UPDATE: Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC writes in with some information, seethe end of the article.
I’m getting weary of answering this question in comments, so here it is front page. Note the little bump right about June 1st.
Rick W asks:
Can anyone explain the upward bump in the sea ice extent that seems to occur each June? Apologies if previously covered.
Answer:
This is a seasonal adjustment to compensate for meltwater on top of the ice, which would ordinarily be viewed as “open water”. Right about now, the Arctic sea ice gets melt pools forming on the surface. If these are not compensated for, sea ice extent will read artificially low.
That being said, I wonder why we don’t see the same adjustment at NSIDC:
I don’t know the answer, but it could be in the difference between SSMI and AMSR-E satellite sensors (NSIDC uses SSMI, JAXA uses AMSR-E).
We also don’t see an adjustment at Cryosphere Today, and they also use SSMI:
Nor does NANSEN:
Click for larger images
If anyone knows why JAXA does the adjustment but the others do not, I’m all ears. My theory is that it is sensor related, but we should find out for sure. I’m swamped today, so I’ll leave this puzzle for WUWT readers to solve.
UPDATE
Dr. Walt Meir writes in with this:
Since you mentioned it on your blog, I can fill in at least some info:
You are correct. When the melt season kicks in the surface water changes
the contrast between ice and water. To more accurately measure the
area/extent, you should adjust coefficients to account for this.
This is done for SSM/I. However, because the SSM/I algorithm is
different from the AMSR-E algorithm (and other differences between the
sensors) the adjustment is different. In SSM/I, the adjustment is
smoother and thus there isn’t that “bump”.
You have to remember that AMSR-E is a research sensor and the algorithms
are still being refined. That is one reason we don’t use AMSR-E for the
long-term timeseries (though the more important reason is the
inconsistency between the two sensors and algorithms).
– Walt
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
TonyB
It is quite useless to have a factual argument with Phil on this topic.
He routinely provides fictional accounts with no factual backup.
Phil does not seek to learn the facts but obtusely defends his AGW belief the facts be darned.
Amundsen could have left in 1904. It was not a joy ride and he was there to perform precise scientific experiments. It is an old wives tale that he was stuck in the ice.
http://www.mnc.net/norway/Amundsen.htm
As an example I just recently explained to Phil that his claim that Amundsen was rescued by the Alaska coast guard is false and provided the proof. Amundsen went through the NE Passage left the Maud which turned back and delibaretely froze itself in the ice. Amundsen was no where near the Maud when it was rescued. Now he makes the same false claim. It goes on and on.
As an example check this exchange in the climate audit thread. Phil is now making many of the same false claims again here that I just proved wrong in that thread.
No point in going through it again with Phil. Read here instead of doing the whole discussion again. Starts at comment 227.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5614#comment-337310
Why is it that so many of the AGW scientists are more concerned with holding their position than searching for the truth?
Many more have traversed the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage.
Really who and when?
Here’s one that sailed the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage.
What Bernier did in 1911 won’t be possible this year after almost a hundred years of AGW.
On the Arctic’s third expedition in 1910-11, Bernier took the vessel North to patrol the Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Viscount Melville Sound and McClure Strait. Open water in McClure Strait tempted Bernier to attempt the Northwest Passage, but because this would have exceeded his orders, he resisted. Once again the vessel wintered in the North, but this time it anchored at Admiralty Inlet. Parties on sled were dispatched across the region to explore and conduct scientific surveys.
http://www.ucalgary.ca/arcticexpedition/icebreakers/cgs-arctic
Then many visited Kellet’s Storehouse.
http://pwnhc.learnnet.nt.ca/exhibits/nv/kellet.htm
And you could also check why they call Parry’s Channel, Parry’s Channel.
And here is a link to a map of the Canadian Arctic.
http://www.canada-maps.org/northwest-territories/images/northwest-territories-map.gif
If you carefully compare the AMRS-E data to the modis “real” daily images you will see that they are remarkably accurate. (this is to those that for whatever reason don’t trust the source), unless you believe that NASA has a team of artists who manually makeover each of the modis images as they come on stream in the few hours they have.
The little hump data wise is of no real consequence IMO, whether they smooth it or not is pretty irrelavent and considering the demands on their time is a little down the list of things.
Shawn
I followed the link to the discussion with Phil and as Yogi bear says ‘I had a feeling of deja vu all over again’ It is very similar to last years Baby ice melodrama!
You will remember I started my arctic ice through the ages thread on CA last year in order to provide a high level of proof good enough to satisfy Bender and accumulated much information.
Amundsen intended to stay at Gjoahavn (or whatever suitable anchorage he found) for the following year. He brought sufficient provisions for his crew plus the basic materials to carry out various activities such as building an observatory and huts and the items needed to carry out long term experiments. He wanted to relocate the magnetic north pole and carry out related magnetic readings.
Debt collectors were trying to seize his ship and lets be diplomatic and say that Amundsen had no intention of leaving in 1904 whether or not he would have been able to. I think Phil says over at CA that the 1903 ice was very limited and in 1904 it was greater-which surely tells us something about variability?
I think the slightly depressing thing about all this is that we have numerous documents from the 19th century that make scientific observations of the arctic. They illustrate hugely varying amounts of ice each season-if there was an 19th century equivalent of that CA thread it would sound very similar.
Nearly 200 years ago they knew the strength and direction of the wind and the warmth of the water were the most important elements of ice melt and that these changed monthly and yearly, consequently they recorded them. I wonder if they are discounted in the same manner as Beck’s co2 measurements from the same period?
Tonyb
The iceberg (23:43:37) :
If you carefully compare the AMRS-E data to the modis “real” daily
I am sorry, but what is “modis”? I find the word only in your post, and you give no link.
The only daily ice updates I know are at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
and when go to the daily archives, I see that the north hemisphere is stuck on the image of May 7
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090507.jpg
…..
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090611.jpg
all between are identical.
So, yes, there must be artists, be they computer programs, that produce the daily nice view on cryosphere.
All this was very informative, thanks to you and to Dr. Meier (Anthony, you misspelled his name in the Update) and to everyone who commented.
Another frequently asked question on this blog and others is, “Would that sunspot have been counted 100 years ago?” I’ve seen the answer numerous times within the comments sections of sunspot articles, but it would be nice to do a “They counted that? WUWT?” article as part two of your series.
🙂 I’m hoping its a series.
TonyB
You did the footwork to collect a large volume of past proof of the warming and cooling of the Earth. All this is diregarded by a large part of the scientific community since it provides proof that the AGW theory is likely wrong and the Earth is at the end of a natural warming period and entered a natural cooling period just it has repeatedely done in the past.
I am firmly convinced that these scientists have no desire to find the truth and will stick with the AGW theory untill there is a couple miles of ice on top of Detroit.
Have we been this way before? Help needed
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=520
Nearly 200 years ago they knew the strength and direction of the wind and the warmth of the water were the most important elements of ice melt and that these changed monthly and yearly, consequently they recorded them.
I would say that the level of Arctic ice has tracked the warming and cooling of the Earth.
TonyB (12:03:28) :
I do not know whether this is up your area of research, but there exists a tenth century
http://www.stoa.org/sol/
The Suda is a massive 10th century Byzantine Greek historical encyclopedia of the ancient Mediterranean world, derived from the scholia to critical editions of canonical works and from compilations by yet earlier authors. The purpose of the Suda On Line is to open up this stronghold of information by means of a freely accessible, keyword-searchable, XML-encoded database with translations, annotations, bibliography, and automatically generated links to a number of other important electronic resources.
When I first retired I thought of brushing up my ancient greek and trying my hand at translations, but it required more persistence than I had, I guess. It has grown a lot since then. It might be used to get an idea of the weather of the eastern mediteranean region, though it is probably work for a student.
Anna V
Thanks for this. I have the general climate records of the Byzantine empire but was not aware of this site so will have a look around. It is a fascinating era, all the better for having administrators documenting many things so well.
Tonyb
Shawn Whelan 06 23 69
I think one follows the other although not neccesarily quickly and not always in the same place all the time.
Tonyb
Shawn Whelan (20:51:11) :
TonyB
It is quite useless to have a factual argument with Phil on this topic.
He routinely provides fictional accounts with no factual backup.
The problem is your persistent exaggeration and mis-statements on the subject and refusal to accept verifiable facts in rebuttal.
Phil does not seek to learn the facts but obtusely defends his AGW belief the facts be darned.
What AGW belief? The discussion is about the historical record, and absurd statements, repeatedly made by you, such as ‘Amundsen easily traversed the NW passage’.
Amundsen could have left in 1904. It was not a joy ride and he was there to perform precise scientific experiments. It is an old wives tale that he was stuck in the ice.
Only if Amundsen himself is the ‘old wife’. As his account in “The North West Passage”, vol 1, which I referred to and quoted from above, makes clear the Gjoa could not have continued in 1904:
” Late in July he refers to Simpson Strait being closed but hopes it might melt. However, early in August Hansen left to establish a depot at Cape Crozier for the following spring’s reconnaissance trip, Simpson Strait was blocked with ice both on the way out and on their return (7th Sept). Gjoahavn froze completely by 21st Sept.
Summarizing their experience that summer Amundsen writes:
“The summer had been cold and inclement and there had been very little open water for navigation. (using dories and kayaks not the Gjoa: Phil.) We could only hope for better luck next year.””
http://www.mnc.net/norway/Amundsen.htm
As an example I just recently explained to Phil that his claim that Amundsen was rescued by the Alaska coast guard is false and provided the proof. Amundsen went through the NE Passage left the Maud which turned back and delibaretely froze itself in the ice. Amundsen was no where near the Maud when it was rescued. Now he makes the same false claim. It goes on and on.
It was not a false claim, as usual the actual discussion has been changed by Shawn. He stated that “And after Amundsen went through the NW Passage he later went through the NE passage and completed the circle around the North Pole. And then after that the AGW caused the Arctic to warm for 100 plus years and the ice level appears to have increased or stayed at the same level.”
The point of my statement “Also Amundsen had to have his ship rescued from the ice by the alaskan coastguard after his NE passage trip in and area which was open water last year. Also the attempt to claim Wrangel Island by a US/Canadian expedition in 1922 failed because it was cut off for resupply for over a year (all except for one woman died). So your account of greater ice seems not to agree with those events.” was clearly to show that conditions in 1922 were not better than today’s but worse.
According to the Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute in 1922 “Ice conditions in the Arctic off the Northern Alaskan coast are the worst in many years. Captain Cochran, of the Bear (the ship that rescued the Maud: Phil.), guided his vessel for mile through tremendous ice floes, reaching Point Barrow with difficulty.
As an example check this exchange in the climate audit thread. Phil is now making many of the same false claims again here that I just proved wrong in that thread.
You didn’t prove those facts wrong then and you haven’t now.
No point in going through it again with Phil. Read here instead of doing the whole discussion again. Starts at comment 227.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5614#comment-337310
Why is it that so many of the AGW scientists are more concerned with holding their position than searching for the truth?
What does this have to do with AGW, we’re discussing your exaggerations and mis-statements?
Shawn Whelan (21:12:12) :
Many more have traversed the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage.
“Really who and when?”
Here’s one that sailed the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage.
What Bernier did in 1911 won’t be possible this year after almost a hundred years of AGW.
As the account below makes clear he didn’t “sail the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage”.
On the Arctic’s third expedition in 1910-11, Bernier took the vessel North to patrol the Davis Strait, Baffin Bay, Lancaster Sound, Barrow Strait, Viscount Melville Sound and McClure Strait. Open water in McClure Strait tempted Bernier to attempt the Northwest Passage, but because this would have exceeded his orders, he resisted.
Finding the clear water is not the same thing as actually sailing it and would not guarantee that he would be able to get though past Banks I. Despite your confident assertion that such a journey won’t be possible this year is was possible in 2007 and last year. See for example:
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/_2007/aug/asi180-n6250-20070830_nic.png
anna v (04:01:49) :
The iceberg (23:43:37) :
“If you carefully compare the AMRS-E data to the modis “real” daily”
I am sorry, but what is “modis”? I find the word only in your post, and you give no link.
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/
The only daily ice updates I know are at http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
and when go to the daily archives, I see that the north hemisphere is stuck on the image of May 7
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090507.jpg
…..
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/ARCHIVE/20090611.jpg
all between are identical.
How did you miss the following statement at CT?
“February 25, 2009 – The SSMI images for many days in 2009 were bad enough that we removed them from this comparison display (see note below and the NSIDC website). There is enough interest in these side-by-side comparison images that we will try to replace them with corresponding images from the AMSR-E sensor in the coming weeks.
February 17, 2009 – The SSMI sensor seems to be acting up and dropping data swaths from time to time in recent days. Missing swaths will appear on these images as missing data in the southern latitudes. If this persists for more than a few weeks, we will start to fill in these missing data swaths with the ice concentration from the previous day or switch over to the higher resolution AMSR-E sensor. Note – these missing swaths do not affect the timeseries or any other plots on the Cryosphere Today as they are comprised of moving composites of at least three days.”
So, yes, there must be artists, be they computer programs, that produce the daily nice view on cryosphere.
No it’s the satellite called AMSR-E.
phil 12 14 59
I am not taking sides in your entertaining spats with Shawn 🙂 on a variety of issues, I am merely commenting on the Amundsen expedition of 1903-06 when I said;
“Amundsen intended to stay at Gjoahavn (or whatever suitable anchorage he found) for the following year. He brought sufficient provisions for his crew plus the basic materials to carry out various activities such as building an observatory and huts and the items needed to carry out long term experiments. He wanted to relocate the magnetic north pole and carry out related magnetic readings.
… lets be diplomatic and say that Amundsen had no intention of leaving in 1904 whether or not he would have been able to.”
Amundsen wanterd to make continuous recordings of the magnetic elements during at least one full season and needed to be around 100 miles from magnetic north, so gjoa haven self selected itself because it was sheltered. They built an observatory and a living hut and intended to spend 1904 there.
Whether they COULD have got out or not I am not arguing about. I am merely saying they did not intend to move.
I think the most interesting things about this is the variabilty in ice between 1903 and 1904, and the fact that, despite a cold summer in 1904, November 18,21 and 22 1904 remain the warmest days in the record.
I am not making any point of this or saying Amundsen would have attempted to sail at this time of year, but merely that variability season to season and even day to day is the norm.
P.s. Much enjoyed your contribution to the co2 condensation debate although you did get a little heated at times 🙂
TonyB
This is from comments 236 and 237 in the Climate audit thread.
Here is what I wrote at comment 236 in the climate Audit thread
Not true at all. Amundsen went throught the NE Passage and the NW Passage and he did circumnavigate the Arctic.
“After World War I, Amundsen planned to drift from the Bering Strait towards the North Pole in the Maud. Taking the Northeast Passage to the Bering Strait (1918-20), he became the second man (the first was Nils Nordenskjöld)to sail along the whole northern coast of Europe and Asia.”
http://history.howstuffworks.com/polar-history/roald-amundsen.htm/printable
Nils Nordenskjöld
“1878-79: The Swedish explorer was the first to complete a voyage through the Northeast Passage along the northern coast of Europe and Asia. Travelling in the steamship Vega, he started in 1878 from Norway and, after spending one winter ice-bound in the Arctic, finally emerged into the Pacific Ocean.”
http://www.athropolis.com/map6.htm
How did they do that before a hundred plus years of global warming warmed the Arctic?
Here is Phils answer at comment 237
By taking several summers for each crossing and when necessary hiking the rest of the way.
Complete and utter nonsense. There is no other way to describe it.
Niether Amundsen or Nordenskjöld completed their passages by hiking the rest of the way. They both traversed the passages with their boats.
This is what Phil says in this thread at 12:14.
The point of my statement “Also Amundsen had to have his ship rescued from the ice by the alaskan coastguard after his NE passage trip in and area which was open water last year.
This is what Phil said at comment 235 of the Climate audit thread. He being Amundsen.
He, of course, started that journey in 1918 and finished it on foot two years later, his ship took rather longer being towed out of the ice by a coastguard vessel in 1921 I think.
Not quite the truth Phil. Amundsen never completed the passage by foot. Your distorting the truth and also not being honest about what you said.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5614#comment-337310
Quote Shawn
Here’s one that sailed the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage.
What Bernier did in 1911 won’t be possible this year after almost a hundred years of AGW.
Quote Phil
As the account below makes clear he didn’t “sail the length of the Northern Route of the NW Passage”.
Of course he sailed the length of the passage. Here is a map for reference.
http://www.canada-maps.org/northwest-territories/images/northwest-territories-map.gif
Quote Phil at 12:14
“The point of my statement “Also Amundsen had to have his ship rescued from the ice by the alaskan coastguard after his NE passage trip in and area which was open water last year.”
Quote Phil from the Climate Audit thread comment 235 (“he” meaning Amundsen)
He, of course, started that journey in 1918 and finished it on foot two years later, his ship took rather longer being towed out of the ice by a coastguard vessel in 1921 I think.
Quote Shawn Climate Audit thread 236
Not true at all. Amundsen went throught the NE Passage and the NW Passage and he did circumnavigate the Arctic.
“After World War I, Amundsen planned to drift from the Bering Strait towards the North Pole in the Maud. Taking the Northeast Passage to the Bering Strait (1918-20), he became the second man (the first was Nils Nordenskjöld)to sail along the whole northern coast of Europe and Asia.”
http://history.howstuffworks.com/polar-history/roald-amundsen.htm/printable
Nils Nordenskjöld
“1878-79: The Swedish explorer was the first to complete a voyage through the Northeast Passage along the northern coast of Europe and Asia. Travelling in the steamship Vega, he started in 1878 from Norway and, after spending one winter ice-bound in the Arctic, finally emerged into the Pacific Ocean.”
http://www.athropolis.com/map6.htm
How did they do that before a hundred plus years of global warming warmed the Arctic?
Quote Phil from the Climate Audit thread comment 237
By taking several summers for each crossing and when necessary hiking the rest of the way.
Totally untrue neither Amundsen or Nordenskjöld hiked any part of the way. They both took their boats through the passages.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5614#comment-337310
I rest my case.
Thanks Phil,
Using the link
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic
You can see the real time picture of the arctic which maps the AMRSE data very well if not perfectly.
Next question is why did JAXA stop updating on June 11?
Next question is why is there such a large difference between arctic roos and NSIDC?
http://www.nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
The jet stream has been circling the wagons again, keeping the ice in the frig. As long as the jet stream keeps up this dizzying circle, I don’t see much melt happening. My prediction is entirely based on the jet stream. If it continues to circle, the melt rate will slow and move ahead of all the previous JAXA data.
It doesn’t look good for the ice… Temperatures anomaly for May is shown on this map:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2009/may/map-blended-mntp-200905-pg.gif
Notice that Greenland, Alaska, and western Siberia areas are running 4-5 C above the baseline average. Not coincidentally, both coasts of Greenland melted off fast, and open water is already present along much of the coast of Siberia.
http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_nic.png
The colder than normal temperatures this year in central northern Canada, seems to have delayed the ice melt in Hudson’s Bay, but the ice pack at these lower latitudes should melt out fast in the coming weeks, so expect the ice extent to drop faster than normal.
Given the huge loss in thicker multiyear ice the last two years, the ice pack is bad shape. The comments we have been reading about ice pack is back to normal, and the ice pack is recovering, seem to be pretty far off the mark.
I found this fascinating quote today:
This is why I’m creating my own cheap pools; You play a crucial role in this area.
Fusion, cheap above ground swimming pools