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.
fishnski says:
September 17, 2010 at 3:23 pm
—-
Google climate change v weather. Your local weather proves nothing.
Anthony,
Guess you really don’t wanna look at the Jaxa plots now do you? haha
This year has been so hard to predict for sea ice… it really has…
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_JAXA_ASIE_DOY.png
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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.
Andrew30 writes,
“A deterministic system is not chaotic.”
Yes, they can be, and R. Gates is correct on this point as on many others.
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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly Topaz________________________T_ 6.26_____Min=5.69=16
Over at the Polar Science Center at the University of Washington data of the sea ice volume and their trend can be seen:
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
It believe the sea ice volume is much more important than the extent and according to that 2010 shows a drastic new minimum.
Another article here is also informative:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/28/arctic-sea-ice-volume-northwest-passage-david-barber-antarctic-sea-ice/