Guest post by Steven Goddard
NSIDC Arctic Ice Extent Just a few pixels from “average”.
May 1st is May Day . “Mayday” is a universally understood distress call signifying that an aircraft or other vessel is headed on a collision trajectory. 2009 Arctic ice extent is on a collision trajectory with normal, which could be disastrous for AGW alarmists. “May Day” is an international holiday celebrated on May 1. In the Soviet Union it celebrated the worker’s “liberation” from capitalism, though they hadn’t yet thought up “cap and trade” at that time.
I have more news to report about the ongoing mystery of why NSIDC shows Arctic ice extent much closer to the 1979-2000 average than NANSEN is to the 1979-2007 average. It should be the other way around.
Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has again graciously responded to further questions:
Dr. Meier:
It is possible that there could be inconsistency in the Nansen data. I’m not familiar with their processing. I am confident that our dataset is consistent. However, it may simply be due to the ice conditions. Most of the time, the differences between algorithm should be an offset – though this offset can vary over the course of the year (particularly summer vs. winter). However, there can inconsistencies in this depending on the character of the ice cover.
My suspicion is that much of this is due to the Bering. The ice in the Bering is very broken up and, basically, on its last legs. It could be that our algorithm is more sensitive in picking up the ice than the Nansen algorithm. Or it could be that our algorithm is overly sensitive and is not catching open water.
Remember that the threshold for ice extent is 15%. So if you have low concentration ice, even small differences in the algorithms can result in relatively large differences in extent. If Nansen consistently shows 5% less ice that NSIDC, when there is 90% ice, that makes no difference, but where there is ~15% ice, it can make a difference. From other imagery, it looks like there is a lot of area with concentrations in the ballbpark of 15%.
Me:
If it were due to Bering Strait ice, I would expect to see a convergence between the two data sets as the Bering ice melts. It looks to me like they are actually diverging over the last week or two though?
Any ideas from the readers?
UPDATE: Dr. Meier just responded, minutes after posting this article:
Dr. Meier:
It is the Bering Sea, not the Strait and as it begins to melt, with all the old, broken up, sparse ice, you see the divergence. As it melts out completely, I expect that we’ll see things go back to being more consistent.
Addendum from Anthony:
A question to Dr. Meier: When are we going to see a date/time stamp on the NSIDC imagery? NANSEN has one.
This NSIDC graphic above is one of the most widely displayed and quoted on the net today, yet it lacks this most basic feature found in many scientific images presented for public consumption.
I realize the curve itself is marked against the x axis, but it is not easy to determine an exact date. Science is exacting, it would seem prudent to add a date/time stamp. Otherwise, the appearance of exacting science presented to the public is one of sloppiness, IMHO.
When are we going to see some brave journalists in the mainstream media start questioning the fallacy of anthropogenic climate change?
A bit to the side of topic. In today’s Australian there is an article noting that Dr Watkins a scientist in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology claims the Australian monitoring of temperatures in East Antarctica show warming over the last three decades. This is in direct contrast to the British Antarctic Survey findings. Dr Watkins is reported to have told The Australian
“”You kept going until you got the answer you wanted,” Dr Watkins said.
“You were told explicitly that the data collected by the Bureau of Metereology at the Australian bases shows a warming for maximum temperatures at all bases, and minimum temperatures at all but Mawson.”
The leader of the BAS Professor Turner is quoted
However, Professor Turner told The Weekend Australian the data showed a cooling of the East Antarctica coast associated with the onset of the ozone layer from 1980 onwards. Professor Turner said the monthly mean temperatures for Casey station from 1980 to 2005 showed a cooling of 0.45C per decade. In autumn, the temperature trend has been a cooling of 0.93C per decade.
Dr Watkins then is reported as saying
“However, Dr Watkins admitted that analysis of the data might show “an ozone-induced cooling trend in the latter half of the record” — a reference to the past three decades.
Dr Watkins declined to release the temperature data to The Weekend Australian. He said it had still to be fully analysed by the bureau.
At least Dr Meier does not appear to obfuscate and state that what is happening is in fact the reverse of reality
Bela (10:27:33) :
What about antarctic ice volume as studied by GRACE at the University of Colorado, which says the mass is decreasing?
I dont know, do you have a link to anything on this? Just a quick approximation tells me that if i assume the average thickness is 1m, that with losses on the shelf being around 2210km2 that it would need to be over 452m thick, seems unlikely.
But then i have no idea what the “average” thickness is.
Think about the absurdity of this statement.
“The Stock Market has been declining for 30 years, and is currently at the 30 year mean.”
a pretty bad example, as the stocks don t tend to show seasonal variations.
how about this one:
the number of grapes harvest helpers in the region has seen a steady decline over the past 20 years. though today, it is at the 20 years mean for this time of the year: ZERO, as every Christmas day…
Last January I noticed that the “sea ice anomaly” graphs on “The Cryosphere Today”
(http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.1.html)
did not match up with the total sea ice anomaly:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
Currently the numbers are:
Area anomaly (mi sq km)
Arctic Basin 0.0
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay -0.04
Barents Sea -0.08
Beaufort Sea -0.06
Bering Sea 0.08
Canadian Archipelago 0.0
Chuckchi Sea -0.02
East Siberian Sea -0.02
Greenland Sea -0.02
Hudson Bay 0.0
Kara Sea 0.0
Laptev Sea -0.04
Sea of Okhotsk -0.16
St. Lawrence 0.0
Total -0.36 mi sq km
This compares with a total of -0.60 mi sq km. That works out to a discrepancy of 0.24 mi sq km, which appears larger than any single anomaly. I know that in the grand scheme of ice edges and bad sensors that this is no big deal. But, all the graphs should be based on the same data at least on the same site.
I sent an email using the link and the website about it. My email and the reply follow below. I haven’t heard anything since then.
Regards,
Bob
From: William Chapman
To: rjtatz@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: recent ice area graph for NH
Date sent: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:10:15 -0600
Bob,
This is a good question. I would think they should be pretty close.
The only thing I can think of
is that maybe the smallish regions that are not included in the
regional breakdown are responsible
for the difference. One possibility is the Baltic Sea region.
Another might be the Sea of Japan. There
may be others. I’ll look into this a little more and see if I can
find something.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Bill
On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:45 AM, rjtatz@chemistry.ohio-state.edu wrote:
Sorry to bother you but I have a question about the recent ice area
graph for NH. The regional sea ice graphs are very helpful to see where
the deficit for sea ice is. What I can’t figure out is that if I sum the 14 areas
to give total to compare with the recent ice area graph, I get roughly the
same number. But it I total the anomaly, it does not agree with the recent
ice area graph. For the data from 1/12/09, I get 0.6-0.65 (mil sq km) by totaling
the 14 area graphs while the recent ice area graph shows about 1.0.
I can’t see that there are other areas to include. I don’t think I am reading
the graphs incorrectly (I tried to round higher for each negative anomaly).
I’ve tried it a number of days and get similar results. I recognize
that you would just determine the whole area to give the recent ice area
graph. I can’t figure out where the discrepancy is from. I suppose some
areas might overlap but then the totals should not agree (although 0.35 mil
sq km is small relative to the total). So is there a reason the total anomaly does not
agree?
Thanks,
Bob Tatz
> rjtatz@chemistry.ohio-state.edu
——- End of forwarded message ——-
bsneath (13:39:30) :
In the previous post, Steve Goddard wrote: “But something odd happened with the NANSEN data on December 13, 2008. Overnight it lost about 500,000 km2 of ice.”
Isn’t this the specific event that Dr. Meier should be asked to address?
No. Dr. Meier works with the NSIDC and is not involved with the NANSEN data. As a professional, he would never speculate on someone else’s data problems.
Frederick,
Au contraire. When it is a small community of ice experts, I would think it would be their obligation to sort out discrepancies, like how UAH and RSS do for example.
Speaking of which, It is unfortunate that some of the other keepers of temperature records aren’t so eager to find out what is inconsistent with their data. Or perhaps they already know?
O/T but I believe crucial.
A couple of threads ago we were told by a poster (Dash RIPROCK III) about a lecture he/she had just attended given by Lord Moncton of Brenchley.
Thanks to a link, kindly provided by that poster, I have just sat, for 90 minutes, mesmerised by a speaker whose sheer brilliance, flawless logic and impeccable delivery rips into the myth of Global Warming with ruthless, and occasionally humorous, efficiency.
After watching this video, I eagerly scoured subsequent posts to find out what others thought of it. I found no posts referring to the link provided. Not one!
Lord Moncton is a phenomenon with the potential to be, to the Global Warming brigade, what James Bond was to SPECTRE!
Even if you’ve seen his “Apocolypse, NO!” video – this is still worth watching as he gives a little insight into his recent non-debate with big Al.
Whether you’re a sceptic or a warmer, please take an hour and a half to listen to this man. Suspend your disbelief if you need to, but do hear him out.
Heres the link.
http://yct.tamu.edu/
The Iceberg @ur momisugly 09:02:29
When the Polar Jet does reduce we might see the real Arctic ice situation is like
I don’t understand your comment.
We are seeing the “real ice situation” right now. Oh, those Polar Jets are interfering with the “real world”. But aren’t they too part of the “real world” , perhaps not predicted by computer models, but there they are, anominously perturbating like crazy.
Frederick / Steven,
Wasn’t the large reduction in sea ice because their satellite had failed and they hadn’t noticed?
Jim Cripwell @09:13:18
It’s M’aidez!! The imperative, old man, the imperative!
Paul James (11:48:20) :
“fo pah” is “faux pas” if we’re going to get picky.
You can’t expect your average jeaux bleaux like me to know the difference.
Pieter has it correct on mayday. Pan-pan would be the proper call for a possible collision situation. CQD is an early Morse code distress call from the Q set of int’l Morse code shortforms- made up of CQ – general call to all stations, and D to indicate its a distress call (dah.di.dah.dit dah.dah.didah – Dah.didit) . SOS was not in common usage for commercial maritime distress (and if you’ve ever been unfortunate to hear either one emanating from a stormy ocean in the middle of the night, you will truly know what a shiver up the spine feels like…:( . Now, what was that about ice…? 🙂
BTW – I’ve got a friend who was at the BITC thing (if I’d known Penn was going to be involved I’d have been there myself). I’ll try and get notes. If I can I’ll email AW/SG and make them available for a post.
To be fair though, from the summary I got this afternoon whilst my friend was on his way back from it we could probably have written it ourselves.
Cold, hungry, waiting for resupply, thin 1st year ice avg 1.7m thick, etc.
Pamela Gray
Have you ever read the work of H H Lamb? He wrote on many climate related subjects and had a particularly good grasp on atrmospheric circulation/jet streams and also wrote about trade winds.
This is a bibliography of his very extensive publications.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/pubs/byauthor/lamb_hh.htm
Tonyb
Pamela
I was thinking to myself that I knew someone had posted here recently on jet streams, had a search asnd realised it was me! Here is a repeat-hope it helps-the Lamb stuff is fascinating.
” Hi Stephen
I agree. In fact I had a conversation with someone on this very blog a few months ago about this subject. I post here the comment and would be interested in your thoughts. Two bad UK summers in a row were directly caused by the ‘wrong’ position of the jet stream.
“A Wod (07:36:50) :
Tony writes:
I do not know of any scientific study looking for correlation of weather/climate to jet streams or any dominant weather system. A thread would be interesting.
H Lamb’s book on Climate history and modern man, of which a part is here looks at how the Jet Stream has changed over England Lamb’s book. Page 54, figure 18,shows how westerly winds have changed over time over England since 1340
http://books.google.com/books?id=0Nucx3udvnoC&dq=Lamb+climate+history&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=5k7mMr3QN8&sig=dwRB-v7XRE-P5ZmbSV730bMt07Y&hl=es&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
See here
http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/jetstream1.htm
for some really good info on the jet stream. It drives lots of weather patterns and when it shifts, so does the weather pattern. Large loops can fool you into thinking that weather drivers on the East Coast come in from the Northeast and are not a part of the energy coming from the West. The exception is this: As you travel closer to equatorial climates, one gets further away from the NH jet stream influence. Anyway, enjoy the site.”
Tonyb
From the National Climate Centre of Australia (and winter has not started yet)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416630-11949,00.html
It’s always good to keep in mind the “adjustments” that are done to many of these graphs prior to releasing them:
click1
click2
Antarctic heating or cooling? Read this and shake your head.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25416631-11949,00.html
Stephen Wilde @14:00:12
Don’t be so down upon yourself 🙂
Your site is one of 8 or so I visit daily (not all about AGM).
As to the Polar/Equatorial motion of the jet streams, I recall somewhere reading a theory of Moon orbital variation dragging the high pressure bands along with it. It had a 27 year period, if I recall correctly.
Can someone inform my poor memory?
MikeE,
Here is a link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060302180504.htm
I live in Boulder CO and I sometimes speak with scientists, profs, etc. and this has recently come up (this morning!).
Bela
Okay, one last time. Weather and climate variables when shown as an average always end with a year ending with a zero. When the data is available they use 30 years. When they update after 2010 is in the string of numbers will be moved forward by 10 years. Please do not ask why they drop ten at the front and add ten at the back; that’s the definition of “normal.”
Since we’re having such a multicultural evening with all this francais, here is part of Tony Hancock’s famous “MAYDAY” comedy sketch. Follow links or google for more fun – it just gets better throughout the sketch 🙂
“The Iceberg @ur momisugly 09:02:29
When the Polar Jet does reduce we might see the real Arctic ice situation is like..”
Don’t believe your own eyes… only believe what you are told by the “consensus”.
“A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually.” – Abba Eban, Israeli statesman, diplomat, and scholar.