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.
Darren Parker says: September 15, 2010 at 8:16 pm
“…Polynomial 3rd order regression …”
You will scare people with words like that.
I used grade 5 math and got the same conclusion, down then up.
The global warming people must think that we are not “smarter than a 5th grader” .
I think that the trend is a sine of what will happen in the future.
Pamela Gray says:
September 15, 2010 at 8:34 pm (Edit)
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.
—…—..
She split beer in the pan? On veggies?
Milwaukee Bob says: September 15, 2010 at 8:22 pm
“No misunderstanding at all. I knew you were correcting Andrews misunderstanding of SI volume which IS a modeled sum derived FROM the DATA in wavelength intensity”
I was talking about CryoSat-2
(www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/4/641/2010/tcd-4-641-2010-print.pdf)
“In this study in-situ ice and snow data from 689 observation sites obtained during the Sever expeditions in the 1980s have been used to establish an empirical relation between ice thickness and freeboard.”
So they have established an empirical relationship. I would not consider this a model but rather a completely testable relationship and provable or falsifiable by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
“CryoSat-2 was launched in March 2010 and carries a beam-limited radar altimeter (RA) operating in Synthetic Aperture Radar mode over sea ice, providing freeboard measurements with 250m resolution along the satellite track.”
It is an altimeter, it is not trying to see through the ice and gauge the thickness by inference of the of density change with depth or by an analysis of the surface and near surface absorption spectrum change due to density.
It is as simple as a radar, sonar or bouncing a ball off of a wall (send, wait, receive), which I do not consider to be a model but rather a completely testable relationship between signal velocity and reflection that is provable or falsifiable by anyone, anywhere, anytime.
So I do not consider the data from CryoSat-2 to be computer model output. Note also, if there were no restrictions on launch weight and computers did not exist, it could have been built without the requirement for computer interpretation of signal data. The use of computers in the system is to reduce the launch weight and cost, not to implement a logical model.
CryoSat-2 is an altimeter, too bad it will not last long.
Sorry if I caused any misunderstanding.
“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.
Above I suggested what “NSIDC” did … Apologies to them: NOAA did it.
Note Walt Meier spotted that the Pic had an unusual extent cutoff & estimated it pretty good
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/ml/mspps/seaiceprd.html … is 25 %
Anyway: the Minimum lasted about 6 hours !
Daily JAXA:_______2007___ to___ 2010__& My Weather predictions
Spt_11-12______ – 15,569____+_18,594__
Spt_12-13______ -_4,219 ____+__3,750 (Anti-Dipole)
Spt_13-14______ – 32,500_____- 10,156 – weird __
Spt_14-15______ – 23,437_____- 57,500__
Spt_15-16______ -__157 _____ – High over Pole (clear?)
2007 has a 674K lead – – 2008: 233 K (K = 1000km2)
… 2010 should have ~3 days of runaway Melt (including today).
Why ? The High over Greenland is Actually OFF THE SCALE.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/map/images/fnl/mslp_01.fnl.html
Next on the Yo-Yo: Ice squirted out of Fram Strait is sucked Back in.
Please tell me politely why I am wrong. Thanks
Well, if all the Arctic Ice were gone, there’d be that much more albedo. This could result in greater land ice loss from Greenland.
Plus, ice is a good temperature buffer. Things would be more volatile without it.
(There would be, of course, benefits as well.)
More scary headlines from the BBC and Walt Meier is quoted.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11322310
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.’
Arctic ice could be gone by 2030 – Daily Telegraph 16 September
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8005620/Arctic-ice-could-be-gone-by-2030.html
“The August coverage was the second lowest for Arctic sea ice since records began in 1979.” The Telegraph used to be a good paper.
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.
David Effler says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:04 am
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.
—————————————————–
Exactly my sentiments, too.
Michael
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.
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.
geo says:
“Everybody makes mistakes. But you do get to suspicioning zealotry when mistakes always seem to be in one direction.”
Suspicioning. Love it
I suspect they actually do make mistakes in both directions, the essential difference being that when they make a mistake that makes their case seem weaker, they immediately check and correct it, whereas a mistake that makes warming/melting/whatever worse, they gratefully accept it without checking until forced to do so.
Of course the same accusation could possibly be made in the other direction – we check things closely if they challenge our ideas. But none of us are in charge of the worlds climate data….
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
Has anyone worked out the number of active icebreakers in the arctic with the average annual decline in sea ice?
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.
Excellent thinking. Fully agree. The only way to straighten out this mess is to be aggressive. Righteous indignation is a very effective strategy, and it carries a lot of weight these days. The civil servants in DC are beginning to take note now, so we should be hammering them at every opportunity. Personally in my correspondence I demand investigations, firings and de-funding. At the end of the day, maybe, we will see some accountability but we must aim high.
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:
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.
Whilst I am glad to see that the error was promptly corrected, it is still no excuse. We can argue endlessly that we should give them a little slack, etc, etc, but the fact remains that they are a tax payer funded organisation and should be accountable. Furthermore they should definitley be neutral and present the facts without any personal or political bias being allowed to creep in.
A comment above appears to criticise this post based on an error in a post in this blog by Steve Goddard.
bhanwara says:
September 15, 2010 at 11:45 am
Bored now.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/02/arctic-ice-increasing-by-50000-km2-per-year/
When it was corrected, it was at least acknowledeged and the original post with apologetic addendum was left up for all to see. It didn’t just evaporate. Steve Goddard even went as far as correcting a readers comment which supported him by acknowledging another comment was correct and added: “my conclusion is flawed.”
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?
Thanks Marty, Anthony. Good team work!
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?
After reflecting on many of these posts, it seems to me that certain AGW skeptics simply are having a problem with the fact that there was no follow-on “recovery” to the 2008-2009 quasi-“recovery” and so there is s tendancy to want to pounce on any slightest little honest error that the so-called “warmist” group might make. The long term trend in Arctic Sea ice and global sea ice is quite clear and it’s downward. This year in 2010 we saw the largest drop (or possibly second largest) in sea ice area from the March maximum to the September minimum, and this just didn’t match up with all the talk early on in the season of the “big recovery in MY ice” etc. As much as 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.
The trend continues down, and the only real discussion should be the reasons. AGW or some other cyclical and natural causes…