I’ve watched the hubbub over the AccuWeather video by Joe Bastardi that called NSIDC’s Sea Ice data into question, because it “seemed” to show lower Arctic Sea Ice values than that of JAXA or DMI. Here they all are:
JAXA AMSR-E Sea Ice Extent -15% or greater – click to enlarge
NANSEN Artic ROOS- Sea ice extent 15% or greater – click for larger image
NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater – click to enlarge
As you can see above, NANSEN shows more ice than NSIDC, and JAXA seems to be a bit less than 2007, in line with NSIDC’s presentation. It all boils down to different algorithms and methodology giving different interpretations.
Like Mr. Bastardi, many people are comparing NSIDC graphs to other similar graphs on a daily basis and they will continue to do so. For some, it’s like a sport, and there’s even Vegas style betting done on sea ice minimums now, and in some cases real money is used.
But as we’ve seen, eyeballing can be an error prone activity, and a risky bet.
Mr. Bastardi erred due to eyeballing, of that there is no doubt. NSDIC was gracious enough to fill him in on his mistake and Mr. Bastardi corrected his mistake once he was made aware of it. He had to retract his original video and replace it with the update on Sunday (a day early). It has been my impression that he’s got a weekday shift at AccuWeather.com, and if so, good for him to come in and make a new video on a Sunday. Here is his correction:
A poor quality copy of the original video (with the mistake) is here
As Joe found out, eyeballing can get you in trouble. I’ve made similar eyeballing mistakes in the past. It gets compounded when you use that mistake as a basis to call out some organization like NSDIC. I’ll echo Joe Bastardi in saying that my contact at NSDIC, Dr. Walt Meier, has been “above board” with me and maintains an open line of communication. This is despite our differences of opinion on the sea ice. The fact that we can communicate in a friendly and cordial way despite our difference in opinion, is why you’ll find guest posts from Dr. Meier here on WUWT, such as this one wrapping up the 2010 melt season.
Like there have been good things coming from our collaboration with NSDIC, there can be a something good come from this eyeballing mistake and video retraction.
As I’ve said before in previous posts, a lot of eyeballing can be avoided by NSIDC publishing the daily data as other sea ice organizations do. I suggest again that NSIDC publish daily data, so that there’s no need for eyeballing when hard numbers can be compared.
As many know, NSIDC’s Dr. Mark Serreze has made the sea ice issue very high profile with his “death spiral” comments to major media, resulting in NSIDC being highly scrutinized in the current, ahem, “polarized” debate on sea ice.
While Dr. Serreze’s statements have the unfortunate side effect of raising their profile, I think the best choice for the public that they serve (after all, it is a U.S. government funded organization) is to rise to the scrutiny your organization has created for itself and publish the daily sea ice extent data. Everyone wins when such a thing occurs, and it could go a long way towards eliminating the perception (right or wrong) that NSIDC is the “odd man out” on sea ice if they would publish the hard data as other organizations do.
I’m hopeful to see NSDIC’s daily absolute values published regularly like JAXA does here, NANSEN does here, the University of Bremen does here, and UIUC (Cryosphere Today) does here. By doing so, there’s then no excuse for not using hard numbers in addition to graphs rather than simply eyeballing squiggly lines when comparing to NSIDC. If there’s a question on one of the plot lines, a simple look at the daily data will settle it immediately, assuming NSIDC publishes in a form that the public can easily use. Here’s to hoping that they do.
In other news, the temperature of 80N has hit a low about equal to the low of normal climatology, (the green line) but a bit early:
- Danish Meteorological Institute – Mean Temperature above 80°N – click for more
The Antarctic Ice Extent remains well above normal:
- NSIDC Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater – click to enlarge
The Antarctic long term trend remains up:
While the Arctic long term trend remains down:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good for Joe. The thing I like best about the leaders of the skeptic community is that they are about an order of magnitude more willing to hear an adverse critique and adjust accordingly when there is merit. The other side, alas, has to be dragged kicking and screaming to the most milque-toast corrections.
It used to be that science was about dialogue, and getting it right in the end. It still is that way in the skeptic community even when a few black crow feathers have to be wiped off the chin.
From DCA engineer on December 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm:
The Navy’s oceanographer? This looks like what’s referred to:
http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/file/Commdocs/hearings/2010/Energy/17nov/Titley_Testimony.pdf
(this looks better centered)
The relevant part is on pg 3:
The mention of the “University of Washington’s Applied Physics Lab” basically refers to the esteemed Dr. J. Zhang, and the PIOMAS computer model, from which the famed “Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly” chart is generated. See this site. From there we find this interesting bit (note this is from the currently-showing version, could get updated):
Note the wording, especially at the end. Going by the standards by which the Wegman report was recently criticized, I think the Navy has committed plagiarism.
The statement is short and a quick read. Basically, it is many airy words, which summarize as the Navy saying they are in agreement with, and in no way in opposition to, the stated views and policies of the current administration (i.e. the Commander in Chief), as is expected of, technically demanded of, the US military. It possesses the fragrant bouquet of something researched and written by his staff, as the “borrowing” of the sea ice volume info suggests to me.
I cannot find the “last several thousand years” wording in it, and as I am loathe to give ClimacticProgression a hit, leading to seeing Joe Romm triumphantly explode all over his photoshopped image of WUWT while declaring total domination, I will assume that was tossed out in subsequent questioning by the CongressCritters. And that said reply will join the very long list of things that management has said under pressure which staff and knowledgeable people subsequently groaned about as it was outrageous exaggeration that cannot possibly be substantiated.
Curious Side Note: Formerly the famed PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Anomaly chart was officially to be updated every three to five days “depending on data availability” as it said on the Polar Science Center main page. And it wouldn’t be updated for weeks. Now the schedule is “approximately two week intervals”, and the latest chart is dated Nov 7, exactly one month old. Is someone having funding problems, trouble getting computer time? WUWT?
See – owe to Rich says:
December 6, 2010 at 9:48 am
Re John-in-CA on Eastern Greenland ice, and the overall Arctic ice picture.
It would be fun to see an ice bridge, wouldn’t it? I suspect though that closure of such is difficult with strong currents through the gap (until blocked by a massive iceberg?).
The point I really wanted to make, though, is that cold Eastern Greenland, Norway, UK, etc. is largely due to an anticyclone roughly centred on Greenland. The consequence is that Western Greenland is warm, relatively, and the ice anomaly in that region is quite negative.
Rich.
========
I’ve been watching the SW Greenland coast which is one of the few locations running behind on ice formation this year. Wind direction appears to be causing the coastal ice anomaly; http://sailwx.info/wxobs/winddirection.phtml?lat=69.338926923605&lon=-20.750857274738&radius=500
The overall Arctic sea ice trend fails to account for normal or accelerated regional ice formation. Cryosphere Today and Environment Canada are better sources for regional patterns unless I’m missing the section on NSIDC.
“It would be fun to see an ice bridge, wouldn’t it? I suspect though that closure of such is difficult with strong currents through the gap (until blocked by a massive iceberg?).”
: ) yes, it would be fun and, as far as I can tell so far, unusual. Arctic Ice migrates down the Eastern coast so its possible but, as you point out, subject to currents and wind.
Phil. and EFS Jr.,
Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding about the graphs.
[I know it’s late but I hadn’t been able to check back earlier.]
According to the Cryosphere Today picture from the U of Illinois, there is no ice on southern half of Hudson Bay. However, the residents of Churchill tell us that the polar bears have been out on the ice for weeks. There is no thought in my mind that anybody is playing games with the images, but I do wonder: if the satellites cannot pick up miles of ice, can I rely on them to measure the height of the ocean — with waves, wind, tides, . . . — to the width of a human hair?
An Inq;
that’s very interesting! Do you have a source for Churchill resident commentary? Or is this from personal acquaintances?
Here’s a Churchill PB webcam URL, dark (night) as I type this: http://www.bay.tv/polar-bear-churchill-webcam,3126
Brian H, I am not finding the original passage that I read about the polar bears already being out on the ice from Churchill — I think it was in the comments on a WUWT post. However, here is this quote from Churchill’s Steve Seldon on November 24: “the ice platform extended into the bay as far as the eye could see.” He discusses in his blog how the polar bears have left land and have gone onto the ice in Hudson Bear.
http://churchillpolarbears.org/2010/11/report-from-churchill-november-24-2010/
An Inquirer says:
December 9, 2010 at 7:24 pm
According to the Cryosphere Today picture from the U of Illinois, there is no ice on southern half of Hudson Bay. However, the residents of Churchill tell us that the polar bears have been out on the ice for weeks. There is no thought in my mind that anybody is playing games with the images, but I do wonder: if the satellites cannot pick up miles of ice, can I rely on them to measure the height of the ocean — with waves, wind, tides, . . . — to the width of a human hair?
I’m not sure which map you’re looking at but CT shows ice along the S shoreline and plenty near Churchill (do you know where Churchill is?)
Phil,
I understand this to be the latest U of I Cryosphere Today image: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg
Images are directly available from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
NSIDC does show ice along the southern edge of Hudson Bay. To be accurate, Cryosphere states that the images referenced above does not include areas where ice is less than 30%, so a difference between NSIDC & Crysophere can be understandable. But the reports from Churchill are more than 30% ice.
Any data that you get from NSIDC is unreliable. Check their MODIS snow cover Google Earth product. It shows that there hasn’t been any snow in the Northern Hemisphere this year.
P.S. I forgot the URL: http://nsidc.org/data/google_earth
An Inquirer says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:26 am
Phil,
I understand this to be the latest U of I Cryosphere Today image: http://home.comcast.net/~ewerme/wuwt/cryo_latest.jpg
Images are directly available from http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
NSIDC does show ice along the southern edge of Hudson Bay. To be accurate, Cryosphere states that the images referenced above does not include areas where ice is less than 30%, so a difference between NSIDC & Crysophere can be understandable. But the reports from Churchill are more than 30% ice.
And the CT map shows 95%+ ice off Churchill so I’m not sure why you’re suggesting there’s a discrepancy?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png
Phil, do you look at the image in my post? I do look at yours. Yes, I see the ice reported on your image which matches the ice on the image from NSIDC. But the image in my post is the U of I Cryosphere image which is the 14th (and repeated in the 15th) image in the WUWT sea ice reference page. In the last couple of days, the ice in this image has gotten close to Churchill, but this image had the Hudson Bay ice free long after the polar bears had left Churchill for the ice.
Again, I see where your Cryosphere image matches the NSIDC image for ice, but I do not know why there is not that level of ice on the Cryosphere image on the Sea Ice reference page.
An Inquirer says:
December 10, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Phil, do you look at the image in my post? I do look at yours. Yes, I see the ice reported on your image which matches the ice on the image from NSIDC. But the image in my post is the U of I Cryosphere image which is the 14th (and repeated in the 15th) image in the WUWT sea ice reference page. In the last couple of days, the ice in this image has gotten close to Churchill, but this image had the Hudson Bay ice free long after the polar bears had left Churchill for the ice.
Again, I see where your Cryosphere image matches the NSIDC image for ice, but I do not know why there is not that level of ice on the Cryosphere image on the Sea Ice reference page.
The images I showed are the CT high resolution images that they present on their website, in particular the one I showed is the view from over Hudson Bay. The ones you showed are some low resolution images from a non optimal angle for showing Hudson Bay Ice. Why WUWT continues to show those images rather than the High resolution ones I don’t know but they’re a waste of time if you want see the sea ice in the vicinity of Churchill. For that go here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/arctic.seaice.color.004.png
to Phil,
Thank you.
Note the recent decrease in Arctic sea ice extent, mostly consistent across the various graphs at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/
While this is unusual so late in the season, I see that Steve Bloom anticipated it in a recent post: “This year’s polar vortex breakdown may give us another late melt month (by moving warm air masses across the ice sheet)…” The current blip might owe more to winds than warmth (i.e., compression of the ice pack rather than outright melting). Yet the temperature distribution will retard ice formation for at least a little longer.
I predict that 2010 will end with a record low Arctic sea ice km2 reading.