NSIDC: satellite sea ice sensor has "catastrophic failure" – data faulty for the last 45 or more days

http://gbailey.staff.shef.ac.uk/researchoverview_images/dmsp.jpg

The DMSP satellite is still operating, but the  SSM/I sensor is not

Regular readers will recall that on Feb 16th I blogged about this graph of arctic sea ice posted on the National Snow and Ice Data Center sea ice news page. The downward jump in the blue line was abrupt and puzzling.

nsidc_extent_timeseries_021509

Click for larger image

Today NSIDC announced they had discovered the reason why. The sensor on the  Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellite they use had degraded and now apparently failed to the point of being unusable. Compounding the bad news they discovered it had been in slow decline for almost two months, which caused a bias in the arctic sea ice data that underestimated the total sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers. This will likely affect the January NSIDC sea ice totals.

Map of sea ice from space, showing sea ice, continents, ocean

Figure 1. High-resolution image Daily Arctic sea ice extent map for February 15, 2009, showed areas of open water which should have appeared as sea ice. Sea Ice Index data. About the data. Please note that our daily sea ice images, derived from microwave measurements, may show spurious pixels in areas where sea ice may not be present. These artifacts are generally caused by coastline effects, or less commonly by severe weather. Scientists use masks to minimize the number of “noise” pixels, based on long-term extent patterns. Noise is largely eliminated in the process of generating monthly averages, our standard measurement for analyzing interannual trends. Data derived from Sea Ice Index data set.

—Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center
Graph with months on x axis and extent on y axis

Figure 2. High-resolution image

Daily total Arctic sea ice extent between 1 December 2008 and 12 February 2009 for Special Sensor Microwave/Imager SSM/I compared to the similar NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor. —Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC had planned to do a guest post here on WUWT, but this evening, with the magnitude of the problem looming, he’s asked to defer that post until later. I certainly can’t fault him for that. He’s got his hands full. Hopefully they have a contingency plan in place for loss of the sensor/space platform. I applaud NSIDC for recognizing the problem and posting a complete and detailed summary today. I’ve resposted it below in its entirety. Note that this won’t affect other ice monitoring programs that use the  Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor, which is on an entirely different platform, the AQUA satellite.

UPDATE: 2/19 Walt Meier writes with a clarification: “One detail, though perhaps an important [one]. I realize that it is bit confusing, but it is just one channel of the sensor that has issues. And it isn’t so much that it “failed”, but that  quality degraded to the point the sea ice algorithm – the process to convert the raw data into sea ice concentration/extent – failed on Monday.” – Anthony

From NSIDC Sea Ice News:

As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality control measures prior to archiving the data. See below for more details.

We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

Where does NSIDC get its data?

NSIDC gets sea ice information by applying algorithms to data from a series of Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensors on Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) satellites. These satellites are operated by the U.S. Department of Defense. Their primary mission is support of U.S. military operations; the data weren’t originally intended for general science use.

The daily updates in Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis rely on rapid acquisition and processing of the SSM/I data. Because the acquisition and processing are done in near-real time, we publish the daily data essentially as is. The data are then archived and later subjected to very strict quality control. We perform quality control measures in coordination with scientists at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, which can take up to a year. High-quality archives from SSM/I, combined with data from the earlier Scanning Multi-channel Microwave Radiometer (SMMR) data stream (1979–1987) provide a consistent record of sea ice conditions now spanning 30 years.

Data error sources

As discussed above, near-real-time products do not undergo the same level of quality control as the final archived products, which are used in scientific research published in peer-reviewed journals. However, the SSM/I sensors have proven themselves to be generally quite stable. Thus, it is reasonable to use the near-real-time products for displaying evolving ice conditions, with the caveat that errors may nevertheless occur. Sometimes errors are dramatic and obvious. Other errors, such as the recent sensor drift, may be subtler and not immediately apparent.  We caution users of the near-real-time products that any conclusions from such data must be preliminary. We believe that the potential problems are outweighed by the scientific value of providing timely assessments of current Arctic sea ice conditions, as long as they are presented with appropriate caveats, which we try to do.

For several years, we used the SSM/I sensor on the DMSP F13 satellite. Last year, F13 started showing large amounts of missing data. The sensor was almost 13 years old, and no longer provided complete daily data to allow us to track total daily sea ice extent. As a result, we switched to the DMSP F15 sensor for our near-real-time analysis. For more information on the switch, see  “Note on satellite update and intercalibration,” in our June 3, 2008 post.

On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled  readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. The problem stemmed from a failure of the sea ice algorithm caused by degradation of one of the DMSP F15 sensor channels. Upon further investigation, we found that data quality had begun to degrade over the month preceding the catastrophic failure. As a result, our processes underestimated total sea ice extent for the affected period. Based on comparisons with sea ice extent derived from the NASA Earth Observing System Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (EOS AMSR-E) sensor, this underestimation grew from a negligible amount in early January to about 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February (Figure 2). While dramatic, the underestimated values were not outside of expected variability until Monday, February 16. Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check in the coming days.

Sensor drift is a perfect but unfortunate example of the problems encountered in near-real-time analysis. We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above.

We are actively investigating how to address the problem. Since we are not receiving good DMSP SSM/I data at the present time, we have temporarily discontinued daily updates. We will restart the data stream as soon as possible.

Some people might ask why we don’t simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods. Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice. With that in mind, we have chosen to continue using the SSM/I sensor, which provides the longest record of Arctic sea ice extent.

For more information on the NSIDC sea ice data, see the following resources on the NSIDC Web site:

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
241 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
philincalifornia
February 21, 2009 10:47 am

bluegrue (08:47:36) :
philincalifornia (19:48:32) :
….. Would you consider the description “area in year Y is at the same as the year X”? This is the kind of cherry-picking done by Asher, and possibly parroted by Will.
————————————
…. and don’t forget the people at Cryosphere today who did exactly the same thing, before, apparently, removing their comment.
Thanks for the links I shall read them. From the title of one, it looks like this will pertain to the Arctic only, and not global ice volume values.
Since you seem to like the minima, is there a plot of global minima together with error bars and best fit trend line ?? 1972 – 2008 (2009?) would be good if the data back to ’72 is available. Surely someone would have done that plot, although your earlier comment about having difficulty finding data might imply that maybe that’s not the case.

bluegrue
February 21, 2009 11:21 am

I don’t “like” minima, it’s just that minima and maxima are reasonable choices, if you want to compare sea ice in different years. What about shared work? You find the data for the global sea ice coverage used by Cryosphere Today for their global sea ice coverage plot in ASCII format and I’ll do the minimum hunt and trend line.
BTW, why do you think that global sea ice coverage is a good metric for climate change? GCM’s show that we are to expect changes in the Arctic, but in the Antarctic the trend is undecided between models.

Joe
February 21, 2009 11:40 am

Anthony,
Can you explain the inconsistency in the AMSR-E data on the website? The chart above comparing AMSR-E data to the failing SSM/I data indicates close to 15M square KM. The chart normally posted in the margin shows around 14M square KM. Both charts indicate AMSR-E is source of data. Here’s the two hyperlinks.
http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20090217_Figure2.png
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

philincalifornia
February 21, 2009 3:27 pm

bluegrue (11:21:38) : wote:
BTW, why do you think that global sea ice coverage is a good metric for climate change? GCM’s show that we are to expect changes in the Arctic, but in the Antarctic the trend is undecided between models.
——————————————-
I’m not expert enough to think either way, but that’s my favorite graph on the Cryosphere site. I wish they would show the 1972 data to 2009 if they have it (and when they’ve fixed the 2008/9 problem – if they ever can ever retrieve the real data).
Also, it would be nice if they would give additional mean lines to see the comparison between say 1972 – 2008, or 1979 – 2008.
I’m also intrigued by the fact that if you were to plot the minima as I suggested in my previous post, by eyeballing, it looks like it would be essentially flat. I find this strange, given that most people, myself included, are in agreement that the planet is in a general warming trend as it comes out of the LIA and, as a scientist in a different field, I’m intrigued about what the explanation might be (conclusions that fit the empirical data, not models).
Then of course, there’s the other elephant in the room, which is why do Cryosphere Today and, with respect, you to a certain extent want to steer the discussion away from, for example, a flat or flattish line.
I suppose I could’ve just answered your question more directly by saying that I think global sea ice coverage is a good metric for climate change because I’ve been bombarded by the media with it for the past 5 – 10 years.

hotrod
February 21, 2009 7:58 pm

BTW, why do you think that global sea ice coverage is a good metric for climate change?

One obvious rational is that albedo changes are more closely tied to Ice cover than they are to ice volume. If the change in albedo is an important factor in the global heat budget it might be the best measure if as is often stated that the arctic ice functions as the canary in the coal mine and warns of subtle changes.
Here is one project to get good field data on ice thickness/volume using ice penetrating radar to compare numbers to submarine data.
http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=233610
One question of course, is that since this is floating drift ice, you can never measure the same piece two seasons in a row so at best this ice volume data will be the basis for an “estimated volume”.
It will also be interesting to see if the melt off leads to very fast ice build up due to rapid surface freeze followed by wave and wind stacking of the thin ice layers and then additional freeze on water opened up due to the stacking and compression of that relatively thin ice.
Open water will obviously cool much quicker than water covered by thick multi-season ice, so the recovery of both surface area and volume might allow for very rapid recovery of ice volume following a large melt season.
Larry

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 21, 2009 11:20 pm

I WONDER IF THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED HERE HAVE BEEN ACTED ON?
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/3/1/2009/tc-3-1-2009.pdf

5 Conclusions
In situ sea ice data taken from the 2006 cruise aboard the
Oden were compared with satellite data from the same period.
Good agreement was found between ship observations
of ice edge position compared to NIC ice charts derived from
high resolution satellite imagery. Passive microwave imagery
alone, however, provided less agreement with ship observations
and, therefore, NIC ice charts, with a strong bias
toward underestimating the area bounded by the ice edge using
passive microwave.

. . . . .
. . . . .
We recommend that with the available records from
scatterometer and active radar data that are approaching ten
years, that a reanalysis of the Antarctic sea ice extent, compared
to the passive microwave record over the same period,
may be a prudent approach to verifying, and perhaps correcting
that climatology.

NOTE TO bluegrue (14:28:25) : — bias doesn’t get avearged out.

HasItBeen4YearsYet?
February 21, 2009 11:21 pm

….or, should I say, will they be acted on, as that paper is very recent – guess they have to fix the thing, first.

Editor
February 22, 2009 6:19 am

Well, the butterfly has moved on. However, major melting in four spots along the Russian coast. And also west of Greenland, Hudson’s Bay and the Sea of Okhotsk. Oh, the horror!
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=20&fy=2009&sm=02&sd=21&sy=2009
Should we start a pool to guess when the two scientists at Cryosphere pull the plug on the current data stream?
REPLY: A better pool would be to bet on when they’ll fix this statement under the images:
“Note – these missing swaths do not affect the timeseries or any other plots on the Cryosphere Today as they are comprised of moving averages of at least three days. ”
– Anthony

bluegrue
February 22, 2009 8:37 am

HasItBeen4YearsYet? (23:20:35) :
Thanks for the link to the paper. I’d like to add some more quotes to give a better context. The paper compares NIC ice edge data derived from high-resolution satellite images, passive microwave imagery of AMSR-E and ship observations. From the intro

We also found that the NIC sea ice edge agrees well with ship observations, while the AMSR-E shows the ice edge further south, consistent with its poorer detection of low ice concentrations.

From the conclusions

We infer the passive microwave imagery has this resolution bias due to the low emissivities typical of wet snow covers and surface flooding, as well as low spatial resolution of small ice bands and low concentrations of dispersed small floes in the ice edge region. In areas of higher concentration in the interior pack, however, there is an indication that ship track bias to travel preferentially in the open water areas, as well the under sampling of a pixel (156 km2) by a single ship observation (1–3 km2) in highly variable summer conditions contributes to ship data under predicting ice concentration over the wider region. The result is a generally low overall correlation (R2=0.41) between ship estimates of ice concentration and passive microwave derived values.

There is not only passive microwave bias to be aware off, it would have been nice, if you had not skipped that part. In the discussion they also note, that agreement between passive microwave and ship observation is much better in winter conditions than in summer conditions as reported in this paper.
I never claimed that the error averages out, no idea where you got that from. As far as I am aware, sea ice area counts all grid points with an ice concentration above a threshold level. Grid points with concentrations near threshold level (above or below) are far less numerous than those with concentrations safe above that threshold. So a 5-10% error in concentration does not translate to a 5-10% error in area. That was my point.
Bias was to be expected. As long as it is a consistent and not a time variable bias, it should have little influence on the trend in ice area. And yes, you may see an impact on the trend, when large areas become much thinner or more dispersed. This would result in less ice area reported.

We recommend that with the available records from scatterometer and active radar data that are approaching ten years, that a reanalysis of the Antarctic sea ice extent, compared to the passive microwave record over the same period, may be a prudent approach to verifying, and perhaps correcting that climatology.

I’m looking forward to the results.

bluegrue
February 22, 2009 8:51 am

philincalifornia (15:27:42) :
Are these charts good enough for you?
NSIDC sea ice extent.
They’ll give you trends for arbitrary months and both hemispheres, so you can compare apples to apples. The linear trends are reported including the error (not sure whether it is one or two sigma). Global data can be found following the “Access Data” link on this page.

I suppose I could’ve just answered your question more directly by saying that I think global sea ice coverage is a good metric for climate change because I’ve been bombarded by the media with it for the past 5 – 10 years.

Maybe you ought to lose that media filter and look either into the IPCC reports or primary literature instead. If you are willing to trust the short version as written by some pixels on your computer screen: Arctic sea ice loss is expected, Antarctic sea ice trend undecided amongst models, as e.g. increases in temperature lead to increases in precipitation (snow) and you have to factor things in like the Antarctic Circumpolar Current.

Editor
February 22, 2009 10:45 am

Should we start a pool to guess when the two scientists at Cryosphere pull the plug on the current data stream?
REPLY: A better pool would be to bet on when they’ll fix this statement under the images:
“Note – these missing swaths do not affect the timeseries or any other plots on the Cryosphere Today as they are comprised of moving averages of at least three days. ”

I took a brief look at some of the plots for the various basins and saw some suspcicious declines. It would be a good thing to review tomorrow morning before the work day begins.
A fetch of one plot reported “Last-Modified: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:54:31 GMT” so maybe this afternoon or evening would be as good. OOPS – I just realized I didn’t submit this. A fetch just now reported Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:54:32 GMT.
P.S. Sorry about posting here, this belongs in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/sea-ice-sensor-degradation-hits-cryosphere-today/ of course. All: please post followups there.

philincalifornia
February 22, 2009 3:21 pm

bluegrue (08:51:26) :
philincalifornia (15:27:42) :
Are these charts good enough for you?
NSIDC sea ice extent.
———————
They’re great. I know, I should’ve been able to find them myself, so thanks for saving me the trouble.

James P
February 25, 2009 7:11 am

I’d love to know if this affects the reported state of the Northwest Passage.
I hear of record low temperatures in Alaska, but there is also this:
http://www.canada.com/news/Northwest+Passage+unprecedented+melt+Experts/836501/story.html
Does anyone, preferably on the ground, know what is happening?

Editor
February 25, 2009 9:47 pm

James P (07:11:51) :

I’d love to know if this affects the reported state of the Northwest Passage.
I hear of record low temperatures in Alaska, but there is also this:
http://www.canada.com/news/Northwest+Passage+unprecedented+melt+Experts/836501/story.html
Does anyone, preferably on the ground, know what is happening?

Your link goes to a September 25th column. I think Mark Serreze’s “It’s open” comment came weeks before.
These folks were there, it was not an easy sail:
http://awberrimilla.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-08-15T19%3A16%3A00%2B01%3A00&max-results=50

Tim L
February 28, 2009 8:59 pm

I needed a place for this… this is proof of old corrupt data being left up on the web. links below 🙂
OLD
http://nsidc.com/arcticseaicenews/2009/020309.html
http://nsidc.com/images/arcticseaicenews/200902_Figure2.png
NEW
http://nsidc.com/arcticseaicenews/
http://nsidc.com/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
This is one thing DR. Leif has been fighting at WUWT.

Jim Shuff
March 1, 2009 6:57 am

Has anyone conferred with Al Gore?

1 8 9 10