NOAA's sea ice extent blunder

R. Gates says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
The trend continues down, and the only real discussion should be the reasons. AGW or some other cyclical and natural causes…
=======
I disagree. One of the things that triggered my interest in the Climate debate was the misrepresentation of information. Photoshop Polar Bears, misleading comparisons of polar ice, declarations about the Northwest Passage, inaccuracies in the media, projections that never occurred, etc.
They say a picture tells a 1000 words so please take a look at the image above and compare it to either UI (30%-100%) or NSIDC (15%-100%). The image was either manipulated or the satellite is a piece of junk that only sees 50%+ ice extent. The image is extremely misleading in relation to the red outline showing “average extent” which should be much smaller if the 50% lower limit is imposed on 1979-2009.

R. Gates
The trend continues down, and the only real discussion should be the reasons. AGW or some other cyclical and natural causes…
Unacceptably fail logic of failhood from failtopia, where failknights joust with failances over faildamsels to claim the title of fail.
The trend, in this case, is not defined by any starting or ending points other than the existence of a measurement record. Without any natural demarcation of how “trends” should be assigned, we are left at the mercy of only the data window to dictate the trends. If we made the trend window three year intervals, we would have a series of down trends and a recent uptrend. If we made it six year intervals, we would have several downtrends and a (probably) sharp increase due to averaging in 2007. Etc, Etc, Etc.
Other ways to look at the clinging to the 30 year trend (again, which only exists because of our application of a measurement window, not in observation of some natural phenomena)
“A trend in any given direction requires symmetry before a new trend can start”
“I set no boundaries for the period of time over which I will consider data to be a trend”
“The length of time in our measurement window is significant.”
If I diet for fifteen years and lose thirty pounds, then I start eating at McDonalds for two years and I gain four pounds, would you say that I am still on a diet because my overall trend is down? Of course not.
The reason for this is that I have shown you the boundaries for my trend windows: Dieting, then McDonalds signify the periods over which you can have confidence in your trend, and those windows have been supplied for you by the question.
Without explaining why in the past three years the artic seems to have accrued ice by most measures, you are stuck making the statement that I must still be dieting because, overall, I’ve lost weight. Silly.

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?

Buffoon… I have to note that in your example you have provided a clear mechanism that explains the gain of four pounds.
That is the challenge here with arctic sea ice. The longer trend is clearly well below the 2 standard deviation negative trend. To clearly show a positive trend those sea ice extent figures need to be ABOVE the 2 standard deviation mark. And then at that point you’d have a lot of scientists scratching their heads and asking what the heck is causing it. But we are far from that point.
A rebound to the overall long term trend is not really a rebound of sea ice. It’s a rebound to the negative trend.

John from CA says:
September 16, 2010 at 8:10 am
R. Gates says:
September 16, 2010 at 7:20 am
The trend continues down, and the only real discussion should be the reasons. AGW or some other cyclical and natural causes…
=======
I disagree. One of the things that triggered my interest in the Climate debate was the misrepresentation of information. Photoshop Polar Bears, misleading comparisons of polar ice, declarations about the Northwest Passage, inaccuracies in the media, projections that never occurred, etc.
They say a picture tells a 1000 words so please take a look at the image above and compare it to either UI (30%-100%) or NSIDC (15%-100%). The image was either manipulated or the satellite is a piece of junk that only sees 50%+ ice extent. The image is extremely misleading in relation to the red outline showing “average extent” which should be much smaller if the 50% lower limit is imposed on 1979-2009.
______
The photoshop alteration of Polar Bear pics is not the issue here…as the issue is the long-term trend. The Arctic Sea ice is in a long-term downward trend. One cannot look at this chart of the longest term reliable data from the 1979-2008 mean anomaly and see anything other than a long-term downward trend:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
If someone took poetic license to display this trend with a polar bear on a melting ice berg, then that has nothing to do with the the science or the data. 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.
To move this conversation forward it is far more constructive to admit the longer term decline and look for causes and future projections. This nit-picking over every little wiggle on the way down to an ice-free summer Arctic is hardly constructive.

Doug Proctor says:
September 16, 2010 at 9:28 am
Reviewing this NOAA propaganda report wrt the WUWT Sea Ice graphs and maps, I wondered as follows:
The Arctic sea-ice anomaly didn’t move into the negative territory until, at the earliest, 1995. This could be because it was thinning but not at the “disappearance” point before that. Is there ice thickness data from 1979 to 1995 to see when the thinning, if it was significant prior to 1995, occurred?
Were ice to melt from top down or bottom up GLOBAL warming, the thinning would be seen in long-term, multi-decadal data. If the Arctic melt is dominantly a result of the PCO, with introduction of warmer waters through the Bering Strait, OR a change in wind patterns to concentrate the ice/cycle it faster across the Arctic and out Greenland way, the “thinning” will either not occur until we were substantially looking at new, i.e new thin ice, behaviour or will occur simultaneously with the 1995 reduction in extent.
____
This notion is of course completely refuted by the larger increase in land temperatures in the Arctic regions than anywhere else on the planet over the past 30 years, as well the the increased melting of permafrost in the same Arctic regions. The area is simply getting warmer, the sea ice is declining on a year-to-year basis, permafrost is melting, and this is all been predicted by GCM’s when factoring in the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s. The biggest fault with the GCM’s is that they don’t seem to factor in some of the positive feedback processes as well as they could, so the change is happening even faster than they predicted, but event like the increased frequency of the Arctic Dipole Anomaly might be one of the results of these positive feedbacks, stemming mostly from atmopheric changes coming as a result of more open water and warmer temps in the Arctic region.

Science has now picked up the fumbled ball:
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/09/record-hot-summer-wreaks-havoc.html

K-Bob says: September 15, 2010 at 10:46 am
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!
______________________________________________________________
Yes and notice the error was just in time for the mental midget media to pick up for screaming headlines about the Arctic sea ice loss the season. Retractions of course are never front page but always hidden on the last pages in tiny print if at all.
If Marty and Anthony had not been so quick off the starting block I am sure we would see the dramatic decline in Sea Ice featured in the Huff and Puff and The Grauniad.
OOPS, I was too optimistic. Huff & Puff September 16, 2010
“WASHINGTON — Tens of thousands of walruses have come ashore in northwest Alaska because the sea ice they normally rest on has melted…
Although last year was a slight improvement over previous years, Serreze says there’s been a long-term decline that he blames on global warming.
“We’ll likely see more summers like this,” he said. “There is no sign of Arctic recovery.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/melting-sea-ice-forces-wa_n_715911.html

“WASHINGTON — Tens of thousands of walruses have come ashore in northwest Alaska because the sea ice they normally rest on has melted…
Although last year was a slight improvement over previous years, Serreze says there’s been a long-term decline that he blames on global warming.
“We’ll likely see more summers like this,” he said. “There is no sign of Arctic recovery.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/14/melting-sea-ice-forces-wa_n_715911.html
______
Mark Serreze often tends to be a bit on the extreme end in his approach and even in his forecasts, but given how far off the GCM’s were in how quickly global sea ice would decline prior to 2007’s big decline, it is at least somewhat foregiveable. He’s shooting at a moving target that is trending down, but changing it’s rate of decline in a chaotic manner…i.e. it’s still going down, but in a unpredictable way…hmmm…kind of like a spiral (but a chaotic one). Still, Mark is correct in the bigger picture, as most sea ice experts are…we’ll see an ice free summer Arctic within the next 20 or so years.

Doug Procter-
You seem to have a difficulty interpreting the significance of anomalies. Anomalies are always based on a reference period. Using the NSIDC as an example in which the reference period is currently almost the same as the total period pictured (it was not this way before Jan 2010 when the reference period jumped from a 20 to a 30 years, and the “negative” transition point jumped back a few years). Negative and positive are only relevant when comparing to the “average” for the period. Overall the trend has been negative over the whole measured period for any smoothed for more than a few years.
Example: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
The “Arctic Ice Race” is always fun and it is interesting to see who gets their predictions right. Because of “noise” in the system everyone will get it more or less right sometimes as long as they stay relatively close to the overall trend. But the bottom line for climate is the overall trend. Individual annual ice races are similar to weather forecasting: they are very relevant on the short term, but Climate is longer term and involves human generations. Thirty years is often used as a reference point to establish trends because….well…for one reason; that is somewhat longer than the period frequently used to define a human “generation” and it is the next few human generations many of us concern ourselves with.
Yes, it would be very nice to have more than 30 years of satellite data to reference from. We don’t.

“. . . nit-picking over every little wiggle . . . ” (R.Gates at 10:32)
I agree. While it is good to keep the reports and the data accurate in a timely fashion there is entertainment value but otherwise important questions are sidetracked. Looking to the future, as those of you making predictions are doing, I ask that you state the parameters of the decline in Arctic Ocean ice that you believe should be accepted as indicating a major climatic happening. Are we looking for absolutely no ice for one week or two, or what number. Or will some ice, say less than 10% qualify, or some small number, say 50,000 sq. km? So decide on how this event shall be described and then you predictive-types can post your answers.

John from CA wrote >>”Trend from 1979 to 1995 is predominately positive not negative — a majority of the values are above zero and its not 1 year.”
The fact that most of the values plotted are above the “0” line is simple an indicator of those years’ positions in relationship to the average of the 30 year period. Their overall trend relative to each other is without a doubt negative. The value of the “0” line irrelevant in establishing this fact.
>>”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.”
No weed to. I have heard it before.