a thought. But when running an automated data output it is even more reason to check your output. My point is that if you let some automation speak for you, its like a puppy. You can’t leave it alone for very long because it’s likely to wet on the carpet or chew up the furniture. Business production lines that run 24/7 don’t get the 3 day weekend and don’t go unattended.
In NSIDC’S case, maybe the smart thing to do is turn off the output if they can’t monitor it.
– Anthony
Important decisions are being made by politicians based on the available evidence. When the data is bad the decisions are bad. We may well end up spending trillions on something which is absolutely unnecessary because of bad data or misunderstood data. If the folks who produce this data can’t assure its quality then perhaps they shouldn’t publish it at all. No data is better than bad data.
I check this data daily and revisions like the one noted here are NOT rare (though this is the largest I’ve seen). It looks like some kind of smoothing that causes each new day’s data to also affect the previous day or two. As a result the NSIDC plot is less “bumpy” than AMSR-E plot. They seem to differ by a constant (and the smoothing) but otherwise mirror each other rather closely.
The AMSR-E plot is usually updated late in the evening (eastern time) to include today’s ice extent. The NSIDC plot is usually updated in the morning to include yesterday’s ice extent. This is VERY significant as it provides many golden opportunities to win beer bets with uninformed co-workers.
MORE SIGNIFICANTLY the general agreement between these two plots (which had been consistent) has taken a hit. The AMSR-E plot shows the current sea ice extent is above the 2007 peak. The NSIDC plot shows this year at or below 2007 on this date and well below the peak.
I find it interesting that the title of the yesterday’s blog misspelled NSIDC as NISIDC. That mistake has not yet been corrected. Errors do occur, and they are not always noticed right away.
REPLY: Excellent point Kate! And, congratulations on spotting the error. The human mind often fills in things that it “expects” to see, especially words. For example:
Tens of thousands of people looked at it, including Dr. Meier, and you were the first to see it. This is why quality control procedures are important, because we humans often aren’t so good at catching our own mistakes, particularly ones where we are too close to the subject matter.
Thank you for catching it and pointing it out. – Anthony
All they needed to say was “thanks for catching the error, we appreciate it”. Instead his answer gives me a stronger feeling that they are deliberately trying to skew the data. I appreciate you and others giving the peer review to correct the incorrect information/data.
The appearance of a “precipitous plunge” in sea ice seems timed for an Obama announcement in Denver. You have to wonder what funding is headed their way.
REPLY: Doubtful. Automation error it is, conspiracy it is not. Let’s not ascribe motive. – Anthony
There’s a difference between a blogger posting an obvious error in the ice chart and a WUWT posting about an obvious error in the ice chart. Of the two cases, one might be ignored. There’s a blurry line between “just a blog” and an online location that everyone visits.
And I’m sure I’m not the only one that visits ICECAP, sees something interesting, and wonders if there’ll be a blog post on the topic over here.
Well and appropriately done, Anthony.
Unfortunately, these are the types of “errors” we are coming to expect from government funded agencies and researchers. Unless they are caught, they are too often never corrected.
These agencies should understand that they have been put on notice for their sloppiness, for their arrogance, for their apparent belief that they can get away with virtually anything in terms of data manipulation.
Now it is the agencies’ burden to attempt to regain the public trust.
Well-said, Tom.
As you said, Dr. Meier should have his explanation of the data process added to the information on the web site about the graph and data. Now that he knows it needed to be said, he should publish it so he won’t have to say it again.
The data processing group should also be running a public change log (a blog) for each of their data products. For followers of their activities, it would be best if they’d run a single blog about their organization’s activities with data actions categorized for each product. A change log for each product can then be produced by showing all entries for a specific category. There is an assortment of software available for doing this, and as a federal climate agency there’s a pile of funding being signed today by an executive who likes transparency.