I’ve been aware of this for a couple of days on our Sea Ice page, but hadn’t done anything about it since I wanted to see if it might change. When blogger Kate of Small Dead Animals noticed it and published on it, I figured it was time to start asking NSIDC some questions.
Compare this NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice extent chart…
…with this from Cryosphere Today:
The NSIDC plot has since intersected the 2007 line, but CT has no new images up since 10-27-10:
It certainly appears that there is more ice in 2010 than 2007 on the Cryosphere Today page. CT hardly ever responds to email, so I didn’t even bother asking them why the discrepancy. NSIDC’s Walt Meier though, takes our concerns seriously and responded rather quickly to my questions:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: Walt Meier
To: Anthony
Subject: Re: you might have a problem
Sent: Oct 29, 2010 8:42 AM
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for the heads up. I looked at it and it doesn’t look like there
is any problem.
As we went through before with Steve [Goddard], looking at the images can be
misleading because they’re not on an equal area projection. There is
more ice in the central Arctic this year, but less in the Beaufort Sea,
Canadian Archipelago, and Baffin Bay. These areas roughly balance each
other out.
I also recall Cryosphere Today having an issue of changing their images,
so I don’t know if you can consistently compare them anyway – it looks
like their 2007 image is missing some ice. Attached is our concentration
images from 2007 and yesterday and there doesn’t look like much
discrepancy (apologies for the different image sizes).
walt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I fixed the size differences, and here they are:
Of course we don’t have the daily extent data from NSIDC, since they so far have refused to publish it (they do give monthly though) so, we have to be content with image comparison rather than data comparison with NSIDC.
=======================================
Walt, as I said before, you really should publish the daily data. Consider how this looks: NSIDC director Serreze screams “death spiral” to the media while at the same time holds back publicly funded data. It is the same sort of bull-headedness that got CRU in deep trouble. – Anthony
=======================================
UPDATE: Reader Lee Kington provides this blink comparator version:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ice in 2010 is showing more concentration over most of the area. This ties in nicely with reports that winds had compacted the ice. It would appear the recovery is proceeding nicely even though the extent did not go up significantly this year.
Dave Springer says:
“Roald Amundson navigated the Northwest Passage in 1906 in a 70 foot fishing boat. That feat wasn’t possible again until 2007.”
According to my count at least 12 ships passed through the Northwest Passage 1940-2006. Since nobody tried it between 1906 and 1940 it is hard to say whether it was possible or not. It almost certainly was possible in the (warm) 1930’s when the Hudson Bay Company routinely ran supply ships to Cambridge bay both from west and east.
Anthony Watts, maybe you have already answered this, but I don’t have the time to read everything here.
I was wondering if you could explain what happened in that other blog post (Sea Ice News #27) where you also questioned a difference between datasets, but made a crucial (though relatively simple) mistake in the spreadsheet. How did the mistake come about? Is it possible that you make more mistakes every time you cast doubt on extent numbers from various datasets?
A part of this sentence
“same time holds back publicly funded data” is unecessary to state the issue.
Holding back publicly funded data is unacceptable.
same time holds back publicly funded data
I’ve asked Walter Meier about this once and he gave me a very straightforward answer, not at all evasive. I’m sure Anthony could ask him that too and then tell us what the answer was. NSIDC has good reasons for publishing data on a monthly basis, instead of daily.
Ill doers are ill deemers?
Gunther, I agree that those who focus their rebuttal on the person instead of the scientific argument they disagree with, argue from a position of weakness to such a degree that often as not, a point is earned for the other side. Who’s side are you on? I would offer a suggestion that you re-post your rebuttal in a way that earns points for your side.
I love that book, “All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten”. I am reminded of my rule with 5th graders. In the day to day behavior of life at school, only tattle on yourself (hurting of any kind is the exception).
http://www.kalimunro.com/learned_in_kindergarten.html
Günther Kirschbaum says:
October 31, 2010 at 2:24 pm
…………..”Ill doers are ill deemers?”
=============
Quite the accusation you threw up, trying to get a reply.
Maybe you could reproduce your correspondence with Walt, for all our benefit.
Owen says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:04 am (Edit)
Steve Mosher says:
“that le[a]ds to an interesting question. what would have to happen to arctic ice for people to change their minds.”
———————————————————————-
That should be an uncomfortable, soul-searching question for many on this blog.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen no evidence that the skeptic/denialist position would change in the slightest if the entire arctic ocean were ice-free in the summer by, say, 2020. They would simply say it is natural causes, it happened before, etc. For most of the commenters on this and other such blogs, theirs is a true denialist position, and the data be damned, along with the scientists who collect it.
Let me answer then:
If lowering ice extents is a symptom od a warming planet – and ALL skeptics see a constantly warming planet since the mid-1650’s – then is it not logical to EXPECT lower ice extents?
Who is denying anything?
We are seeing the natural results of a 400 year warming up-half-cycle since the 1650’s. It is reasonable, expected, and a completely foreseen observation to witness lower Arctic ice extents. Now, what YOU need to do is to establish that today’s lower ice extents – of a 400 year long term cycle combined with a short 60 year cycle – are ENTIRELY due to the recent rise in CO2 levels between 1950 and 2010.
And you cannot do that.
Global temperatures have risen while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have fallen while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have been steady while CO2 levels have been stable.
Global temperatures have fallen while CO2 levels rose.
Global temperatures have been steady while CO2 levels rose.
Global temperatures have risen while CO2 levels rose.
Now, just what relationship do you propose exists between global temperatures and CO2 levels?
You cannot argue ice extents are lower DUE TO recent CO2 levels being higher. You can only argue (with no evidence) that global temperatures have influenced ice extents. Of course, any prior evidence that earlier ice extents were lower than today – while CO2 levels were assumed lower – invalidates your theory.
—
As an aside, you must also establish some link between a disappearing Arctic ice extents for 1-2 months in the summer will lead to the NSIDC’s “panic” about death spirals. However, since all measured daily Arctic summer temperatures by DMI since 1958 above 80 north latitude have consistently DECREASED at the same time that ice extents have lowered AND CO2 levels have increased, you will fail there as well.
How’s this for starters?
Stephen Wilde,
Transport data into Excel and run linear regression.
The trend in sea ice loss is 40 000 sq/km/year for the period 1979 – 1998 (there is no September data for 1978 – the satellite record begins in November or December).
By 2010, the trend for the period has doubled. Both results are statistically significant.
iii) Then we see a fall for about 10 years as the 1998 El Nino and the effect of all those El Ninos leading up to it steadily filter into the Arctic Circle melting sea ice in the process.
Do you have any basis for the idea that accumulated el Nino heat is transported Northwards with a ten year lag?
We have a statistically significant downward trend for the first 20 years, and a steepened trend for the whole period. There is no scientific basis for the proposition you consider to be ‘likely’.
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/ ~nigam/ Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
Here’s a clickable version of the link above.
http://www.atmos.umd.edu/~nigam/Linkin-Nigam.JCLIM.May.2008.pdf
racookpe1978 says:
October 31, 2010 at 5:05 pm
“Now, just what relationship do you propose exists between global temperatures and CO2 levels? You cannot argue ice extents are lower DUE TO recent CO2 levels being higher. You can only argue (with no evidence) that global temperatures have influenced ice extents. Of course, any prior evidence that earlier ice extents were lower than today – while CO2 levels were assumed lower – invalidates your theory.”
————————————————————————
Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis. Both can have major effects, either cooling or warming. Both however occur on far longer time scales that we are dealing with in the current warming. When such long-term but powerful forcings cause warming, increases in CO2 follow as a positive feedback. At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2. The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing. Top of atmosphere satellites clearly document a net energy accumulation of energy, and the TOA IR spectrum shows that the CO2 absorption band is responsible for an increasing reduction of outgoing radiation in the wavelength range of 15 microns.
You need to actually read some science (try Spencer Weart on the American Institute of Physics website: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/summary.htm ). Scientifically, your last sentence above is utter nonsense.
Dave Springer says:
October 31, 2010 at 7:30 am
EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 9:48 pm
re; cycles in sea ice extent
Pay attention now junior as obviously you weren’t paying attention in history class.
Roald Amundson navigated the Northwest Passage in 1906 in a 70 foot fishing boat. That feat wasn’t possible again until 2007.
Ya think it was anthropogenic CO2 that opened up the passage in 1906?
The 60-year AMDO is but one cycle but it’s an easy one to see in land temperature records. There is also PDO and ENSO cycles that beat at different frequencies. Sometimes they are out of phase and sometimes the phases line up. Since none of them are exactly the same length on each cycle it makes forecasting much into the future difficult but in the near term they can all be seen and it appears they are all lining up on the cold side of their cycles (in phase) as we speak. Global warming alarmism will probably morph into global cooling alarmism by 2030 (20 years from now) just like it was the rage in the 1970′s. Climate alarmism is a 60 year cycle too.
_____________________________________________________________
With respect to Amundson, he took the most southerly route possible, and it took him more than one season to transit, three winters, in fact, started in 1903 ended in 1906.
“The Northwest Passage was not conquered by sea until 1906, when the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, who had sailed just in time to escape creditors seeking to stop the expedition, completed a three-year voyage in the converted 47-ton herring boat Gjøa, after three winters trapped in ice.”
“After a third winter trapped in the ice, Amundsen was able to navigate a passage into the Beaufort Sea after which he cleared into the Bering Strait, thus having successfully navigated the Northwest Passage.”
“Due to water as shallow as 3 ft (0.91 m), a larger ship could never have used the route.”
And yes, Larsen completed the NWP in 1944 in 86 days travelling 7,300 miles.
The current NWP record is 12 days by one person in a sailboat set this year.
http://www.astralexpress.com/press-release.htm
“The Northwest Passage has only recently become a navigable reality with the aid of satellite technology, which has given sailors the ability to monitor ice flows, and therefore a safe passage during the months of August and September. Warmer Arctic conditions have also contributed to making this milestone achievable.”
Though we’ll never know what would have been possible in the past given today’s technologies.
“Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis. “
Who I listen to (on the radio) is irrelevant.
I could (should ?) claim you are listening to too many hysterical liberals such as Al Gore, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Sharpton, …. – the first who failed even his theology classes and the second who never took a science class in his life. (Assuming anybody ever saw his transcript – of course.) But my courses in heat transfer, thermodynamics, chemistry, electron diffusion, fluid flow, calculus, differential equations, numerical analysis, computer modeling, 3D modeling, FEA, physics, nuclear physics, general and special relativity, nuclear core analysis, neutron flow, activation, deacy and reactivity, statics, mechanics, dynamics, failure analysis, statistics, etc, etc are also irrelevent if I draw the wrong conclusions from the data. But I don’t.
We are discussing 800 year cycles over a 2400 year period. Your attempts to distract people’s attention by repeating abstract feedback terms and long-term sunlight deviations (120,000 and 25,000 year orbital periods) are worthless to the discussion.
“At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2. The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing. “
And the past 2000 years of evidence shows that your CAGW theory of “forcings” by CO2 is dead wrong. There is no evidence that your CO2 theory is good for anything but increasing the heartbreak and death of millions by artificially increasing energy prices worldwide – only to increase the money, power, prestige, and “feel goodness” that liberals desire. And provide the trillions in money that corrupt world politicians and liberals want.
There is no indication that your theory of radiation “forcings” is correct; worse, all of the actual data shows it to be, at best, a mere simplification of what actually happens that cannot predict even short-term conditions.
In the 1920’s, geologists “knew” how the world worked – until a single man was willing to challenge the system and propose that continents drift. Physics was “finished” and “all things are known” – according to the head of the Royal Society – just before radioactivity was discovered. That same Royal Society was dead wrong (politically and morally) about Longitude calculations, chronometers, magnetism, physics, astronomy, the globe, and every other discovery made since Newton. We “knew” the structure of the atom – until a few randomly scattered alha particles rebounded directly back at the observer. We “knew” how medicine and illness worked – an few dared challenge the established experts and “invented” germ theory. Do not claim “experts” or “accepted theory” to me – “accepted theory” merely means that the experts are wrong, and they have NEVER been proven right when even one “inconvenient” fact shows otherwise.
Do not tell me to “read science” – I have read science for a hobby, for a business, for safety, and for knowledge for longer than you have been able to read. Show me some facts that prove your theory. There are none: A single 25 year period in history when both CO2 and global temperatures rose at the same time tells me nothing but that you (climate “scientists”) don’t even know why there is 60 year short cycle. Nor can you tell me why there is a 800 year long cycle. Find out those reasons – then we can discuss what influence man has had on recent temperatures.
Until then, you have nothing but Mann-made global warming.
“There is no evidence that your CO2 theory is good for anything but increasing the heartbreak and death of millions by artificially increasing energy prices worldwide – only to increase the money, power, prestige, and “feel goodness” that liberals desire. And provide the trillions in money that corrupt world politicians and liberals want.”
That’s what I thought this was all about.
I don’t have much time these days, but a quick check of the actual CT numbers shows that Anthony is right in that there is a big difference in CT’s area and NSIDC’s extent comparisons:
10/29/2010: 6580593.1 km^2
10/29/2007: 5737530.7 km^2
2010 is currently 14.7% higher in area than 2007, agreeing with CT’s images that 2010 is well ahead of 2007 – so no, it’s not a projection issue or anything like that.
However, JAXA 15% extent paints a very different picture:
10/30/2010: 7965156 km^2
10/30/2007: 7883594 km^2
By JAXA, 2010 is only 1.0% ahead of 2007. And given the small discrepancies between databases and also NSIDC’s moving average plot (which presumably boosts previous years’ performance on any given current day during the refreeze period), there’s nothing too surprising about NSIDC appearing above 2010 right now. 2010’s extent performance has been quite poor the past few weeks, and I expect it to get passed by 2007 in JAXA soon.
Again, haven’t had much time lately, so I’m sorry if this is rehashing anything that has already been said above.
-Scott
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Does NSIDC classify this as ice, or just frozen foam?
There is a problem in the 10/28/2010 NSIDC image. There is absolutely no ice whatsoever in the Gulf of Finland, other than maybe someone tipping over on the deck of a cruise ship and turning a watered down Whiskey on the Rocks into a Really Watered down -version.
This is a minor problem as such BUT casts a big doubt as to how these images are made and how reliable they are. The gulf will possibly freeze in January but now the temps have been about 5-10C aroubd the clock for about a week and there’s still a lot of circulation going in the watermass – no freezing in sight.
wayne says:
November 1, 2010 at 3:34 am
http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam
Does NSIDC classify this as ice, or just frozen foam?
=======
It’s under 15% but a great point : )
JDN says:
October 31, 2010 at 8:45 am
@ur momisugly EFS_Junior says:
October 30, 2010 at 8:55 pm
Thanks. One more question. Usually with these huge packages there is a workflow that they never tell you about. Something like: Put all raw data in some named directory, Run some pre-processing program to stitch everything together, Run a big script which actually calls the main programs, Look at some new directory with several output formats plus error logs. If you could comment on that, it would make things easier.
_____________________________________________________________
It’s been a long time since I’ve been on *NIX systems, and AFAIK most of the NOAA/GSFC/NSIDC is targeted towards *NIX systems.
If there are *NIX scripts used for instillation (make files, etceteras) and you’re on a Windows system you may have to manually install all files AFAIK.
Source codes in C/Fortran need a compiler, gcc for Windows x64/x32 is available, and you can get the latest gfortran builds for Windows, again x64/x32.
I’ve never used any of the NSIDC gridded data, so I don’t know firsthand what all is involved in their instillations.
But some of their stuff is geared towards Matlab and R.
My mistake Wayne,
Your Barrow webcam is current conditions and NSIDC runs a day behind. Their current chart (Oct. 31) confirms ice off Barrow. The growth on the west side of Greenland has been pretty dramatic over the last few days; see the sea ice reference page and the Environment Canada chart.
Owen says:
>Where to start? You’ve been listening to too much Glenn Beck. You obviously are unaware that there are a variety of causes of climate warming or cooling, powerful causes such as changes in the ellipticity of earths orbit around the sun and changes in the angle of precession of the planet around its axis.
++++++++
Owen, those two are as you know, irrelevant to the present hysteria about CO2. Will you admit that it has reached lunatic proportions? If America objects to spending 80 billion $ a year to have health care for the poor, do you think they will $100 trillion in the coming 90 years to overcome the effects of precession and orbital changes?
++++++++
>…At the present time, there are no other known, accepted forcings other than CO2.
Accepted by whom? There are MANY other forcings! And you are directing others to read! Dang. Have you heard of Svensmark?
It may not have come to your attention that many of the previously monomaniacal Climate Taliban are changing their tune when it come to all things solar. Why? Because of the egg on their faces. Because it is becoming as plain as the warts on their arguments that the Sun affects cloudiness by mediating the GCR flux. This is hardly news, dating back to 1971, prior to the modern frenzy of cartoon CO2 science.
>The physics of CO2 absorption of outgoing IR radiation provides a well-understood explanation and model of forcing.
The physics of CO2 absorption have to be read in conjunction with the physics of H2O absorption or you have a meaningless mind-model. There is hardly any IR left to absorb with “all that” CO2. And in case you didn’t hear, the model solidly predicts that where the incoming solar radiation strikes the earth most squarely, the tropics, it will have the greatest heating ‘greenhouse blanket’ effect. Are you aware that this is the prediction/calculation? It is supposed to be like a greenhouse glass trapping the heat in the atmosphere – particularly, according to the physics of the theory, in the mid-altitudes at the equator. You may be interested, then, to know that there is absolutely no such heating to be observed in the atmosphere (the real one, not the theoretical one). None at all. Zilch. No CO2 or any other heating. The physical model is quite specific: CO2 will heat the 8-16 km altitude range 3 times faster than the surface. Because of the complete failure of that model (which you may not have read about) a new version was typed up saying it will heat at the surface faster. That version is not so solidly based on the physics of CO2 you refer to.
>Top of atmosphere satellites clearly document a net energy accumulation of energy(sic), and the TOA IR spectrum shows that the CO2 absorption band is responsible for an increasing reduction of outgoing radiation in the wavelength range of 15 microns.
It shows no such thing. Prove your assertion. The heat is not accumulating in the atmosphere (to everyone’s disappointment), it is not accumulating in the oceans (to everyone’s further disapointment) so where is this putative accumulation? If it was accumlating because of CO2 then according to the physics it would be heating at least SOME part of the atmosphere, especially the part where the theory says it will ‘trap the heat’. If it is not heating that part of the atmosphere where the heat is supposed to be accumulating? What is it heating, pray tell? It is not heating my back yard. It is not heating the Arctic enough to account for its supposed additional effect.
>You need to actually read some science …
Good heavens.
If one looks at long-term trends, heat is accumulating in both the atmosphere and the oceans. One can only see no warming if one considers short-term, data, but then we’re not discussing climate – just weather effects, and we can make this observation throughout the global temperature record, while the globe has warmed over the long-term.
The WMO posits 30 years as a climate-significant period, but 20 years is a good minimum to work with to get statistical significance for any period in the surface data sets. The atmosphere and the oceans have warmed over the last 20, 30, 40 years etc. One can select 2002 as a start date, and for some data sets there is no warming to present, but the trends are not statistically significant – weather noise overwhelms the underlying signal and gives spurious results.
(Similarly, but with the opposite result, one can select 2006 or 2008 and derive an extraordinarily positive trend, but then this is simply compounding the original error even further. Eg, the linear trend from 2006 using UAH data is 0.5C per decade, and the trend since 2008 is 2.6C per decade! Lesson: deriving trends from short-term, noisy data tells you nothing about climate)