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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
At least NOAA fixes errors that are pointed out. Try to get Mann or NASA to do that!
I think we are getting too fixated on ice extent.
What is “Normal”?
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.
Nick said at 12:10 pm
ANY data taken from a satellite is based on a MODEL.
What? No it’s not. You said as much later in the same paragraph –
… the actual satellite “data”, (is) a long list of wavelengths and their intensities.
That “data” is then run through a formula (software program) that produces a “presentable” result (data) that is understandable in some way by humans, i.e., a list of numbers, a graphical depiction, a chart, etc. BUT, whether or not that result is true to reality is 100% dependent on 1. – the programmer(s) that created the software, 2. – the accuracy of the programming language used to correctly arithmetically “handle” the data, and 3. – and most importantly, the real world model the formula is based on. In simplistic terms, the “formula” to accurately translate (in this case) the satellite “data” must be based on a precisely known (measured) real-world model. In the case of something as large as Arctic sea ice, as “we” can not model it the lab, those precise measurements would have to be taken at exactly the same time and location as the satellite was “gathering” its wavelength and intensity data for the modeling software to eventually produce a reasonable result, given the first two items are – – adequate?
Oh, and the above assumes the hardware is adequate and functioning correctly…
Any comment from NSIDC on what will happen next year? Are they saying by a continuing declining trend :-
“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. ”
That 2011 will be lower again?
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.
@Latimer Alder according to the Globe and Mail it causes walrus congestion. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/melting-sea-ice-forces-walruses-ashore-in-alaska/article1705659/ Of course when I mentioned things like the AMO and La Nina and the WUWT ice page, I got a batch of down dings from the dingbats.
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’.
By the numbers game:
2007 was the highest ever Antarctic Sea Ice Area Maximum ever recorded, while this year(2010) has already reached the 2nd highest Maximum Antarctic Sea Ice Area ever.
1993 was the lowest ever Ant. Sea Ice Area ever recorded, and this year(2010) is the 24th lowest and the 8th highest.
The highest Antarctic Sea Ice Minimum ever recorded was 2003.
The other end of the spectrum.
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.
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].
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
_____________________________________________________________
Anthony, you have seconded this and I, as I am sure many readers here, vote for it. (Please cover the response in a future post.)
It continues to bother me that the 1979 – 2000 average is used in the graphs – because I am one that believes Artic ice (as are all ice reservoirs on earth) is on a slow post glaciation decline and this way of presenting the data masks that.
I find using the 1979 – 2000 data as the base for the average almost as disingenuous as using the period from 20,000 BC to 19,980 BC as the base. (okay I am exagerrating to make a point)
Continuing to exclude recent satellite data biases the average satellite record – leaving a full third of the data out of play.
These graphs are interesting;
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/
Haven’t the terms ‘normal’ and ‘long-term’ been banned in this field yet?
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.
Latimer @ur momisugly 10:52 “ . . . dumb question again . . . ”
Let’s try to rephrase this. Take Lake Superior on the USA’s north coast. It becomes ice covered every winter (more or less) and then that ice goes away and life continues. Now say that the lake freezes over and stays frozen, eventually to the point that ice-breakers cannot keep it open. Depending upon your viewpoint you might consider this a good or a bad situation, but I think also it would indicate a change in climate boundaries which would not just be local to that area.
From a general perspective it would mean that a major change in climate boundaries had occurred and many natural and cultural/economic (human society) things would change. You can start making a list of all the things if you like but I don’t want to bother.
If the Arctic Ocean ice is gone (more or less) for a week or three that could be considered within the bounds of climate variability. (See posts by TonyB for confirmation.) However, if the Arctic Ocean ice goes away and none reappears for 50 or 200 years then that seems to indicate a change in climate boundaries which would not just be local to that area.
Some believe the Arctic Ocean ice is similar to the canary in the mine – it is a leading indicator of things that have major consequences. People have made lists so, again, no need to do it again.
So, think about your “dumb question” and consider what you really mean by asking it. Phrase it in different ways and see where it leads.
In April this year, AMSR-E arctic sea ice extent was the highest on record. Why did NOAA not issue a press release then?
Does every new reader of WUWT have to struggle with the concept of a 30-year climatic normal? Get over it. This concept pre-dates Al Gore. It pre-dates the coming ice age of the 60s & 70s. It pre-dates the current AGW fans. As the workers trained in the 40s, 50s, and 60s die off and the new “digital age” kids take over maybe they will update the way things are done. Anyway, the current year ends in “0” and, thus, next year all the “normals” should be adjusted using a more recent 30 year average.
Since Calamity Jane Lubchenco from Oregon State University took over the agency head, no question NOAA is being politicized to support her radical envirowhacko views on AGW and ocean acidification. She has already done videos taking a beaker of salt water and dissolving dry ice in it with a titrator to show the ph shift to acidic from her experiment. ( which dissolved millions of times more Co2 into the sea water beaker than could ever be obtained by dissolving ALL of the available earth carbon into the oceans ) I find it not believable that these “errors” which keep happening are honest mistakes. The Obama agenda wants Cap and Trade and any supportable argument to help them win. It apparently doesn’t matter if it’s honest or accurate.
The way to stop this abuse is to tell NOAA or Calamity Jane, that for every inexcusable error like this that is uncovered in the future, it is an automatic ten million dollar hit to the bottom line of the agency budget that will be carried forward to future years. I’ll guarantee you all that with this understanding, Calamity and her idealogues would suddenly start behaving and the data will be presented “error” free. The problem with government is that there is no accountablity either to the agencies or people for screwing anything up.
more figures – other than the excerpts – in the article:
14 Sept: Calgary Herald: Sean Myers: Calgarians make the best of it as snow – yes, snow – clouds forecast
Fewer than 10 days remain in summer, and most Calgarians have been left wondering if it ever really began.
One year ago Thursday, the temperature soared to just over a blistering hot 30 C.
On the same day this year, meteorologists are forecasting a high of 5 C and a chance of snow…
Calgary had just one day above 30 C, on Aug. 26. The average high in August was 20.9, according to preliminary data collected by Environment Canada. The normal average maximum temperature for August over the past 30 years was 23.4 according to data compiled by the Weather Network. In July, the normal average is 25.3, but this year, the hottest month averaged only 22 degrees…
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/14092010/76/prairies-calgarians-best-snow-yes-snow-clouds-forecast.html
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?
RW says:
September 15, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Per Anthony: UPDATE: … So per the policy page, which requires a valid email address to comment here, sayonara!
Oh good, I never thought he was a credit to those initials anyway. However, they always caught my attention. 🙂
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.
@The Flying Orc: ‘They’re honestly goodhearted people with a quasi-religious belief. Give them a little slack on the small stuff.’
Why? They won’t return the favour. And it’s not ‘small stuff’ either – so much deception and cheating has happened already that they must be brought up on it and made to behave scientifically. A tough ask with so many of them after all – Dr. Meier excepted in this case.
Dan in California: AMSR-E April ice extent was highest since 2001, maybe they didn’t think this was noteworthy.
That image is extremely deceptive – appears to only account for 50%+ extent. Is NOAA in the cherry picking business these days?