During the the last week, NSIDC graphs of arctic sea ice extent have been dropping so steeply that many have called them into question. Finally NSIDC ended the daily updates and have left the last “good” image of May 21st in place in the web folder, but have placed an “out of order” sign on the website:
As we first pointed out to NSIDC back on 2/18/09 (even though it “wasn’t worth blogging about”) the sensor has been on the fritz for quite awhile, calling the whole arctic sea ice series into question. From their most recent announcement, it looks like that it is now “DOA”:
Here’s what they say now.From NSIDC’s web site:
Update: May 26 2009 The daily image update has been temporarily suspended because of large areas of missing data in the past week. NSIDC currently gets its data from the SSM/I sensor on the DMSP F13 satellite, which is nearing the end of its operational life and experiencing intermittent problems.
NSIDC has been working on a transition to a newer sensor on the F17 satellite for several months. At this time, we have more than a year of data from F17, which we are using to intercalibrate with F13 data. The F17 data are not yet available for near-real-time updates. We will resume posting daily updates as soon as possible, either from F13, if the present problem is resolved, or from F17, when the transition is complete.
It doesn’t look promising to get any usable data for the last 6 months or more, since it clearly has been corrupted by the sensor issues.
Meanwhile the AMSR-E on the Aqua satellite chugs right along on JAXA:
From NANSEN, here is a map showing differences between AMSR and SSMI. There are some huge chunks missing.
See the source image page here
(h/t to Fred Nieuwenhuis for the link)
Personally I think it was folly for NSIDC to try to use different channels on the DMSP F13 satellite to nurse the dataset along, as we’ve seen it is not just the single channel on SSM/I sensor that has had problems.
Transitioning to the DMSP F17 satellite “may” be a plan, but the AQUA satellite and teh AMSR-E package seems to be quite reliable and with a number of years of life ahead. It is also used by many other agencies to reliably gauge sea-ice.
IMHO, NSIDC is doing themselves no favors by sticking with the DMSP SSM/I satellite platform package. The science world has moved on with AQUA’s AMSR-E, and it is time for NSIDC to move on as well.
Otherwise, they are going to be “has beens” using older technology. Get with the program guys. You need good supporting data so incoming director Mark Serreze can give us his fabulous forecasts and media soundbites that don’t seem to come true.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Peter Plail (05:03:50) :
Cryosphere’s response to the failing satellite data largely consisted of changing their form at their comparison page. All they did was to remove 2009 from the menu. All I did was to realize a week or two later (see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/20/sea-ice-sensor-degradation-hits-cryosphere-today/ ) I could select 2009 by hand and get the images that they continue to faithfully record, though it’s quite unclear if most of this month’s images have any new information from the satellite. Their display of 2009 images includes a bogus title, as you note, but the date stamp on the image and the image itself is definitely 2009 data, poor though it may be.
At this point the data is so bad as to be completely uninformative, but the earlier months’ images are somewhat useful as long as you’re aware of the how the images are formed (think strips of Papier-mâché that pass near the pole) and how the sensor is failing. Good enough for the curious, not good enough for science.
Lot’s of AGWers using more and more weasel words. “I didn’t say would, I said could,….”. Possibly, maybe, might, appears to, seems to, may. My favorite Stephen Wright line; ” What is another word for thesaurus?” ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The satellite malfunction reminds me of all the movies where the hero pretends that the communications device is failing when his superior is trying to reign him in. ” Sorry chief, your breaking up, ….. can’t make out what you’re saying, ……………… The timing is just so convenient. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From this date, the images are unchanging: May 7.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090507.jpg
I had been copying everyday and using the facility of windows to make a slide show, when I noticed that the same picture repeats all dates after May 7
Does anyone have information on Russian arctic research. They seem to extensively research the arctic, setting up floating laboratories and such. What are their results on temperature and ice coverage trends.? Do they have their own Goresky?
Can’t touch dis!
hehe
What?
MC Hammer??? come on people!!
NC (08:33:50) :
Does anyone have information on Russian arctic research. They seem to extensively research the arctic, setting up floating laboratories and such. What are their results on temperature and ice coverage trends.? Do they have their own Goresky?
Here’s the website of their current floating lab, NP-36: http://www.aari.nw.ru/resources/d0014/np36/default.asp?lang=0
And their Ice analysis site:
http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1&mod=0&yy=2009
Leon Brozyna (06:28:57) :
From another part of the NSIDC, it looks like they’re not having any (obvious) problems with the data from the Antarctic. I wonder which satellite they’re using there:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/daily.html
**
Very good point!
“”” Tom in Co (19:16:12) :
Pamela Gray (18:50:53) : “That blip was explained before. It is a satellite adjustment for the time of year in it’s orbit, or something like that. Can’t remember exactly but it is a necessary adjustment and nothing unseemly.”
The blip in June is due to a change in the algorithm used to calculate summer ice vs. winter ice. the 2009 line will blip up next month also. “””
Norty norty ! I don’t see the corrections for daylight savings time, or for the Queen’s birthday .
Lemme see now; Hansen machinates the original as measured temperature data from Anthony’s Owl boxes, until it is unrecognizable by even its own mother; but somehow NSIDC can’t out-take a blip of known origin so that their published ice data; or at least 15% of the ice data is at least as accurate as their measurement process allows. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing something supposedly scientific, or at least informative, and then to find out well that is all wrong and we know it is wrong and people who do this stuff know what it really is.
Like the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and then the NOAA 3-D pole to pole version of that, which I find out from my Scripps CO2 buddy is; well just an artists impression, since they don’t really have the actual daqta to make such a plot.
This stuff is slowly degenerating from real science into urban legend.
George
Frank Laszner and Leon Brozyna,
that is from May 21 as seen on the lower right of each graph. It also shows a higher rate of melt, or is it sensor deterioration?? We should know in a few days.
I’m assuming everyone has read Steven Chu’s latest suggestion: http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu.html
That is either absolutely briallant or absolutely stupid. I can’t tell which right now….
There is no ice in the Arctic, it’s all melted and CA is now under water……funds are needed to bail CA out.
Phil,
Thanks for taking all the time on this. I hope that when the transition to NOAA17 is made that the intrasat data is available so it can be examined.
I read in a paper that the Jaxa AMSR-E sensor has higher resolution yet is more sensitive to weather noise. The paper claimed to make all the corrections for the increased weather involvement but do you know if it is it the opinion of the NSIDC sea ice team that the ASMR-E has superior accuracy for area measurement?
Ric Werme
Many thanks for the explanation.
Peter
MattN – thanks for amusing link..
This is really a JOKE!!!!
First we must all understand that the influence from dark buildings, dark roads, warm from houses and cars (Sums up to UHI) has hardly any effect around the growing cities.
Then this genious believes that just taking the roofs and roads and make them white will not only affect the cities as anti-UHI, but ideed be able to battle heat on the entire earth!
DAAAWK!!!
http://green.yahoo.com/news/afp/20090526/sc_afp/climatewarmingusbritainchu.html
“The Nobel laureate in physics called for a “new revolution” in energy generation to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
But he warned there was no silver bullet for tackling climate change, and said a range of measures should be introduced, including painting flat roofs white.
Making roads and roofs a paler colour could have the equivalent effect of taking every car in the world off the road for 11 years, Chu said.
“
MattN (10:13:51) :
Luboš skewers Chu’s proposal here…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/steven-chu-will-paint-world-white.html
Summertime is coming, and this summer is their last opportunity, before solar minimum deploys all its cold artillery, they will be fighting their last battle against unbelievers.
You will be the “lucky ones” to see all his new slides on prime time TV nation wide!
You’ll be the chosen to hear his message again!, from he who created internet, the master mind behind such a wonder called “the hockey stick”
This time he will surely appear accompanied with his most devout disciples.
dave s (12:15:45) :
MattN (10:13:51) :
Luboš skewers Chu’s proposal here…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/steven-chu-will-paint-world-white.html
After a few seconds of seeing it, it appears a message indicating that microsoft internet explorer cannot open the http…
I am reading it by clicking back every time this happens.
Wouldn’t your know it. Just as everyone was being tantalized by the blue line zipping up over the black line, they bend it first slightly to parallel the black line and then, with it still subzero in many of the places where sudden melting is taking place, the drop it off precipitously. Can’t all these guys get together and maybe higher the Wegener Institute who measured thicker ice all over the arctic while the Catlin was supposed to be falling through thin ice. How much would it cost to fly a couple of dozen photographic and airborne geophysical surveys over the arctic during the melt season if it is so critical for the survival of the plantet? Also, if the satellite imagery is so darn good, why was the Wegener Institute surprised at the thickness of the ice.
In the geological/mining sphere, this satellite imaging stuff is being sold holus bolus to mining exploration companies with all kinds of promises of finding their next hidden mineral deposit – but, because it matters, the mining exploration people still insist on spending most of their money putting people on the ground and also doing low-level geophysical surveys. This demonstrates the gap between theoretical scientists/aerospace engineers and the engineers who have to have people lay out cash for results.
Another point. Even a refrigerator repairman knows something is amiss if ice cubes are melting like crazy when it is supposed to be freezing. I’m constantly amazed at the apparent discrepancies between reality climate science … cold is global warming, hot is global warming, nothing changing is global warming… and even the refrigerator repairman believes all this stuff.
I just can’t stand it anymore! If the climate does not cooperate, make even more outlandish apocalyptic predictions. See below:
New warning of rising sea levels in Northeast
By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, AP Science Writer Randolph E. Schmid, Ap Science Writer – Wed May 27, 12:04 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Drip, drip, drip come the studies one after another, reinforcing the threat to the Northeast from rising sea levels along the U.S. and Canadian east coast.
If Greenland’s ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 could shift and cause sea levels off the Northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches more than other coastal areas, researchers report Wednesday in Geophysical Research Letters.
“Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise,” researcher Aixue Hu of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said.
The report comes on the heels of two other studies with similar warnings.
• Just over a week ago scientists at Britain’s University of Bristol reported that while collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would not raise global sea levels as much as had previously been feared, the maximum increase is expected along the East and West Coasts of the United States.
• And in March, researchers at the University of Maryland warned that, however much the oceans rise by the end of the century, add an extra eight inches or so for New York, Boston and other spots along the coast from the mid-Atlantic to New England because of predicted changes in ocean currents.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 projected that sea levels worldwide could rise by an average of seven to 23 inches this century.
“The oceans will not rise uniformly as the world warms,” NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl, a co-author of the new paper, said in a statement. “Ocean dynamics will push water in certain directions, so some locations will experience sea level rise that is larger than the global average.”
In recent years, the melting of the Greenland ice cap has been increasing at a rate of about 7 percent per year. The researchers calculated the sea level impact if that were to continue and also if the increase declined to 3 percent or 1 percent annually.
At the middle or 3 percent rate, the Northeast would see an extra foot of sea level rise because of ocean circulation changes, in addition to the global sea level increase, they reported.
A drop to 1 percent would mean eight additional inches of water in the Northeast, and a continued 7 percent increase would result in an extra 20 inches, the new study said.
The research was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy.
Chuck L,
Your post reminds me of Lake Wobegon, where “all of the children are above average.”
So even though the predicted sea level rise per century is no more than the historical rise of past centuries, these folks claim that the average [and very moderate] sea level rise will be exceeded — almost everywhere!
I wonder if they’d mind telling us where, exactly, the sea level will decline by 12 – 20 inches below average. Since they’re talking about averages and all.
They might also try to explain how the ocean can pile up water to twenty inches (!!) due to global warming, when a 4″ anomaly is considered exceptional: click. [The anomalies noted are 0.1 meter; about 4 inches. They don’t get much larger than that.]
Everyone has pointed out directly or indirectly that all the data gathering is by AGW organizations. Shouldn’t there be some expeditions mounted by the uncommitted to keep everybody honest? I liked the work by the Wegener Institute who flew those surveys all over the arctic and found the opposite results to the Catlin expedition in the same time frame (although I’m leery about the Wegener I. too simply because they come from one of the countries that’s the most devout about AGW). If there aren’t countervailing expeditions we are forced into the unsatisfactory position of begging in vain for their data or constantly criticizing their data. From a PR point of view, this is less effective than being in the data collection side of the battle. Harping about the data and interpretations done by the AGWers makes it easy to brand us deniers.
Even Anthony’s mighty exposé of the inadequacy of the weather stations will get largely neutralized by the “corrections” the NOAA and others are “able to make”. Isn’t there enough at stake for funding and undertaking laying out of a network of new stations, even if it amounts to only a 20% sampling of national temperatures to ascertain bias and trends. See also my post above
Gary Pearse (12:49:28) :
regarding flying low level surveys of the arctic (and I should add the antarctic) as a check during the melting seasons particularly.
Last time someone looked, the sea level around the Maldives had declined by 2-3 times that much. There are global sea level anomaly maps someplace.
Snow cover markedly bigger this year than last year:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/vedhaeftninger/20082009.gif
dave s (12:15:45) :
MattN (10:13:51) :
Luboš skewers Chu’s proposal here…
http://motls.blogspot.com/2009/05/steven-chu-will-paint-world-white.html
I just remembered that this is the same group that has told us there is no such thing as UHI effect. So if there is no UHI, then how is painting everything white going to do anything?
By proposing a white world, they are in effect admiting the UHI effect is real.
I’d really like to hear Dr. Meier come on WUWT and say something like “Once we realized that satellite was dying we made a concerted effort to do a normalization of our legacy data with AMSR-E and we’re now much closer to moving to AMSR-E while maintaining the viability and usefulness of our historical data”.
Yeah, I’m a dreamer. But they got the classic warning shot in February and it would be a real shame if they just stuck their head in the sand and hoped that the smoking volcano wasn’t going to blow after all.