NOAA's sea ice extent blunder

“and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.”
Hmm… 2007 was lowest, 2008 was back up, 2009 was up some more, and then 2010 was lower than 2009, but still higher than 2007 or 2008. Seems to me that this is continuing the (so far) short-term trend of recovery, although it is a step down from 2009 levels.
Joe Bastardi said the recovery off of the 2007 lows would be a “2 steps forward, 1 step back” sort of affair, so this seems to fit right into Joe’s theory.

Looks like part of a strong downward trend in ice extent. Unfortunately, the data on ice volume suggests an even sharper decline.

I’ld say the long term trend (if not using a linear function) has stalled, not continued.

I don’t think anyone would have a problem with an occasional error here or there, as things do happen. But….it apppears that the errors are almost always in the direction of “things are worst than expected”. This holds for virtually all of the climate data entities who are managed by AGW leaning individuals. If we point out an error, they simply say “oops”. If a skeptic makes an error, they are labeled as lying deniers!

I guess I have to ask this dumb question again.
Why should I care about Arctic ice extent?
Its cold, gets in the way of transportation and produces nothing useful that I can see apart for somewhere for nuclear subs to hide. If it all went away tomorrow wouldn’t that be a Good Thing? Its all floating ice so no effect on sea levels either,
Please tell me politely why I am wrong. Thanks

NO Accurate Appreciation

BTW, Eureka is currently -10.3 C

Second or third lowest on record (i.e., recorded history)? Hmmmmmm, and the time record for recorded history (of artic ice) would be a couple of centuries or so? It would be interesting to go back, say, 13,000 years and see how the Clovis people in America would have responded to the news that the artic ice caps were receding and it was going to get warmer. I’m sure they would believe that the spirits were being kind to them.

22% below normal.
Of course their “normal” period starts in 1979. One would be under the impression there are no records prior to that.

I think they knew it was wrong and would be spotted, I think they’re winding us up!

Environment Canada is calling for”a delay in freeze-up of 1 to 2 weeks can be expected” and “Overall, by mid-October,the formation and pattern of new and young ice areas will resemble those normally found in the first week of October”, for the EASTERN AND NORTHERN ARCTIC as well as WESTERN AND CENTRAL ARCTIC.
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN16CWIS/20100915000000_FECN16CWIS_0005190796.txt
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/FECN14CWIS/20100915000000_FECN14CWIS_0005190794.txt

How in the heck can the trend be going “below the average” when WE HAVE NO AVERAGE of any sort since we only have 30+ years of data?
How do we know that the ONLY reason the ice is now “trending down” is that the ice had “trended up” when we first began measuring it?

One voice screaming disaster can be countered by ten voices calmly proclaiming reality.
The key is to ratchet down the vitriol and rhetoric and increase the requests to “see for yourself” and “too important (and expensive) to let someone else tell you what to do” so that people will not infer that you are trying to coerce them, just that you are trying to make them aware.
I was re-listening to the Guardian debate and comparing the platitudes and pettiness of the CAGW side to the reasoned and erudite presentations of the “realists”. It is so much more convincing than someone like Piers Corbyn jumping up and decrying favoritism etc. Piers is okay as a marginalist thinker because he comes through more often than not. His message can be lost in the histrionics.
Slow and steady wins the day.

Well it certainly is close to the lowest ice recorded in September 2010; that’s for sure.
I’m sure it will go up and go down and get thinner and get thicker; and generally follow the course ov natuaral variability.

“..so there could be problems with clouds. ”
Aye, me laddie bucks. ‘Tis murky, cloudy science indeed! Or perhaps the ‘nargles’ are responsible…

Wow, 3rd lowest in the last 30 years?! We’re all doomed!
Note how infrequently nowadays we here climate scientists bring up records in the 1000, 5000, or even 500 year time scales.
To channel Yogi Berra for a moment – give the mere 30 years of recorded ice extents: We don’t know enough to know anything.

The NOAA is still reporting the August average sea ice extent as 22% below the 30 year average while it was actually only 18.3% [the 22% likely refers to 1979-2000 average].
The NSIDC/NOAA should make up their mind if they are using 1979-2009, 30 year average or not; and,
The NSIDC should publish the daily sea ice extent numbers in a useable form back to 1979 (or as far back as possible) so that these mistakes don’t keep coming up. [right now all we have is monthly averages and we have to go to an obscure ftp subdirectory to find them].
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/

REPLY: I second this, and I’m going to pass it on – Anthony

The red line shows historical >15% extent, but the actual ice depicted in white is probably >99%. It is called FRAUD.
REPLY: Never assume malice where simple incompetence will do. – Anthony

Bill Illis says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:52 am
The NOAA is still reporting the August average sea ice extent as 22% below the 30 year average while it was actually only 18.3% [the 22% likely refers to 1979-2000 average].
As much as I am sure that this is not a scientifically viable alternative, are not the recent results as much a part of the “recent average” to be included in the comparative period?
With each change (up or down) the average better reflects the current situation. As hard as that might make creating death spirals, it certainly would allow for a realistic (if only timely) description of the actual situation.

Tom in Florida said:
“22% below normal.
Of course their “normal” period starts in 1979. One would be under the impression there are no records prior to that.”
The satellite record begins in 1979. Previous to that, one would imagine that sea ice extent data within the interior of the ice would have been sparse and would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to interpolate with any degree of accuracy.
Gates said:
“All this speaks to the fact that WUWT is providing a valuable service, and more so, the fact that both Walt and Julienne continue to post here shows that those who think that AGW is likely happening and those who don’t can have a meaningful and intelligent dialog while looking at the science and without resorting to political nonsense and ad hominems.”
Yes, indeed, because we now have the headline reading third rather than second lowest extent in 30 years of satellite data. This changes everything.
Andrew:
“What data?
Computer model outputs are not data, so I ask again, what data?
A satellite capable of actually directly measuring ice volume, from the freeboard and surface/altitude delta was launched just this year, so what data are you referring to?
The satellite capable of actually directly measuring ice volume has a very short lifespan 4 or 5 years, so it will not even get a single cycle, so it will likely only ever see growth in volume since we have such a low starting point (nice cherry) during its lifetime. ”
ANY data taken from a satellite is based on a MODEL. The satellite reads the intensities of wavelengths of radiation. Agencies take that radiation data and run it through a MODEL to produce data that is meaningful to humans. If you want the actual satellite “data”, you will get a long list of wavelengths and their intensities. The only way to get from that to sea ice volume is to have some sort of model. You should read up on remote sensing; if you are up for it, read An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation by Liou. That gives you an idea of just how complicated the models are for basic measurements like temperature.

Bill Illis, You bring up a good point a good suggestion. I suspect that you may be right but in the spirit of being a true skeptic I present a different source of potential error: Perhaps someone was counting pixels.

Gosh, what a HUGE error! Saying “2nd” instead of “3rd” – how completely incompetent! How very worth an entire blog post!
REPLY: Ah yes, illuminating prose from the troll coward. Of course if it was “I” who made such an error, in reverse, you and your troll masters would never let me hear the end of it. But, hmmm, looks like they’ll have to make another adjustment, no? – Anthony
– Anthony

Nick says:{September 15, 2010 at 12:10 pm}
“The satellite record begins in 1979. Previous to that, one would imagine that sea ice extent data within the interior of the ice would have been sparse and would probably be difficult, if not impossible, to interpolate with any degree of accuracy. ”
Exactly my point. The use of the word “normal” is misleading at best but I believe it is a premeditated choice to sway opinion.

The headline even conficts with NOAA’s own ice center website:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

RW says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Gosh, what a HUGE error! Saying “2nd” instead of “3rd” – how completely incompetent! How very worth an entire blog post!
===================
Out by 50% is indeed a huge error.

I think we are getting too fixated on ice extent.
What is “Normal”?

Interpreting the ice extent trends with as little data as we currently have seem to me to be much of a “half empty” vrs “half full” situation. Let’s see what happens as we continue along another 60 years or so.

Cold Englishman says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:57 pm
I think we are getting too fixated on ice extent.
What is “Normal”?
When it comes to climate, I think it is the word that comes after ‘post’ and before ‘science’.

Regarding errors always going one direction -its human nature. It’s something I know I have to be mindful of in my own research. If experimental results are consistent with “expectations”, I’m less likely to spend time looking for errors than if the results are contrary to expectations.

These graphs are interesting;
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

James Sexton says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:36 pm
I agree with your assertion as to why these “little” mistakes keep happening. But, therein lies the difficulty. NOAA workers shouldn’t be allowed to be activists. NOAA should be neutral. If they were indeed neutral, or anywhere close, then the mistakes would occur in a more even basis. They don’t.
================================
I understand. The problem is twofold:
The average person does not see the need for balance when they consider a matter cut and dried. They rightly believe that every issue doesn’t require giving fair coverage to both sides of an argument – we don’t ever need to hear from the pro-lizard people side. Now, I don’t think the science IS settled, but you have to understand their point of view at least a little.
The second is the main reason that there is something of a “consensus.” People only join organizations like the NOAA, or become climatologists, because they already believe in global warming and want to do some good about it. Seriously, nobody dreams of being a climate scientist when they grow up, and if it weren’t for global warming theory, there honestly wouldn’t be that many positions available. This should improve over the next few years as young scientists may want to become climatologists to combat AGW theory, but that takes time.
They’re honestly goodhearted people with a quasi-religious belief. Give them a little slack on the small stuff.

In April this year, AMSR-E arctic sea ice extent was the highest on record. Why did NOAA not issue a press release then?

Well according to alarmists, melting is bad, yet the record increases in ice extent in the Antarctic South Pole, are also caused by global warming as the theory posits that increased heat creates more precipitation which falls as snow and freezes into more ice.
So increases in ice extent are bad signs of man made climate change too.
So if increases melting is bad and increased freezing is also bad, exactly what would be good?
An impossible and mythical climate stasis that has never ever occurred in the entire history of this planet, perhaps?

Dan in California: AMSR-E April ice extent was highest since 2001, maybe they didn’t think this was noteworthy.

Northwest Passage; Sept 13th
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/WIS56CT/20100913180000_WIS56CT_0005190946.gif

OT but does anyone have a reaction to the article by Dr. Gianluigi Zangari about the
Gulf Loop Current ‘stalling.’

TheFlyingOrc says:
September 15, 2010 at 2:00 pm
“People only join organizations like the NOAA, or become climatologists, because they already believe in global warming and want to do some good about it. Seriously, nobody dreams of being a climate scientist when they grow up, and if it weren’t for global warming theory, there honestly wouldn’t be that many positions available. This should improve over the next few years as young scientists may want to become climatologists to combat AGW theory, but that takes time.
They’re honestly goodhearted people with a quasi-religious belief. Give them a little slack on the small stuff.
========================================================
I do understand their position. It is perfectly acceptable to have an opinion that is “cut and dried” regarding our climate. It is not acceptable to have advocates as arbiters of truth. Especially in administrative branches of our government. I can think of several reasons why people would want to become involved in weather, oceanianic, and climate tracking professions other than furtherance of their advocacy. NOAA isn’t a club someone joins, it is supposedly a group of professionals that have a mandate for truth and discovery. If someone in the employ of NOAA finds that they cannot, then that person should have the personal integrity to resign and go join the WWF, Greenpeace or some such advocacy group. It is the “small stuff” that exposes their biases. There are things we need them to be focused on other than trying to win one for the team. They are letting their organization down and their nation. I know it sounds harsh, but that’s not what we’re paying them for. And that isn’t why NOAA exists.

Rest assured…
Should the Arctic ice suddenly cover the entire northern hemisphere next year, it will be described as the 33rd lowest extent on record.

Alvin W says:
September 15, 2010 at 3:32 pm
OT but does anyone have a reaction to the article by Dr. Gianluigi Zangari about the Gulf Loop Current ‘stalling.’
===
Related August 1 news piece:
source: http://www.oilspillnews.net/bp-oil-spill-news/gulf-loop-current-stalls-due-to-bp-oil-leak-truth-is-treason/
“Zangari’s assessment is based on daily monitoring of real-time data oceanographic satellite public data feeds called “Real-Time Mesoscale Altimetry” from the Jason, Topex/Poseidon, Geosat, Follow-On, ERS-2 and Envisat satellites.”
“These satellite feeds are are captured and made publicly available by NASA, NOAA and by the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research (CCAR) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.”
Maybe the oil obscured the current related data?
Current view: http://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/ofs/viewer.shtml?-gulfmex-cur-100-large-rundate=latest

“Would it be a good suggestion to ask an old and wise inuit about his experiences with the arctic icecap and ask his opinion about what has happened and how he views the past , the present and the future ? Anyway we have to live with a lot of overactive cagw believers willing to change the facts whenever possible as long as it supports their view on the scary future . The inuit will probably radiate more confidence than any of us is willing to show .”
How many of you all actually read every post?..asking an old wise Eskimo about his experience over many years in the SAME area has 0 to very low importance.
It’s a good thing you guys catch these errors. I’m off fishing so never would have noticed. I wonder if female fish are more prone to believing the consensus that fish hooks will disintegrate within just a few days if you catch and release. Come on girl, bite. It won’t hurt. And I’ll release you once I catch you.(quote by Miss gray)
You fish?…I’m falling in love with you miss gray! (sweet hugging funny face) I like to catch my fish & filet them for dinner…I don’t harras & torture fish with catch & release.

Milwaukee Bob,
I think you may have misunderstood me. I was talking about another poster’s conception of satellite-produced data sets as “a direct measurement of ice volume”, which is incorrect, because like the current product, it requires a model and variables as input in order to generate sea ice volume. I’m not saying anything about intensities not being “data”, because the intensities are not the values being discussed.
If you ask me about sea ice volume and I tell you a list of intensities, what are you going to do with them? If the 17um channel shows an intensity of 5.5e-5 Wm-2um-1, what does that mean to you? You have to use some sort of model to interpret those intensities into data that is useful to you. Yes, you do have to use basic equations like the Schwarzchild equation, but you also have to have something which translates intensity data into ice volume. This does require a model of the relationship between certain intensities at certain wavelength versus the expected volume.

Hide the decline, or where appropriate: Exaggerate the decline.

Why don’t they issue a press release on the status of Antarctic sea ice extent?

The most egregious part says:
To put it in perspective, a loss of 22% of the contiguous U.S. would be equivalent to losing all of the land area in the New Englan, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and Appalachian states.
What kind of Alarmo excess is that?!?! Does the land mass of the U.S. wax and wane every year like sea ice?????
That’s the implication. How is that an equivalency? What kind of perspective is that???
It reminds me of the JR High joke: Want to lose 20 pounds of ugly fat? Cut off your head!
To put it in perspective…

I ran a Polynomial 3rd order regression for the trend line and it is actually headed upwards now.

I’m back. Caught my limit so froze three and pan fried two with a splash of beer to deglaze the pan. Ate with crackers and mustard along with a veggie side and the rest of the bottle of beer.
The only bad thing about fishing is having one more worm in my tackle box and 5 fish in my creel. Funny thing, one fish had my hook in its throat from two days ago. Tip: to save the little fish you have to throw back, use the biggest hook you can. The hook tends to snag them around the mouth instead of going down the throat where it gets caught in vitals.
I’ve read all the posts. The mistake just doesn’t go down my gullet as an honest mistake made by well-meaning scientists. It tastes more like a stupid mistake by careless scientists who jumped the gun, thinking that the minimum would go lower so just called it the 2nd lowest, even though the article they were referring to said 3rd lowest.

“Pamela Gray says:
September 15, 2010 at 1:11 pm
It’s a good thing you guys catch these errors. I’m off fishing so never would have noticed. I wonder if female fish are more prone to believing the consensus that fish hooks will disintegrate within just a few days if you catch and release. Come on girl, bite. It won’t hurt. And I’ll release you once I catch you.”
Oh, no!! Only release if she will spread the word to her friends! Just another sip or two and see if she is smiling or frowning.

But there’s this nice gem in that BBc article:
‘Researchers say projections of summer ice disappearing entirely within the next few years increasingly look wrong.’

What is the ‘normal’ area of summer sea ice coverage? We have 31 years of satellite record but this is far too short a time to establish what is ‘normal’. Since the last ice age ended we seem to have had warm periods every 1000 years so this period is the minimum time to establish what is deemed to be ‘normal’ if such a beast exists.
Come on NOAA get real.

Mods. My post at 2:54 has lost its format. Please delete!
[If you insist… bl57~mod]

Seeing the plots on WUWT of sea ice extent, I’ve often wondered what the annual relationships between the curves would show. We can see the shapes in overlay of those curves but by eye it is difficult to compare much other than max and min extents. However, the area under those curves should show some relative information. So I dug out my old planimeter and set to work.
Year_____(f)V as % of 03__Rank__Giss global T
2003_________100 _______1______14.55
2004_________97.9_______2______14.48
2005_________94.8_______5______14.62
2006_________93.0_______7______14.54
2007_________91.2_______8______14.57
2008_________96.6_______3______14.44
2009_________95.8_______4______14.57
2010_________94.7______(6)______?
What was in the back of my mind was that due to the latent heat in the change from ice to water, the areas under the curve may act as a tool to analyse how warm a particular year was instead of ‘warmest on record’, ‘hottest July’ etc. all based on a surface temperature record that contains unknowns. It seamed to me to be a reasonable assumption that a generally warmer year would have a greater melt and vice versa. (For 2010, I measured the area of the previous 12 months to the cut-off in September so it is in fact a projection of sorts.)
Having got my numbers for some function of volume, testing the idea against temperatures would be the next step: these are added after obtaining them from gistemp. For the years 04 & 06, ice does not behave as expected although for other years it does. OK, so I am on the wrong track here; annual ice volume (or at least a function of it that we can measure) is not a good proxy for global average temps. But aren’t global temps used to predict ice loss ‘NW passage’, ‘polar bears’, ‘habitat loss’ etc.? There has to be some information in that change of volume measure otherwise there is no information of worth in ice extent itself.
Of course, what I am not doing is measuring actual ice volume as some parts of the ice sheet would be thicker/thinner year by year. And there lies the problem: does ice extent alone tell us anything at all about global climate on an annual time-scale? Apart from changes in albedo for model inputs, possibly not.

R. Black of the BBC has chosen to leap in and pontificate about “Rapid melt in 2010”.
My opinion of this person is self snipped.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322310

Gareth Phillips [September 15, 2010 at 11:03 am] says:
I would imagine that if next years ice minimum is up on this year, that will be the 4th lowest, then if it increases the following year I take it that will be the 5th lowest. I have a picture of a man in the lower Palaeolithic saying to his friend as they gaze out from their cave on mile thick glaciers ” you know that this is the 4300th lowest ice level on record” In other words, when does the focus on lowest, become average or increased?

This is really brilliant imagery. It solidifies my suspicion that even if arctic extent was in a 30 year slow increase to 1970’s levels, each and every season the political scientists would do exactly as you say, ‘this is the 4th 6th 6th … xth lowest’ etc. An increase being described as a decrease is not science. It is calling up : down, right : left, hot : cold. Which is to say there are no truths anymore.

jorgekafkazar [September 15, 2010 at 2:54 pm] says:
Criticizing Walt Meier here (even in an attempt at jest, which I suspect was the case) is OT, OTT, ad hominem, and just plain rude. Dr. Meier is a communicator and very open in many respects. He deserves our praise for his responsiveness and contributions to WUWT.

Respectfully disagree. By my reading of this man’s position he is an employee of NASA. That makes him a civil servant employed by the taxpayer. That means he works for me, as does a person called Julienne that recently turned the scientific method upside down (by starting with the conclusion and working backwards: “Julienne Strove from NSIDC asked last week what it would take to be convinced of man’s influence.“.
Examine that last paragraph in the top post:

Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.

There is nothing Scientific about that bolded last sentence (unless you count political science as Science). At best it is Elementary Statistics 101, but at worst, it is pure AGW propaganda. It is actually spin that dilutes/undoes the correction that Anthony instigated.
If it were up to me they would drag him in front of a congressional committee and have him explain who he fired for that little AGW snipe, then demand his resignation.
I’m not nitpicking this, nor am I asking for Anti-AGW statements (as if!). But that wording could easily have been phrased in a neutral fashion, leaving just the facts.
As it stands, I can only conclude that this agency is infiltrated with hacks and needs a massive shakeup. If they are not careful NASA itself will suffer as more calls to shut it down occur. This is now in the realm of possibility.

Anthony,
your sea ice news posts have been very entertaining and it has been interesting to follow the various predictions and the final outcome. A bit like watching an extremely slow moving horse race! But one that you just can not glance away from for even a second.
Now that we are poised at the start of another race season, can I suggest, at least just for the entertainment value, that you start a page listing in chronological order all of the predictions as they come in. It could briefly show the headline, the date, and the numerical prediction along with a link to the full article. What do you think? Just for the fun of it. (Excuse the analogy. I am not a betting man myself, but I am sure it may interest some of the bookies also).
PS. I think yourself, your team, and all who post here, pro or con CAGW, are doing a great job. I woild like to make a small donation toward your operating costs but PayPal and I do not see eye to eye…
Is there another way?

Hmm, this seem to be a recurring phenomenon.
The more these organizations shout their alarming state of natural variability at each natural high and low the more they seem to have to rely on quality control from internetians. I wonder if they had kept their quality control departments would they be so alarming today?

I couldn’t agree more, R Gates. Moreover the JAXA extent is now lower than what was supposed to be the minimum (early September) and seems to keep going down. The area in my sense is the 2nd lowest, being the same as 2008.
So much for the “recovery”. But I think they will never admit it.

BSM says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:46 am
I woild like to make a small donation toward your operating costs but PayPal and I do not see eye to eye…
Is there another way?
I also have an irresparable problem with Paypal and WILL not use them. Let me know another way please.
[Reply: You can make a donation using your credit card on the same Donation page. ~dbs.]

Anthony. Have you ever considered taking a summer arctic sea expedition with the experts? Dr Barber here is one of the most experienced and knowledgeable in this field. It could be very enlightening.
Here’s his latest lecture.

Of course since the satellite records are only 30 years old, its the 3rd lowest in 30 years, which is much less alarming. I like to think of it as the third highest in the last half decade, if we’re going to ignore context.

Mark Adams says:
September 16, 2010 at 9:26 am
R Gates, April 29 2010:
“As it stands right now, in late April 2010, I think we’ll see the 2nd lowest summer sea ice extent on record this September, the warmest year on instrument record globally, and a record low summer sea ice extent by 2015.”
Sep. 16:
“I respect them, I think that forecasters like Joe Bastardi and Steve Goddard will be proven to be quite wrong about the overall trend in Arctic Sea ice in the months and years to come.”
Was your forecast for September proven correct?
_____
My forecast for this September was closer than Steve Goddard’s…but I’m not sure about Joe Bastardi’s. My larger point and larger concern is not about one season, but the longer term trend and causes. Joe and Steve both seem to think that the current longer term downward trend in Arctic Sea ice is going to reverse over the next few years and I disagree with that assessment. This probably goes back to our basic viewpoints where I think AGW is happening and is the likely cause for most of the Arctic Sea ice decline, and that’s why it will continue, and I think both Joe and Steve think otherwise.

R Gates says…
“Even strong AGW believers such as David Barber who is an expert is sea ice has stated that there is some evidence that Polar Bears migh actually, in some circumstances turn out benefiting from reduced sea ice.”
Please do not ignore the sentence immediately after this one. “This is an area that requires more study.” He’s expressing that there are uncertainties. (The sign of a very good scientist.)

Buffoon, Adams,
Although you are pointedly displaying your biases, here is some info.
Thickness – http://seaice.apl.washington.edu/ and graph from 1980 – http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/images/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrent.png
Trends in seasonal ice extent from 1900 – http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
And
Blade says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:24 am
… At best it is Elementary Statistics 101, but at worst, it is pure AGW propaganda. …
Sorry, can’t figure out what you are ranting about. Do you think it is _not_ the third lowest? Or that there is _no_ decreasing trend? Or that pointing it out is a political act? What are “the facts” as you see them?
Personally, it seems that someone in the media office made the mistake, not Walt Meier. And your enthusiasm for McCarthyist hearings is a little scary.

Rob Honeycutt says:
September 16, 2010 at 11:26 am
R Gates says…
“Even strong AGW believers such as David Barber who is an expert is sea ice has stated that there is some evidence that Polar Bears migh actually, in some circumstances turn out benefiting from reduced sea ice.”
Please do not ignore the sentence immediately after this one. “This is an area that requires more study.” He’s expressing that there are uncertainties. (The sign of a very good scientist.)
_______
David Barber is an excellent scientist, and I tend to rate him as one of the top sea ice experts– at least that I pay attention to. Of course he indicated that further study needs to be done. I simply was pointing out that photoshopped polar bears on ice bergs has nothing to do with what real arctic sea ice experts are saying and more to do with metaphorical artistic license to display a complex subject in a way that makes a visual impact.

Fair enough R.Gates, I took a look at the UI chart you referenced.
Correct me if I’m wrong but based solely on the chart:
– trend from 1979 to 1995 is predominately positive not negative — a majority of the values are above 0
– an anomaly occurred in 1995 and 1996
– trend from 1997- 2003 is fairly flat but below 0
– trend change down appears to begin in 2003
– amplitude of the max to min in 1996 is nearly identical to the value in 2007 but the min to max in 2007-2008 is the largest recorded
– trend from 2008-present is flat around -1
So the question is, what changed in 1996-1997 and what changed again in 2003?
Overall ENSO trends are interesting. Its a shame we don’t have data from 1957-1979.
1950- 2010 ONI Data
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml

The clip that Rob Honeycutt linked to above is very interesting indeed. I suspect that many folks here will not bother to watch it because it deals with “climate” and most folks here seem to be much more interested in “weather”. It also requires a reasonable investment of time. For those interested in climate however it can be shortened somewhat by cutting off the first and last 10 minutes or so to get to Dr Barber’s most interesting points.
(Repost of Rob’s link):
http://video.hint.no/mmt201v10/osc/?vid=55

Yuba Yollabolly says:
September 16, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Example: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
=====
That’s the example R Gates also listed and the one I used for my last post. I have to agree with Doug Procter. Trend from 1979 to 1995 is predominately positive not negative — a majority of the values are above zero and its not 1 year.
Note: part of the discussion related to the relevance of sea ice as an indicator of climate change revolves around longer natural cycles that the data doesn’t properly reflect. I’ll dig around and see if I can find the previous WUWT blogs related to this.

John from CA said…
“Trend from 1979 to 1995 is predominately positive not negative.”
It’s very interesting because in that same lecture from Dr Barber he says that when he started working in the arctic 25 years ago he was looking at the data and was skeptical about climate change. I think he said “in the 80’s he was skeptical.” Then in the 90’s he estimated ice free summers by 2100. Early 2000’s he said 2050. Now he’s saying the arctic will be ice free in the summer between 2016 and 2030.

I have to agree with Yuba. Admittedly this is eyeballing it (always a dangerous activity without proper safety goggles) but I’d have to say the trend from 1979 is negative to 1995. At about 1995 it looks like the data is fairly even with the 79-08 mean. After that the trend is accelerating negative.
The data is represented as anomaly from the mean.

Guilty as charged, I was eyeballing the chart and laughing at the thought of drawing a red line showing the trend on an anomaly chart that “assumes” the period is a reasonable baseline to establish the “0”.
see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/25/warming-trend-pdo-and-solar-correlate-better-than-co2/
How Spitsbergen Heats the World
The Arctic Warming 1919-1939
ebook: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/chapter_1.html
“… At the change of the millennium the Arctic temperatures were as high as in the late 1930s. Latest when the warming returned in the 1980s it was high time to investigate and explain the previous warming since the late 1910s. That was 30 years ago. But nothing has been done. Many hundred papers were published, but the “climatic revolution” (Ahlmann, 1946) and what made it happen had not been regarded as worth to receive the required attention.”
“Instead of explaining the first warming that happened under the eyes and observations of modern science, the issue is pushed aside by claiming “natural variability”. That is a non explanation. It generates a wrong impression. If a hurricane destroys New Orleans, it was a hurricane that destroyed the city and not “natural variability”. If a tsunami sinks dozen of ships, a tsunami sank the ships. If the West Spitsbergen Current warmed the Arctic, than it was a branch of the Gulf Current that increased the Arctic temperatures. It was therefore necessary to establish to the point, that the warming started at Spitsbergen in winter 1918/19, that this even affected the temperatures in Greenland from ca. 1920 to 1933, and in the East of Spitsbergen the warming lasted until the early 1940s. Concerning Europe there was a warming over two decades from ca. 1920 to 1940, but this warming was presumably not generated alone from the Arctic region, but has had a regional or continental component as well. Current Arctic research should understand what had caused the Big Spitsbergen warming early last century.”
Surface Currents in the Atlantic Ocean
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/spitsbergen_3.html
Trends in thickness and extent of seasonal pack ice, Canadian Beaufort Sea
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. xx, Lxxxxx, doi:10.1029/2005GLxxxxx, 2005
4. Conclusions
…
“[24] Data from conventional ice reconnaissance over the last 36 years suggest little net change in ice conditions over the Beaufort shelves, despite dramatic decrease in summertime ice over the south-western Canada Basin.”
“[25] Measurements of surface air temperature at a nearby coastal site reveal warming by 1.6±0.4°C since 1974. The estimated impact of warming since 1991 is reduced ice growth by 0.04 m. Impact on ablation is difficult to quantify.”
“[26] Definitive evidence for climate-change impact on seasonal ice will require time series much longer than those presently available.”
“[27] Mechanisms other than air temperature – snow cover, ice circulation and ridging – are plausible contributors to variability and trend in the thickness and extent of seasonal ice.”

Between now and 2015, (i.e. during at least one of the summers in that time frame), Arctic Sea ice will drop to 2.5 million sq. km. minimum, then, by early 2020’s it will close in on 1.0 million sq. km. summmer minimum, it will be “virtually ice free” during the 2020’s (less than 1.0 million sq. km. at the summer low) and then slowly slide down to be truly ice free in the summer by the late 2020’s to 2030. At least, that’s what the current long term trends indicate, but of course, there could (and likely will be) sudden and unexpected changes, based on the fact that the Arctic is a system that is being pushed toward a chaotic and unpredictable state, subject to all the inherent surprizes, that are unpredictable, but completely deterministic. These surprises will likely be for rapid ice loss, not gain…and if it is gain, it will be like this year’s surprising “bump up” in March-April, when the AGW skeptics declared the Arctic was “recovering” but by May and June, we saw record declines for those months when all that “bump up” ice, which was thin, melted very rapidly.

“chaotic and unpredictable state, subject to all the inherent surprizes, that are unpredictable, but completely deterministic”
deterministic chaos?
completely deterministic unpredictability?
Would you believe, completly predictible suprises?
How about chaoticly normal cycles of predictible surprises?
No, ok, ok, try this; Completly predictible unexpected cycles of surprises.
Sounds like the objectives of a video game developer.
It is to laugh.
You have been overcome.

jakers [September 16, 2010 at 11:46 am] says:
Sorry, can’t figure out what you are ranting about. Do you think it is _not_ the third lowest? Or that there is _no_ decreasing trend? Or that pointing it out is a political act? What are “the facts” as you see them?

Of course you cannot figure it out. So, we’ll try again, try to keep up please. First I said:
“Examine that last paragraph in the top post:”

“Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.”

Then I said:
“There is nothing Scientific about that bolded phrase (unless you count political science as Science). At best it is Elementary Statistics 101, but at worst, it is pure AGW propaganda. It is actually spin that dilutes/undoes the correction that Anthony instigated.”
The first sentence is objective Science. Then it becomes a subjective comment which constitutes advocacy. That fact that you cannot see pre-meditated bias coming from a taxpayer funded agency (or its subcontractors) speaks very badly about you.

jakers [September 16, 2010 at 11:46 am] says:
Personally, it seems that someone in the media office made the mistake, not Walt Meier. And your enthusiasm for McCarthyist hearings is a little scary.

Well I guess you just called Meier a communist, a freudian slip? That is the danger of using deperate analogies though.
Congress is the only branch that can hold civil servants accountable, (at the moment that is, because the taxpayers are coming and we are mightily pissed). Your slimy attempt to discredit congressional oversight of our money as McCarthyism shows just how low the warmies are willing to sink.
While I am at it let me say this: unless you are in fact a taxpayer to this multi-trillion dollar keynesian nightmare of a federal government, then, with all due respect, butt out. If you are a taxpayer then I suggest you simply say something like: “waste all of my money that you want!“. But what you do not get to do though, is to tell me to accept it.

Ice extent minimum sept 17 or not

R. Gates and Yuba Yollabolly,
Thanks but the point for me is fairly simple. No one has the answer to settle the issue so projections of an ice free Arctic are fundamentally irrelevant.
Based on one study I read related to sediment samples taken from the North Pole, an ice free North Pole has clearly happened in the past and coastal cities are not going to get washed away if it happens again.
The one thing we know, the Arctic melts and freezes over every year. It simply isn’t a concern if it all melts because it will simply freeze over again. If someone is projecting that the Arctic will be ice free at its maximum, I’m all ears but the probability of that occurring due to GHGs is zero.
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m in favor of Stewardship, I simply don’t support Carbon tax fraud and a plan that perpetuates pollution.
I’m also a big fan of NOAA, NASA, and see the logic underlying the unification of sciences and the pursuit of models but it would be nice if the facts were presented correctly and in context.
Thanks to the blogs, I can now conclude that the gloom and doom related to Arctic sea ice is little more than sophomoric media drivel. But I agree, the attempt to quantify the underlying factors is fascinating.
Maybe the media will finally use some common sense, stop scaring children, and tell the real story; the Science is NOT settled.

John-
>>”…an ice free North Pole has clearly happened in the past and coastal cities are not going to get washed away if it happens again.”
Actually there is considerable evidence that during the last interglacial sea levels were several meters higher than they are now.
1 example: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-11/jcu-rwo110806.php
I too am a fan of NASA and NOAA, but I admit this was a blunder. What has concerned me even more about NOAA has been a recently series of press conferences concerning the Gulf oil spill where NOAA spokesmen have made a series of proclamations dismissing the severity of the spill impact and dismissing the validity of studies that have in retrospect been closer to the mark than NOAA’s proclamations were.
I think these are outside the paywall:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100810/full/466802a.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100804/full/466680a.html
arch

Yuba,
Good point about sea level, glacial areas have been a lot warmer and a lot colder in the past.
I ran across a really fascinating study about the Bering Strait during the last glacial.
Apparently, the Bering Strait is 49M deep at its lowest point, as the oceans dropped by 120-140M (in dispute as to the true drop), the fresher Pacific (total of about 1/3 of the fresh water input to the Arctic) was cut off from the Arctic Ocean.
This drop not only created the Bering land bridge which helps to account for archeological discoveries in Alaska and the Aleutians (including human artifacts dating to 11,400 – 13,300 years cal BP) but due to the drop in the Arctic Ocean helps to explain the Mammoths found on the New Siberian Islands off the coast of Siberia North of Indigirka River.
from the study
The simulations accounted for the changes in sea level, revealing a recurring pattern-each time playing out over several thousand years-in which the reopening and closing of the strait had a far-reaching impact on ocean currents and ice sheets.

• As the climate cooled because of changes in Earth’s orbit, northern ice sheets expanded. This caused sea levels to drop worldwide, forming a land bridge from Asia to North America and nearly closing the Bering Strait.

• With the flow of relatively fresh water from the Pacific to the Atlantic choked off, the Atlantic grew more saline. The saltier and heavier water led to an intensification of the Atlantic’s meridional overturning circulation, a current of rising and sinking water that, like a conveyor belt, pumps warmer water northward from the tropics.

• This circulation warmed Greenland and parts of North America by about 3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius)-enough to reverse the advance of ice sheets in those regions and reduce their height by almost 400 feet (112 meters) every thousand years. Although the Pacific cooled by an equivalent amount, it did not have vast ice sheets that could be affected by the change in climate.

• Over thousands of years, the Greenland and North American ice sheets melted enough to raise sea levels and reopen the Bering Strait.

• The new inflow of fresher water from the Pacific weakened the meridional  overturning circulation, allowing North America and Greenland to cool over time. The ice sheets resumed their advance, sea levels dropped, the Bering Strait again mostly closed, and the entire cycle was repeated.

The combination of the ocean circulation and the size of the ice sheets-which exerted a cooling effect by reflecting sunlight back into space-affected climate throughout the world. The computer simulations showed that North America and Eurasia warmed significantly during the times when the Bering Strait was open, with the tropical and subtropical Indian and Pacific Oceans, as well as Antarctica, warming slightly.
Based on the study, fresh water inflow, salinity, and the Atlantic’s meridional overturning circulation are key factors.
The dynamics of Arctic sea ice are amazing. Its a real shame its all been condemned to a CO2 discussion.
I agree with your comments about NOAA.

Ok Mr Gates…will I have any winter to speak of up in my beloved West virginia Alpps once the Arctic goes Ice free?…Canaan Valley,WV used to have a 150 inch per year Snow Ave but if you take the last 6 years the average has gone up to 188 inches a year…When will we see that snow ave decline or disappear? I need to know a good time to sell my ski camp & move up to New Hampshire to get my Snow fix.
I can grow 5 kinds of Palms in my back yard, when should I start planting Coconut palms down here in SE NC?..serious questions here..thanks for any response.

Mr, Gates.
If system is deterministic and you know the present state then you can know the immediate prior state and the immediate next state. A deterministic system is not chaotic.
—
Deterministic: Adjective
deterministic (comparative more deterministic, superlative most deterministic) of, or relating to determinism
(mathematics, of a Turing machine) having at most one instruction associated with any given internal state
(physics, of a system) Having exactly predictable time evolution.
(computing, of an algorithm) Having each state depend only on the immediately previous state, as opposed to having some states depend on backtracking where there may be multiple possible next actions and no way to choose between them except by trying each one and backtracking upon failure
—
So, what is you private definition of the word ‘deterministic’ that includes allows an unknown pre-state or an unknown post-state (or both as per your sand analogy)?
PS. Quantum mechanics is not deterministic.

jakers [September 17, 2010 at 8:52 am] says:
Which part not correct, as asked before?

(Sigh) Give me strength 😮 Hundreds of posts in tons of threads have given the answer already!

“Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008, and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.”

How about we start with:

‘Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the third-lowest in the satellite record, after 2007 and 2008 and continues the long-term trend of decreasing summer sea ice.’

Certainly you can agree that that last bit is propaganda. There is no “long-term” anything in a collection of thirty numbers (check back in 100-150 years for verification when there are 130 or 180 datapoints).
Secondly, Since no-one actually knows where the trend is going it is utterly ridiculous to state what they did: “trend of decreasing summer sea ice”.
Thirdly, since the “satellite record” begins at a possible PEAK of ice extent (remember the late 1970’s: the ice age is coming!), utilizing that phrase in the original manner is cherry picking in the worse way. Seriously, if you were to graph half-hourly temps starting at 2pm through 2am, what would the graph look like? Would your press release say: This latest reading continues the long-term trend of decreasing temperatures seen in the 24 datapoints?
An obvious way to parody this propaganda (which has been pointed out by others) would be:

‘Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the 27th highest in the satellite record.‘

Honestly (and respectfully), has it even crossed your mind that there may now be an upward swing from a low minimum summer extent, and that that swing will not be a straight-line linear graph, it may resemble what most real graphs show: a sawtooth pattern (and yep, it could even dip below 2007 yet still continue a long-term rise). Sir, you have to first break out of the box that Serreze locked your mind in. He does not know, nor do we. Hence my disputing of the dead-sure AGW wording above. It’s simple. Open your mind.
Now if you are willing to do that for a moment you will realize that say, in 2013 or 2017 this may be the press release:

‘Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the 22nd highest in the satellite record, and continues the long-term trend of increasing summer sea ice since the minimum of 2007.‘ 😉

And further in the future, say 2037 it is possible that it may say:

‘Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the tied for the highest ever seen in the satellite record.‘ 😉

Perhaps we can agree that this press release would be actual bad news:

‘Arctic sea ice appears to have reached its annual minimum extent on 10 September. The minimum ice extent was the highest ever seen in the satellite record, toppling eight previous records set within the past decade. This extent reached the lowest latitude ever seen since the start of the current interglacial‘ 😉

jakers [September 17, 2010 at 8:52 am] says:

If it were up to me they would drag him in front of a congressional committee and have him explain who he fired for that little AGW snipe, then demand his resignation.

Ah, this was about money! Hm, me no understand at all now.

Yes, this is about our money! What the heck do you think I meant? Taxpayer funding of that AGW snipe is not acceptable. Any taxpayer funded scientist that drifts into advocacy and propaganda should be fired ASAP. If they want to engage in pop-science, get the heck out of government.
Oh, but let me guess, you were actually hinting at some kind of faux Galileo crucification complex, right? To you, the AGW cult repesents the noble scientist and we taxpayers are an inquisition or something? Well, like I said before (and with all due respect), they have placed you into a box and you don’t even realize it. You cannot see anything outside of it at all. Break free man!

fishnski says:
September 17, 2010 at 3:23 pm
—-
Google climate change v weather. Your local weather proves nothing.

Walt Mieir pointed out to me that the Pic at the top of this pasge – – NOAA’s METOP – – is described by NOAA itself as “experimental”. Sea Ice Outlook network was buzzing with comments on the Minimum & Kathleen’s spirited Defense of NOAA’s own ice-margin technique versus NSIDC’s.
Perhaps the Wild swings of METOP in the past few days are “pushing” them
. – – I shared a Chart of 13 Sites with Sea Ice Data or Graphs (below: the longer numbers are the Data).
… 6 Sites set a new Minimum, Spt 14 or later..
… 6 are still above Spt 10
… 1 Graph was “flat” the 7th through 14th (Topaz/SSMI/AREA).
The amazing thing is that despite the fact that Every Site is different – – they DO have a SET ORDER. – – Looking at each site by itself, it SEEMS like it is jumping around a lot – – but they never Cross lanes.
This speaks a Lot for the Internal Accuracy of ALL.
FORMAT: entries right of Sept, are of the form ” 10=4.33_5.00=16 ” which means: Minimum Day was the 10th, Minimum = 4.33 … Last Day with a reading is the 16th. Three times I use ~ …. ~ means”nearly” equal … for an “almost” second Minimum.
Type/Satellite/site/Year:_____2007._____ 2008 _____ 2009______2010 Spt 1/Min./Newest
AREA AMSR CRYO/ijis__ 2.919439__3.003556__3.426598____ 3.24_ 8=3.072__3.237=16
30%Ext.SSMI DMI______ 3.06_______3.41______3.84_______ 4.00__17=3.60_3.69=18 .
AREA Amsr at Topaz_________________________4.40____T__ 4.07__8=3.93 __4.09=16
AREA SSMI ROOS_______ 3.62 _____3.87 _____4.61_______ 4.30__9=4.1 ___4.19=16
” Nansen (=Norsex save 2007)_3.2937_*see note)_____________ 4.351_=”9=4.121
_4.193 Area SSMI @ Topaz____________________4.82_____T__7-thru-14=4.36_4.43=16
” NATICE____3-day average_________________________Spt_8=4.9969__Min=4.9428=15
15% Extent_Amsr_Bremen__4.32*______4.63*____5.31*_______ 5.00_10=4.63~ 4.65=18
“Ext.SSMI NSIDC________4.13_______4.52_____5.10________ 5.2__10=4.76~ 4.79=16
“EXTENT JAXA/IJIS_____4.267344__4.707823___5.291094____ 5.33____Min=4.832=16
“Ext.AMSR @ Topaz_________________________5.47______T_ 5.42__Min=5.07=15&16
“Ext.SSMI Norsex/ROOS___4.74______5.23_____5.88_________ 6.17__13-14=5.54~ 5.58=16
— Glitch distorted Norsex/ROOS on Spt 13/14 so Min could be (?) —
“Ext.SSMI @ Topaz__________________________6.04______T_ 6.26_____Min=5.69=16
Re 2010 vs 2008 Equalled at Bremen, DMI … IF deduct Polar Holes, JAXA beat 2008 + Maybe even 2007 (see note #4 below)
Notes:
(1) Norsex added 10% to Older Data to match the Newer Algorithm (older value still extant on the parent Nansen site http://www.nersc.no/main/index2.php.
(2) I have assumed TOPEX’s legend has SWITCHED AMSR for SSMI, as AMSR typically gives Lower values elsewhere – – Think of them as “the bigger one” and “the smaller one”.
(3). TOPAZ _EXCLUDES_ the (East) Greenland Sea as ‘Atlantic not Arctic’
(4). Polar Hole: the central 310,000 sq. km area is not imaged by AMSR or SSMI (though some sites adjust: see below)… Areas perhaps ought to be reduced by 73,000-to-87,000 for the “holes” counted in 2010 pics (in other years: only ’08 ha a “Few” ) Calculated by “Artful Dodger” (a blogger) see:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2010/09/north-hole.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b0133f3d73dff970b#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b0133f3d73dff970b
(4a) NSIDC says it assumes ZERO Ice there. And Pre-1988 that is for 1,190,000 km.
(4b) CRYOSHPERE TODAY deducts an average = the Open Water % within 72 miles of the Hole: cf: Neven comment (in same post as above: a bit later Spt 6 @ 4:05).
Sources:
Cryo AREA at: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/timeseries.anom.1979-2008
DMI 30% Ext.at: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Bergen University:
_Nansen AREA at http://www.nersc.no/main/index2.php (bottom of page)
_Topex at: http://arctic-roos.org/forecasting-services/topaz/topaz-model-forecast
_NORSEX/ROOS at http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
HAMBURG ftp://ftp-projects.zmaw.de/seaice/AMSR-E_ASI_IceConc/area-extent/ but updates ?Monthly
NATICE http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims
BREMEN AMSR at: http://iup.physik.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_n.png
NSIDC: http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
JAXA Extent at: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot.csv
… “Cryo” Data is from JAXA/ijis also.

Let me try to fit that Chart in again:
Type/Satellite/site/Year:_____2007.____ 2008 _____2010 Spt 1/Min./Newest
AREA AMSR CRYO/ijis__ 2.919439__3.003556__ 3.24_8=3.072__3.237=16
30%Ext.SSMI DMI______ 3.06______3.41____17=3.60_3.69=18
AREA Amsr at Topaz_____________________T__ 4.07__ 8=3.93__4.09=16
AREA SSMI ROOS______ 3.62 _____3.87______ 4.30__9=4.1___4.19=16
” Nansen=Norsex save 2007_3.2937_*see note)_____4.351_9=4.121
_4.193 Area SSMI @ Topaz_________________T__7-thru-14=4.36_4.43=16
” NATICE____3-day average_____________Spt_8=4.9969__Min=4.9428=15
15% Extent_Amsr_Bremen__4.32*_____4.63*_____ 5.00_10=4.63~ 4.65=18
“Ext.SSMI NSIDC________4.13______4.52______ 5.2__10=4.76~ 4.79=16
“EXTENT JAXA/IJIS_____4.267344__4.707823___ 5.33____Min=4.832=16
“Ext.AMSR @ Topaz_______________________T_ 5.42__Min=5.07=15&16
“Ext.SSMI Norsex/ROOS___4.74_____5.23_______6.2_13-14=5.54~5.58=16
— Glitch distorted Norsex/ROOS on Spt 13/14 so Min could be (?) —
“Ext.SSMI @ Topaz________________________T_ 6.26_____Min=5.69=16