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.
I made a typo above, it should not be antarctic in the end but arctic…
Sorry. I was over-stimulated this morning.
And, at the other pole (so to speak):
Here we have the Astronomy Picture of the Day for February 15…
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090215.html
I can’t stand it!
As a SCADA engineer dealing with real time data, I became aware VERY EARLY in my careeer that you always put up a caveat when publishing anything based on the data. Real-time implies “dirty”.
“bluegrue (09:12:43) :
The solution to this could be of course to just hire someone to do the QA and delay posting for 3 months to ensure there is enough time for QA.
It just begs two questions:
a) Who’s gonna pay the QA person?
b) Who’s gonna be happy to wait 3 months for “current” data?
There was a lot of speculation, that this glitch would be picked up by “warmers” or the press as another jigsaw piece to prove AGW. Has that actually happened?”
Are you seriously suggesting it would take three months to check one day’s data? And then presumably another three months for the next day’s as well? I think you’d fall behind real time by quite a bit after a year. This glitch did not happen in one day but was the cumulative of a number of days, all with incorrect data. This shows that no-one at NSIDC is applying any QA to this data product, and surely one man hour per day would be enough to ensure the data is not in error. Three months?
Completely off the main thread but on the issues of reporting I suggest your readers look at
http://www.cii.co.uk/app/news/default.aspx?endstem=1&id=911 – I’ve pasted the article below
and today’s Daily Telegraph (UK) article on Geo Engineering on the “Science” page.
Read and weep or maybe chortle.
Regards
Paul
CII Thinkpiece says climate change biggest challenge for insurers in our time
Press Release / News item
17/02/2009
Major changes to the world’s climate will mean significant challenges for insurers of all types of business for the coming years, argues Maureen Agnew, Senior Research Associate at the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, in a CII Thinkpiece article published today.
This Thinkpiece summarises a chapter in a major report entitled Coping with Climate Change: Risks and Opportunities for Insurers edited by Andrew Dlugolecki, to be published by the CII on 23 February. The third CII report on climate change presents an overview of the scientific evidence behind climate change, highlights some of the most serious issues that lie ahead, and emphasises the clear and pressing need for insurers to assess and effectively manage these risks. Dr Dlugolecki previously sat on the Intergovernmental Committee on Climate Change which won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.
The risk of summer drought is likely to increase in Europe, Dr Agnew concludes, with heat waves of the type witnessed in Australia this year becoming more frequent across most land areas. At the same time, heavy precipitation events are very likely to increase in frequency and will augment flood risk, creating serious consequences for the environment and human activities.
Some of the most striking projections include:
In London, the number of hot days (i.e. at least 25°C) could double by the 2020s, and could be three to five times greater by the 2050s.
Very hot days, with temperatures greater than 30°C will also become more common, as will extreme temperatures such as those experienced during the heat wave of August 2003.
By the end of the 21st century in Europe, it has been projected that every summer in many regions of Europe will be hotter than the 10% hottest summers during the period 1961 to 1990.
In the UK, the greatest increase in rainfall is projected for southern England, where there could be 4.5 more days of heavy precipitation in the winter season.
Rising sea levels and greater storm activity suggest that storm surge risk is likely to increase along many coasts. The largest increases in storm surge are along the coast of southeast England and amount to 1.2 m by the end of the 21st century.
David Thomson, Director of Policy and Public Affairs at the CII said: “These projections on rising temperatures due to climate change make disturbing reading.” “This Thinkpiece – and indeed the third cycle of climate change research to be published by the CII next week – shows why this issue is a clear and present concern for the insurance sector. It provides evidence of both risks and opportunities for the sector, demonstrating the urgent need to use its expertise to lead in the development of solutions in mitigation and adaptation strategies. Above all, we need industry leadership to ensure we act now,” he added.
Perhaps it is because this sort of obvious missing ice has been commented on multiple times to date on this site, and so far I have not seen any one at NSIDC (otherwise in the loop person) comment on if they are looking for a cause or if they have identified a cause. (I could have missed it, but pointing me to it if it has occurred is the solution of choice, rather than a snarky comment that I am implying all scientists are idiots.)
I say obvious, because in the case of the Hudson bay, local observers have verified that they do not have open water as implied by these images. Likewise the simple reasonableness check that it is unlikely vast areas of ice will suddenly disappear during sub zero weather, nor is it likely for a smooth edged wedge of ice to disappear. Posts here have already noted and made the obvious connection you pointed out that the wedge probably is due to data drop out, but I wonder why that data drop out is not either — highlighted by a note, indicated by a different color that signifies missing data, or handled by dropping back to the most recent good data for that zone.
The original comment about JAXA being from a different sensor, explicitly suggetsts that it is good science to compare similar output from different sources to help identify errors or to understand the differences in the nature of the different data products. I was just following up on that observation and commenting on the differences that I see, and wonder about their cause.
If differences in resolution are to blame I still would expect that in both cases the before and after values would vary by roughly the same percent unless we are talking about the summer breakup when there might be a large number of very small ice blocks that drop out at the course resolution and are still seen at the finer resolution. During the winter freeze season when we are largely talking about large blocks of ice, I would not think the issue for ice on the same day of the year would matter as far as sensor resolution is concerned, as typical ice block size for that date should be reasonably similar, so the errors would be uniform year to year.
Larry
Mikey,
You are absolutely right. The fact that Walt Meier, to his credit, responded but said “this isn’t news” shows that (as we all know) mistakes happen all the time. This one was BIG enough that it would probably have been picked up in house without Anthony’s admirable prompting.
But how many other smaller, yet cumulative, errors have slipped through the net in the past and skewed the information presented?
Dang,
should have read ‘even without Anthony’s admirable prompting’
Anthony – in cases like this in future, I suggest a small change in procedure : (a) notify the source (in this case NSIDC) that there might be an issue, at the same time as blogging it, (b) ask the source for a reply, (c) say in the blog that the source has been notified and asked for a reply.
Could save a lot of kerfuffle.
You probably saved them and yourself about a thousand e mails since possibly millions are watching the ice extent since agw has made it a big test of global warming.
Cryosphere seems to be doing some funky things as well, by comparison to last year … Has Canada come out of its deep freeze yet?
While it is important to call attention to errors, we should probably be guided by a sense of caution and proportionality. This error might have been corrected in week, not a day, without the blog–big deal. If we react with the same level of suspicion and outrage at a minor error like this as we do over something like bristlecone pines being a proxy for rainfall not temperature, we run the risk of not being taken seriously on either.
Paul Maynard
Beat you to it! I posted (OT) re the Telegraph article back up the page a way. I also wrote to the newspaper’s Editor, but with little hope of publication. Over ten years ago I wrote to the ‘paper to complain about their description of CO2 as the “main greenhouse gas” to no avail.
I don’t think there is any question Anthony was correct in posting about NSIDC on the straying graph, its the type of exposure that may inspire them (NSIDC) to put in place means to prevent its happening in the future.
Also inre to confusion over ice extent.
Spotter airplanes fly the perimeter of a brush fire with a GPS marking waypoints to determine the number of acres burned,
seems like they could do the same thing along the edge of an ice field to confirm extent.
Latest Canadiam Cyrosphere image:
http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm
No melting here.
And here: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS57CT/20090216180000_WIS57CT_0004225828.pdf
and here: http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS54SD/20090216180000_WIS54SD_0004225929.pdf
First 2 rules of public life:
1.The Press (not you) decides what is news.
2. Respect Rule #1.
Tony the Terrible knocking ’em dead and checking up on ’em. Hats off to all blogs checking up. Hats off to WUWT!
The Whole World is Watching!
The Whole World is Watching!
The Whole World is Watching!
BBC, B-ware. We will be the guards guarding the Guardian. The Peers are no longer our Peerless Leaders. The Independent is getting a little good Old Independent Review.
No more free rides. You can bet they have a nervous eye out–nowadays.
Blogward, Ho, me hearties! Arrrr.
John Philip
Thanks for your help and correction, much appreciated.
Re reporting standards… there seems to be a whole spate of MSM proclaiming “Global Warming has gotten worse!!!” at present.
The name of Walter Cronkite was hailed in this thread. I remember watching a documentary in the 1970s that he hosted. In his conversations with scientists, the message was how the world was cooling and what disasters awaited the human race because of global cooling. It would be interesting to get a copy of that documentary.
@ur momisugly Neil Crafter (12:27:10)
Do I really need to include sarcasm tags? Still, what people ask for here on this blog is better quality assurance for near-real-time preliminary data. Better QA will give a more reliable product, but would eat up quite a few man hours and take time. So who is going to pay the money for it and is this really an efficient way to spend that money? Do you want it spent on better presentation of preliminary data, or good quality of final products and research. The daily NSIDC data is held to higher quality requirements, than it was intended for, IMHO. You have read Dr. Meier in the other thread? (emphasis added)
I don’t think, supplying near-realtime data to the general public is part of the NSIDC mission. The Arctic Sea Ice News is something they can generate in the current form, without using up too many resources. Improving it, is one option open to them. Turning the near-realtime data into a restricted access resource and replacing it in the news section with weekly, monthly or even just quarterly summaries is another. Does anyone here consider this scenario to be a desirable one?
Science seems to take errors with a grain of salt these days. Errors which would cause huge issues in the commercial sector are met with a yawn or a grin and an oops. What quality standards do they adhere to that allows this sloppiness. Seems less stringent than ISO 17025 for commercial labs.
Errors and mistakes happen. But they should never be tolerated, and when detected, root cause must be discovered and corrective action taken. Data made public should be made reviewed and be provided with a date time stamp. If it is not possible to review real time data immediately, which is understandable, a notice that data is preliminary and should not be used until X number of days after release should be given (which would be the time needed to review and confirm the data).
Below is a comment that never got posed over at Real Climate over Steigs latest papers error on Antartactica due to AWS issues.
“[Commenter] How do we know there were no errors in the measurements at the other stations ?
[Response: One never knows there are no errors….]
[My rejected comment] This is a rather causal response to an important question. In the business world working with a testing agency, if I gave a client the same answer, I would lose a client and my job. That such errors are not detected in the peer review process is bothersome although not unexpected, as are many of the issues on data integrity brought up on some of the skeptic sites. Errors happen of course, but never accepted w/o consequence or further investigation as to root cause.
When we are asked to commit to major lifestyle changes and lower living standards on the basis of articles such as this using data from various sources, one expects the quality of the data to be high and those using it to validate it. Based on my experience, when there is one error in a set of data as a result of a casual or random review, it is likely there are others if a more rigorous investigation is done on the remaining data. Other web sites have shown visual issues with land surface temperature measurements in the US for example, so we know issues exist with some of the sites providing data, but the issue does not attract much attention, so it is difficult to know if corrective action is being taken.
What quality control system is being used by the agencies who provide this temperature data?. Are they accredited by any 3rd party agencies and subject to inspection and audit, or are we expected to have faith in their integrity and competence w/o verification? You know the old saying, trust but verify.”
At the moment we have a heavy snowfall in Central Hungary, as far as I remember there wasn’t any snowstorm like this since about 2003. It must be AGW and man-made CO2, we are only experiencing one of its outrageous negative effects.
I’m afraid we reached a tipping point. One million squre kms of ice has melted during one day. I am fully convinced that it is quite alarming, we should take it seriously.
Normally, such items should not be news worthy. We should be seeking answers, not headlines. The issue is that “political scientists” (ie Dr. Stadler in Atlas Shrugged) have politicized the work hard working scientists. The Dr. Stadler’s make it about political science, funding and news. They corrupt science. Now it is absolutely critical that the political science sources be monitored for facts.
One needs to feel sorry for the scientists working for these organizations and working under Dr. Stadler.
One also needs to realize the politicians will quickly throw the scientists under the bus when the tide changes. As global warming crisis goes away, politicians like Al Gore will be quick to note they were “mislead” by scientists.