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.
Moderator, could you please correct the last line in my previous post to read “Your blog, Anthony” instead of “Your, Anthony”. Thank you and sorry.
@Anthony
watt do you think about this?: you notice an error, you wirte an email to the Web site, you wait for response, error will be corrected, you write a small blog post. Well, okay, it documents the change and your “controlling”. 😉
But what are you doing actually? Writing stuff like this:
Something odd is going on at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Something is rotten in Norway – 500,000 sq-km of sea ice disappears overnight
the Mauna loa thing, the GISS thing etc. etc.
GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data (you denoted it as “embarrassing error”)
and so on and so on. That is arrogant and disgusting and does not matter at all. It sucks.
just me (03:20:34) :
I totally agree.
CA and to some extent WUWT purport to be analytical of data with no agenda.
The headlines and language tell it all.
Why report the error here before getting it corrected. This in no way helps the suggestions made above of getting the data corrected to stop the media picking it up.
There is one agenda – embarass the supposedly AGW supporting scientists/agencies as much as possible!
It is very correct that errors should be pointed out to those that made them. I see no problem then reporting factually in a blog.
The acolytes of WUWT and CA foaming at the mouth, jumping up and down shouting “gotcha!!” and laughing hysterically flashes before me on these sort of occasions.
You hit the nail on the head here. That’s one of the ways the septic community works, instead of trying to disprove the mechanisms of AGW by scientific means, using the relevant peer reviewed publications, they prefer the ‘tabloid’ route of trying to discredit the data and pick holes in any little data issue. It has happened before, the evolution debate, plate tectonic debates, asteroid cratering on the moon/earth and now AGW. At least for these issues it was through the correct channels, that’s how we learn and adjust if necessary. With the explosion of Blogs we know have ‘fast food’ science where there is little care in the selection of data to support their alternative hypothesis. It is a self defeating approach as without the hard science behind it, it will eventually go the way of other conspiracy theories such as Roswell, grassy knolls etc.
REPLY: Mary, you are out of line. I don’t care for this sort of commentary, especially your use of the word “septic”. which I consider emotional and childish. Do not post this sort of commentary again. – Anthony
Frederick Michael (20:12:51) :
OK folks , the evening update for the AMSR-E sea ice extent is in and it shows an increase for 2/17/09. The NSIDC plot should move up tomorrow — some retroactively.
Possibly, however NSIDC uses a different sensor (SSM/I) which is having problems so until that is fixed it’s possible that they may not be able to update?
Anybody remember when the NY Times ‘discovered’ the North Pole was ice free one summer? How many people still don’t know it’s ice free almost all summers, even during the coldest years?
How this then:
_ No positive correlation observed between rising levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperate
_ No demonstrated cause and effect between rising levels of CO2 and temperature
_ No greenhouse gas warming signature in the atmosphere
_ Computer models unable to predict climate
_ MWP was warmer than the 20th Century
_ No observed warming for years
_ Ice core data shows temperatures first go up, then CO2 goes up. CO2 continues to increase after the start of global cooling
What did I miss?
just me (03:20:34) :
thefordprefect (04:58:32) :
Mary Hinge (05:40:02) :
Please go and have a look on the following plots:
anna v (22:59:00) :
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=12&fd=06&fy=2008&sm=02&sd=16&sy=2009
Do you see the necklace of beads on the left december 6 2008 plot?
Is this a reasonable data representation?
I copy from a post above:
We had a discussion in the blog at that time.
I sent an inquiry to the link provided then ( I think it was a person, this has changed in the current home page), politely framing my puzzlement and asking if the conclusion of the blog discussion that it is an artifact of the way the satellite data are combined, was true.
I never got an answer. And the plot is still there. It was there in other views in their archives last time I checked.
So much for your “reasonable” suggestions of what to do when you see an error on a publicly funded web page.
@anna v
hm, it is not the same website. If somebody ignores you, you may write about the Website. I think that is reasonable. But you have to try it first. FIRST. And you have to give them some time. The daily, near-real time service is pretty voluntary. Furthermore, Anthony wrote, Dr Meier has been very cooperative in previous discussions. Anthony gave his “Thank you” in an interesting way.
May be, the NSDIC and the others should stop the service. May be, you have to cool down a little bit. You should not read to much into it and care more about monthly values and see the daily values as a “toy” ;).
Another example: think about the rotten Norway headline i gave: Anthony did not see an error then. The error had been there for weeks before Anthonys “discovery”. Anthony noticed only the correction of the error and screeched about it.
Do you think that behavior is okay?
Bravo!!
The maps provided are not used to determine sea ice extents (these maps show 30% and above; extent is for 15% and above). They do not supply the prime source data. They may be publically funded but only as part of University of Illinois.
Alaska Mike (19:00:04) :
Anthony:
Have you seen the comparison of Feb 16 and 17 at
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=17&fy=1980&sm=02&sd=17&sy=2009
In 24 hours Hudson Bay has become 1/2 to 3/4 ice free.
I also noticed this weird sea ice data. Gigantic areas loosing ice while others are gaining huge amount of sea ice in 24h. Somthing is wrong with the satellite data or the processing of it at cryosphere today and possibly others atm.
Also as mentioned above the snow cover covers sea area making the sea ice looking visually smaller in recent data.
Can one assume that the sea area coverd with snow is actually counted as sea ice while the picture shows something else?
Phil. (06:08:16) :
You nailed this one. The NSIDC picture is full of voids and the plot isn’t updated. I have even seen a whole week without an update, but usually without a new picture.
anna v (08:30:17) :
A simple check shows it is an artifact, in any data collection from any instrument there will always be occasions when this happens. This comes to my point that if using data or graphs a bit of research and crosschecking goes along way. Just looking at the previous day and the day after shows this is obviously an artifact. If one was to publish a paper or a blog entry then the writer has a responsibility of checking data/graphs/maps etc. especially when from automated sources before publishing.
Everyone should check the NSIDC site now. They have taken the images down and issued a discussion regarding a data outage.
Definitely worth blogging about, no? 🙂
I suspect the erratic plotting of ice since mid January has been a result of faulty data. Or someone spilled their coffee.
Perhaps the corrected plotting will resemble the other sources making 08-09 ice much closer to the 79-06 average.
Which spells trouble for the trend makers at the IPCC.
After all, are they not depending upon the ice retreating?
Answer me this.
What, ultimately will be the initial nail that attaches the lid on the AGW coffin?
Which will be the most easy to confirm?
Lack of sea ice depletion, lack of warming, lack of sea rise, lack of CO2?
As they examine their data I hope they take a close look at each of the times in Nov., Dec., and January when the data indicated sea ice growth had stopped. The stairstep pattern in their graph has puzzled me for a while. It could be the result of wind, current, temperature, etc., or just indications of the sensor problems they have now found:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2009/021809.html
News flash – TV – Omaha NE, circa 1987.. a Sunday afternoon
Newswoman standing upwind of the leaky industrial tank:
“Authorities still have not been able to identify the material leaking from
the tank which has sent an acrid, orange cloud downwind, forcing the evacuation of 50 homes…”
Tank behind the “newsbabe” has lettering on it: HNO3
No real internet at the time, but about 100 people calling the local station
and telling them, “It’s concentrated nitric acid…!”
So I too see one of the advantages of the Internet, even for the technically challenged.
I come up with a dozen links labeled “NITRIC ACID”.
Now, we just have to make sure the MEDIA folks can read….but if they can’t
having the BLOG entry that addresses the “news item” (particularily technical) is very important. The people that CAN read. That ARE suspicious, CAN access beyond the “popular media” and find out more in depth info.
THUS Anthony is QUITE correct, because once “dramatic ice loss” is put into the search engines after a couple days, then his (and other’s) blogs come up and give another answer than presuming the data is right, and as noted, using it for “propaganda” purposes.
Hat Tip: J. Gobbels
Here in Greenland we call it SISO = [snip]
This is another example of automated publishing of climate data…No quallity control before publishing.
All the climate bloggers are actually the best quallity control…
Thanks Anthony
Reply: Sorry, the blog is meant to be G-rated ~ charles the moderator
“In science as well as in the economy you need to take into account the cost of correcting an error in relation to its impact. It usually is not worth your time to hunt down an error, which if corrected will change your result in a non-significant digit only. Results don’t have to be perfect, they just need to be good enough to let you reliably test your hypothesis.”
Bluegrue- before you can correct an error, one must know it exists. If it’s existence is not known because it was not caught, it’s magnitude is not either, nor is it known if the result is “good enough”, and what it’s impact will be. Reliance on client-users to detect errors as a method of quality control is not acceptable.
Test results and measurements must meet the tolerances for precision and accuracy established in advance. Thats good enough for me, if not perfect.
The quality control of data used in climate science seems to be a concern. Not so much this case alone, but there have been many other cases which when taken together point to a problem.
“Errors in publicly presented data – Worth blogging about?”
Without doubt, hopefully to be shouted from the rooftops. Check out the difference in “AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent” from these two sources:
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090217_Figure2.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png
NSIDC shows AMSRE Feb 10 extent at about 14.75 km2
JAXA shows AMSRE Feb 10 extent at about 14.0 km2.
Re the NSIDC fiasco: They finally posted the real cause of the discrepancies between their data and Cryosphere Today or JAXA data. It totally justifies Anthony’s comments to the letter from Dr. Meier.
The NSIDC post can be found here.
Note how the problem with the SM1 data also polluted their southern hemisphere presentations. The reason not using the AMSR-E data is a bit forced. They say that they know the data is bad, but they want to continue using the same sensor so that the data can be comparable to their historical record produced by the same satellite (but not always the same particular sensor on that bird)! Can you believe an excuse like that for using a known faulty sensor, especially after acknowledging that the CT and JAXA data using the AMSR-E satellite data is more accurate? Perhaps WUWT posters can think of a host of ridculous metaphoric analogies to that kind of statement.
BTW, in the NSIDC FAQ sheet, here is their answer to the Question:
“How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.”
That’s quite a strong declarative statement for a topic embroiled in controversey.
I would suggest that the principal man-made cause of Global Warming might just be man’s responsibility for the manipulation of data.
Finally, I suspect this linked response from NSIDC fully justifies Anthony’s and other peoples’ inquiries into their obviously botched data charts.
John Galt (07:54:55) :
Why would you expect such a simple relationship at all? It is well known, that you need the changes in TSI, aerosols and CO2, all three of them, to recreate the 20th century in GCM’s. If you have three major players, any such simple correlation as you envision will fail. A simplified example is shown in this comment in the Schlesinger
thread.
Fred Nieuwenhuis (11:01:16) :
Wow. Their response is totally professional. The graph of the growing difference is solid self-criticism.
Still (as you note) this kinda proves the value of blogging about it. They’ve had other problems and what happened is that later smoothing/revision just fixed it. Meanwhile, it did temporarily post read meat for the AGW preachers. However, if none of them bit on it then the danger has passed (this time).
Still, I favor their method of posting raw data in real-time. If some nut chooses to use it inappropriately, that’s their fault. You can’t prevent lying by eliminating facts. Hiding the raw data is far too common and wrong.