Now you see it…(09/14/2010)
Now you don’t…(09/15/2010)
In their zeal to get on the “death spiral” train of wild claims about Arctic sea ice, NOAA has made a major blunder, which they’ve now had to correct. Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Marty yesterday who wrote:
I looked at it, it didn’t make sense. Where did they get “2nd Lowest Extent on Record” from? None of the datasets supported it.
Here’s the link to the page shown above, current and corrected today.
I dashed off an email to Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC:
————————————————–
From: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 3:40 PM
To: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Hello Walt,
They are citing your NSIDC Sept 7th report which says “third lowest”
http://www.nnvl.noaa.gov/MediaDetail.php?MediaID=521&MediaTypeID=2&MediaFileID=108
Watching all of the values, I can’t see where they get this, AMSRE certainly doesn’t support it:
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png
Could they be fooled by the recent SSMI outage I just mentioned? Looking at the NANSEN graph I sent earlier, their claim would be valid if that data was valid.
Or have I missed something?
Best Regards,
Anthony Watts
While I was waiting for a response from Walt, I made a screencap that showed my computer date and time of 0914/2010 @4:30PM PST.
Walt wrote back about two hours later saying:
————————————————–
From: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 6:37 PM
To: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Hi Anthony,
I don’t really know what this is. It is not related to the data outage we experienced today. It is an experimental product that looks like it is based on visual imagery, not passive microwave, so there could be problems with clouds. Also they may have a high concentration threshold – the “missing” areas of ice correspond to relatively low concentrations, but still well above the generally accepted cutoffs of 15% or 30%.
I didn’t actually see an NSIDC citation – was it in the animation (I can’t open it up on my laptop)?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I’ll check into it.
walt
I wrote back to point out that the citation was in the text link in the 0914/2010 NOAA article where they say: “the second lowest sea ice extent ever measured.” He responded:
————————————————–
From: “Walt Meier” <walt@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Date: Wednesday, September 15, 2010 5:46 AM
To: “Anthony Watts” <awatts@xxxxx.xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: This NSIDC citation seems wrong
Ah, okay. Thanks. That links to our report on August conditions.
August 2010 was indeed the 2nd lowest. However, for the minimum we’re currently 3rd lowest and I don’t see us reaching 2nd lowest this year.
walt
Interestingly, as Walt points out, NOAA apparently never read (or perhaps comprehended if they did) the NSIDC Sept 7th Sea Ice News article that text links to because in that they clearly say:
On September 3, ice extent dropped below the seasonal minimum for 2009 to become the third lowest in the satellite record.
This morning, the NOAA sea ice page was corrected as you can see in the images above where the yellow highlight exists. I believe that was due to Walt’s “checking into it”. Their correction, with added “satellite record” on the end is word for word what NSIDC says.
I find it comical that ordinary citizens are the ones that keep catching NOAA in these basic errors in broad daylight. I’ve touched on these issues before here.
My thanks to WUWT reader “Marty”, and especially to Dr. Walt Meier of NSIDC for his continued willingness to communicate and to address accuracy in science reporting.
In other news, NSIDC now confirms what I said on Sunday 09/12/2010:
Sea Ice News #22 – melt season may have turned the corner
Here’s the NSIDC headline today:
September 15, 2010
Arctic sea ice reaches annual minimum extent
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.
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.
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.
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.
Walt Meier is a [snip – accusation without citation, don’t become Ed Darrell] How many peer reviewed articles has he written? Does he care about the future of our kiddies? How many polar bears are going to die due to his anti science misinformation. The ice is in a death spiral and anyone who says otherwise is a really horrible person.
“..so there could be problems with clouds. ”
Aye, me laddie bucks. ‘Tis murky, cloudy science indeed! Or perhaps the ‘nargles’ are responsible…
Bored now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/
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.
Latimer–
If you’d like the planet to continue to get warmer, and more quickly than it has been, then you’re not wrong.
OTOH, if you think significantly (say more than 2C) more warming from here is likely to be a bad thing, then you’d like more ice not less, and certainly not none, as it makes a lovely high-albedo reflector of sunlight back to space. Reduction in ice = increase in warming (all else being equal). It’s one of those “positive feedbacks”.
Altho perhaps you’d just like your ice elsewhere and keep the total area constant –in the long run it is hard to see how an ice-free arctic is not going to come along with less ice extent elsewhere on the planet too, but if you have a scheme to present where the Arctic is ice-free but total ice surface area on the planet is roughly equal to now, I’m sure we’ll all like to hear about it.
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
Lucky it was caught before it made it as far as the main stream media. Once it reaches the BBC, it becomes a fact.
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
Good job, keep holding their feet to the fire! Err… I mean ice. This was the 27th highest Arctic sea ice extent on record. : )
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.
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 .
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.
I think you guys are being too harsh on the mistakes for always going one direction – while unfortunate, there are two easy explanations for this:
1. Sites like WattsUpWithThat don’t have much reason to report the error when it says “extent was 4th lowest” when they meant 3rd. Anthony would probably tell someone, but I doubt he would write an article.
2. Because you naturally double check figures that aren’t what you expect. Without treating them like religious zealots (which some climate change activists are, but it would be uncouth to assume that about everyone), if you generally believe in global warming, and see a stat confirming your understanding, you’re going to report it more readily. If you see something that contradicts what you expect, of course you’re going to double check the sources. Cut them a little slack for mistakes like this, if skeptics were running the show, they’d make similar mistakes in the opposite direction.
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.
What’s up with the Nansen graphs (extent and area)? They seem to have dropped through the floor. Looks like something is malfunctioning big time.
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
TheFlyingOrc says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:13 pm
“Cut them a little slack for mistakes like this, if skeptics were running the show, they’d make similar mistakes in the opposite direction.”
=========================================================
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.
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.
Murray Carpenter says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:14 am (Edit)
I think they knew it was wrong and would be spotted, I think they’re winding us up!
As likely a possibility as any.
The headline even conficts with NOAA’s own ice center website:
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
Usually I would say:
To err is human, but it takes a computer to really f*** things up.
But the problem is that an error showing too much warming is corrected only with prodding, and then quietly. Errors in the other direction do happen too, but then they are not quietly corrected, but are accompanied by big media fanfare and the obligatory sentence:
“It’s worse than we thought”.
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.