Something odd is going on at the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Look at this image:
The image is directly from NSIDC’s Artic Sea Ice News page today. Of course there’s the large drop of about 1 million sqkm of sea ice in the last couple of days that is puzzling.
If this were real, we’d also expect to see something also on Cryosphere today plots, and while that group does not do an extent graph, they do make an areal graph. It “should” show something that reflects the drop but instead goes up. WUWT?
While ice extent and area are not exactly the same, they are closely related. So one would expect to see at least some correlation. But we have zero. I suppose there could be a wind issue that is compacting sea ice, but surely there would be something in the area graph.
Something seems not right, and NSIDC owes the public an explanation as they did for a previous drop in extent change from January 15 to 26 which is currently in their Feb 3rd news release.
h/t to Joe D’Aleo and many WUWT commenters.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m glad to see it wasn’t one of Hansen’s “Coal Trains of Death” spilling its evil cargo onto the ice.
LOL
Well Walt,
I’m sorry but I don’t buy the latest trends toward 07 either.
It’s not hard to be skeptical and even paranoid when the cold and ice is one thing and the “charts show another”.
Especially when other sources more accruatley reflect obsevations.
And what about the Antarctica as mentioned by
Sven (09:38:50) :
By the way, I just discovered that NSIDC’s Antarctic sea ice extent is doing exactly the same?!
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images//daily_images/S_timeseries.png
Re: tty, about the Gulf of Bothnia. It is not completely frozen as you stated. Here’s the current map from the Finnish authorities:
http://www.fimr.fi/en/itamerinyt/en_GB/jaatilanne/
As you can see, we are well below “normal”, and even in “normal” years the whole Gulf does not have an ice cover in mid February.
Given that right now is the brutal depths of winter in the Arctic it seems unlikely that there is ice coverage losses going on. Based on my experience living in the eastern Arctic, it just doesn’t happen in Mid February.
It’s fixed now.
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
I guess that Anthony was a bit worried that the death trains finally began to quickly liquidate the remaining millions of squared kilometers of ice, before they would swallow all the humans. 🙂
And why does this source show 09 ice to be at or above 08 while nsidc
shows it to be under 07 record low?
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
One more before heading out.
It appears to have been data dropouts and bad data due to satellite issues since mid January.
Can we expect a broader correction soon?
Climate scientists blow hot and cold
Antarctic warming isn’t evidence of climate change – despite what scientists would have us believe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/feb/06/antarctic-warming-climate-change
The reaction to this study by Steig and his co-authors is more enlightening than its results. When Antarctica was cooling, some climate scientists said that was consistent with computer models for global warming. When a new study, such as Steig’s, says it’s warming, well that’s just fine with the models, too. That’s right: people glibly relate both warming and cooling of the frigid continent to human-induced climate change.
Perhaps the most prominent place to see how climatologists mix their science with their opinions is a blog called RealClimate.org, primarily run by Gavin Schmidt, one of the computer jockeys for Nasa’s James Hansen, the world’s loudest climate alarmist.
When studies were published showing a net cooling in recent decades, RealClimate had no problem. A 12 February 2008 post noted: “We often hear people remarking that parts of Antarctica are getting colder, and indeed the ice pack in the southern ocean around Antarctica has actually been getting bigger. Doesn’t this contradict the calculations that greenhouse gases are warming the globe? Not at all, because a cold Antarctica is just what calculations predict … and have predicted for the past quarter century.”
So, Antarctic cooling and warming are both now consistent with computer models of dreaded global warming caused by humans.
———————————————————
De Omnibus Dubitandum est
Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
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.
Thank you for your prompt response in clearing this issue for us.
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.
You would be right, if climate had not become newsworthy. Would you look at it and remove it as fast if you just got an e-mail from an interested outsider? Maybe yes, but my experience is that the random individual is sort of ignored by whoever sits behind the the “communication” link in all these data web pages.
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.
This is good to know.
Off topic
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/4641586/Can-geo-engineering-rebuild-the-planet.html
Everyone on both sides of the environmental debate love jumping to sides on ice in the polar regions season to season. While study of this is good, and ongoing I do not see enough evidence from the existing data sources to determine anything other than ice melts, and water freezes.
Wind patterns, Ocean cycles, Lunar and Solar cycles, shifts in the poles exact position, under sea and under ice volcanic activity, and other factors play a roll, and without taking that into account you can not make a determination as to why year x is more than year y.
I also fine it Ironic that people Pro and Against AGW use select years to demonstrate an increase or decrease in polar ice. That is fairly selective. From a graph standpoint it appears to be reducing very very slowly, but nothing to be worried about. Still without all the data, everyone can guess but nothing more.
As Martin G Atkins points out, it looks to be fixed: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
We seem to be experiencing a repeating pattern of mistakes. Whatever happened to QC?
The blog Mr. Meier is an important reassurance that there are plenty of watchdogs on this climate front. Like having independent reporters on-scene. The benefit to the public is a prompt and reassuring correction of error as witnessed today.
MartinGAtkins (12:17:09) :
That is a good thing. If Al Gore and James Hansen saw it they would be preaching that all of the Arctic was going to melt before the end of the month. The biggest problem being that it would spread through the media like wildfire and the ‘real’ situation would never get mentioned.
Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
Thank you sir for your timely contribution and honesty.
DaveE.
just me (11:11:42) :
***Breaking News*** CHINA: RICE BAG FALLEN OVER! SITUATION UNCLEAR!… it is daily data… if there is an error, the error will be corrected. Your minds have to be extremely twisted to see an agenda.
BTW: no UAH temperature blog entry in this month at Watts Up? An agenda?
No twisted minds but it does seem very, very odd! If you watched the progress of these records as closely as I do, you would also find it odd!
No UAH temp blog? No agenda there either. As it happens, temps on the dip and quickly beginning to converge with 2008 again. Remember that temps have a long way to go in order to recover to 2001 -2007 levels let alone show significant warming as predicted. So while January will show an up spike, it hasn’t yet been significant enough to conclude the recovery is under way. In fact the graph will likely show a levelling off for early Feb.
Having said that of course, temps do have equally as long a way to go down just to get to average as they have to go up in order to compete with upper 21st century values.
Ben
Ben
Thank you very much, Dr. Meier, for the update!
Shouldn’t the title of this blog be “NSIDC makes a big sea ice extent drop” instead of “NSIDC makes a big sea ice extent jump”?
I’m surprised that no one has pointed this out yet
“Walt Meier (12:06:13) :
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.”
Oh no – it’s just a graph used for world politics, reallocation of billions of tax dollars/euros, closure of power plants etc. – who cares if you mess up data some times.
@ur momisugly Ben Kellett
it is constantly smoothed and error corrected… . But: there is an important thing: it is about climate monitoring, not about Titanic controlling. If errors will be corrected next month or in two or three month or in the end of the year, it does not matter. Furthermore, think about this sentence from their Web site: Monthly averages are considered more accurate indicators of overall trends.
And think about this: http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/derivation.html#daily
so, of course, the daily data should show good values, but it is not that important that they do it immediately. And therefore, I do not understand the “agenda” rubbish and the post at all.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
looks to me like last years slope exactly.
sun alignment? YTD would be tilt sun etc.
Errors occur. They probably saw it as soon as anyone else but before changing it, wanted to check and double check the data. Had they changed it more than once, what would the commentors here have said? Let’s not slap ourselves so hard on the back that we knock the air out of our lungs.
I will await NSIDC’s explanation. I am very suspicious of a coordinated campaign of hysteria leading up to Copenhagen, which could possibly result in much adjusting of data.
As I said, I withold judgement.
Anthony, record new one and old one and updated one….. then blink ’em?
TX