As many readers have noted, one of the Arctic sea ice extent plots on our WUWT sea ice page took a Serreze style nosedive today:
Source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/plots/icecover/icecover_current.png
According to DMI (Danish Meteorological Institute), this is the source of the data:
The ice extent values are calculated from the ice type data from the Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility (OSISAF), where areas with ice concentration higher than 30% are classified as ice.
And when I backtrace from OSISAF to find what satellite/sensor they used, this is what they say:
Data used: SSM/I (DMSP F15), ECMWF forecast for atmospheric correction
The glitch is reminiscent of the Feb 2009 failure of an SSMI sensor used by NSIDC.
That failure showed up on NSIDC’s plot, and when I pointed it out with a blog post NSIDC responded that it “isn’t worth blogging about“.
Click for larger image
A couple of days later they were forced by the failure of the sensor to take their data offline, so apparently it was worth blogging about after all.
They wrote in the press release at the time:
Last year, F13 started showing large amounts of missing data. The sensor was almost 13 years old, and no longer provided complete daily data to allow us to track total daily sea ice extent. As a result, we switched to the DMSP F15 sensor for our near-real-time analysis.
And as noted above, DMI uses SSM/I (DMSP F15), the same as NSIDC. Is this glitch worth blogging about? I think so since NSIDC was unaware last time that a problem had developed until we pointed it out for them.
This looks like the beginning of the problem on August 6th, as seen at the OSI SAF page:
Source: http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201108061200_pal.jpg
The day before on August 5th:
Source: http://saf.met.no/p/ice/nh/conc/imgs/OSI_HL_SAF_201108051200_pal.jpg
It may be related to the three Coronal Mass Ejections, (CME) that hit Earth about that time. From Spaceweather.com
Earth’s magnetic field is still reverberating from a CME strike on August 5th that sparked one of the strongest geomagnetic storms in years. Registering 8 on the 0 to 9 “K-index” scale of magnetic disturbances, the storm at maximum sparked auroras across Europe and in many northern-tier US states.
It is possible the satellite operator shut down the bird for protection, but nobody got the memo. There’s no mention of data outages on NSIDC’s page or at CT or other ice product websites that I’ve found. Or, the sensor data might be so corrupt as to be unusable, or the sensor has been fried by the CME.
So, like before, I’ll send NSIDC’s Dr. Walt Meier a courtesy note on this one and see what he says. NSIDC’s plot averages over 5 days, IIRC, so it won’t show up for a few days and they have time to correct it if in fact it is the satellite sensor data again.
This may be a sensor issue, or it may be an algorithm issue. Since other plots aren’t showing it, we know it doesn’t represent a real loss of ice, just loss of data.
Curiously though, I’ve noted another glitch half a world away:
Source: http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/ice_ext_s.png
Which looks to be unrelated, since it is the AMSR-E sensor on a different satellite.
Must be the day for glitches in sea ice.
Meanwhile, Row to the Pole‘s progress is slowing to a crawl:
Must be a sea ice glitch of a different kind.
UPDATE:
Dr.Walt Meier of NSIDC responds:
Hi Anthony,
This is quite clearly a data issue. We don’t work with the F15 satellite
anymore – we’ve been using the sensor on the newer F17 satellite, so I
can’t say if it is a a sensor problem or a processing issue at DMI. I
could be the CME, though it doesn’t seem to have affected the F17
sensor. From the image, it looks to be a missing swath of data, perhaps
from CME, perhaps from some other issue. A missing swath is not
particularly unexpected. Sometimes the data can be recovered later and
added in, sometimes not. The AMSR-E issue in the Antarctic also appears
to be due to one or more missing swaths of data on Aug. 5:
In our images, as you point out, we do a 5-day averaging to remove the
noise, often errors due to ephemeral weather effects, from the
timeseries. This avoids the day-to-day ups and downs that can be
misleading and provides a more representative overall trajectory (though
we do get occasional wiggles from the preliminary data used in the 5-day
data that is later replaced).
For the timeseries plot, we also interpolate over missing data (such as
a missing swath) using data for that region from the day before and
(when it becomes available) the day after. However, there doesn’t appear
to be any missing swaths in our F17 data over the last several days.
Info on the sensor we use and the interpolation are explained on our
website here:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/disclaimer1.html
You’re welcome to print the above, though if you do, I would appreciate
if you would also add the following links, where we addressed the sensor
issue and made corrections to the near-real-time data.
And also here, where I discussed some the issues dealing with
near-real-time data from satellite sensors:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/nsidcs-walt-meier-responds-on-the-sensor-issue/
These may be useful for new readers or to refresh other readers’
memories, such as some of the readers who posted in the comments section.
walt
——————————————-
Walt Meier, Research Scientist
National Snow and Ice Data Center
University of Colorado
UCB 449, Boulder, CO 80309
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 9:58 am
R.Gates says:
We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.
Henry@R.Gates (again)
1) the exact amount (of the increase in CO2) is 0.01%, namely from 0.03% (280 ppm’s) in 1960 to 0.04% (390 ppm)now.
_____
Sorry Henry, but the figure is 40%…from 280 ppm to 390 ppm is a 40% increase in the total amount of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere. No matter how you want to try and rework the numbers or use some odd metric, the truth is that by abosolute total tonnage or the total number of molecules, each with it’s own little greenhouse properties is 40%. Until you agree this is the true state of affairs, you and I cannot agree on anything else and there’s very little reason for continued discourse. Good day sir…
Anthony says:
REPLY: Exit question for R. Gates. Are you one of Al Gore’s trained presenters? – Anthony
___
? “Exit question”? Are you kicking me off of WUWT?
But to answer the question: No, and hell no.
REPLY: No, “exit question” to the point made, could have just said “post script” – Anthony
Thanks to Walt for the update, and to Anthony for posting it.
…just to let you know we do watch!!
John B.:
That is a missing swath of data. As I mentioned in my comment that Anthony posted, these happen from time to time, either due to errors, processing issues (sometimes all the data doesn’t get downloaded from the satellite for some reason), or satellite operations (sometimes they have do an orbit manuever, load software updates, etc. and they don’t collect data at those times).
For our timeseries plot, we interpolate so that we don’t get sudden drops in the timeseries line.
Walt Meier
NSIDC
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
And how much cooling is caused by the CO2 by taking part in the life cycle? – I hope you do know that plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow?
(don’t even bother to reply unless you have the exact figures + the details of how the experiments were done)
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
DJ says:
August 8, 2011 at 11:37 am
Thanks to Walt for the update, and to Anthony for posting it.
…just to let you know we do watch!!
+1
I’m still trying to find out if it was the wrong sensor or the inaccurate data reporting that caused inaccurate reports by CNN? Or was the CNN report correct?
BTW
I think there is a lot of information in Dutch history that suggests that the sea farers in the 15th and 16th century knew or were led to believe from “their ancient history” that there was a northern passage (to the other side of the world) . Many, like Barentzen (the most famous) lost their lives trying to find that northern passage.
Sorry, history is not my greatest subject.
that Dutch explorer’s name was Barents
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/53182/Willem-Barents
they named the Barents Sea after him.
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
——————–
When you accept that the increase has been 40% “of the CO2”, maybe you will deserve some sort of answer.
@waltmeier,
Many thanks.
John B
John B and R Gates,
You’re both quibbling. I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but Henry P clearly explained how he arrived at his .01 figure, and it’s as legitimate as the 40% number.
I understand why the 40% number is used: it sounds scarier. Even though the evidence [or lack thereof] indicates that more CO2 isn’t a problem. Same with quoting the amount of CO2 in billions of tons — it’s much more scary sounding than saying that CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by ≈0.01%. Alarmists rely on spin because they lack evidence of global harm from CO2.
Likewise, showing only the Arctic sea ice concentration is more alarming than showing the Antarctic, which isn’t scary at all:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_concentration_hires.png
Smokey,
If I were to buy a pint of beer at 3% alcohol, and another at 6% alcohol, that’s twice as strong, in anyone’s book. It’s not “3% stronger”, it’s twice as strong. If you don’t believe me, have a couple of them and argue it out with the traffic cop!
It’s not about being scary, it’s about being accurate.
And the Antarctic is a whole different story, as well you know.
R.Gates says:
“We got 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than at anytime in the past 800,000 years (and probably longer and it’s growing every year. This represents a continued forcing on the climate, despite pronouncements by skeptics otherwise.”
A big if that there is more CO2 than anytime during the past 800,000 years. With temperatures at times being much higher than now, therefore you don’t have to worry about it then as it has made virtually no difference. If it had made the difference during these past many thousands of years, we would be a few degrees higher now if it was only CO2 that counted. This simply proves that the higher CO2 levels now have made no noticeable difference over this time scale or it would now be the warmest over the past 800,000 years too.
John B says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm
HenryP says:
August 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm
Henry@R.Gates
How much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by the increase of 0.01% of the CO2, exactly?
#########
well the physics doesnt care about the percentage. The physics cares about the parts per million. The outgoing long wave radiation cares nothing for the percentage. So the percentage doesnt matter. What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling. And, if you believe that feedbacks are unknown ( could be positive, could be negative) then your best estimate would be about 1-1.2C per doubling. That’s just basic engineering. if you want to understand feedbacks, well then, that more uncertain . But if you want an estimate thats based only on well worn physics and engineering.. 1-1.2C
I will assume that “the increase of 0.01%” is the total increase of GHG as water vapour makes up about 95% of the effect, and all other GHG’s, including CO2 make up the rest. So even doubling CO2, has only a small effect.
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
So what was the problem? Was the sensor bad, did the sun somehow mess with data transmission, what?
Pamela Gray says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
——————————————————
Yep, linear, logarithmic – who cares. They both start with an”l”, right ?
steven mosher says:
August 8, 2011 at 6:07 pm
What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling. And, if you believe that feedbacks are unknown ( could be positive, could be negative) then your best estimate would be about 1-1.2C per doubling.
=====================================================
Steve, if this is not asking too much, could you point me to the very best reference, or references (non-paywalled) that give the number of 1 – 1.2C per doubling, preferably with high humidity in the tropics clearly taken into account.
I’m not doubting that this is the calculated number, just want to stay current on how it is derived.
A nuclear ice crusher Russian ship is taking tourist to North Poll every second week. Because the whole mass of ice moves clockwise = after 2 weeks, they can’t use same corridor. Therefore they slice another… and another… Those slices float south and melt = much less ice left. Plus, when sliced, ruff water brakes much more. But that is good for the Warmist. They know that: ice is white – reflects the sunlight – minus white ice, hopefully a small GLOBAL warming; to get them out of trouble…?!
What they don’t know is: water has mirror affect reflection also. 2] for 6 months in a year, there is no sunlight to reflect. 3] white ice is full of air, makes the ice perfect insulator. 4] minus ice; during the winter the water absorbs much more coldness. 5] with that extra absorbed coldness + the normal winter coldness; with double strength radiates south and intercepts the moisture = drops double amount of snow in Europe /USA = no moisture left for replenishing the ice on arctic ocean = domino affect. 6] that ice seats on salty seawater and constantly melts from below – needs replenishing every winter.
That was giving the big surprises to the shonky experts for the last 3 northern winters. The morons were expecting warmer, because of less ice – instead everything is opposite than their mythology /predictions. It means: the chain reaction was already triggered by those ice crusher ships; to take the shonky climatologist / bias media and other spectators further north. Less ice means colder northern winter. Because is colder there – the air shrink extra – to avoid vacuum – from the southern hemisphere lots of air goes north = on the southern hemisphere simultaneously record hot days. To learn how the climate function and much more http://www.stefanmitich.com.au
Back on July 28, 2011, I quipped
“I previously predicted “the arctic ice mass minimum will be more than enough to make a proper gin and tonic….. “. There was! And the G & T was delicious! I just wanted to warn you all – I’m going back for more ice…. and I’m quite thirsty! ”
Bloody hell! I must have been thirstier that I thought!!!! I promise I will NOT go back for any more ice! I’m sorry – truly! It won’t happen again…..
John B says
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/arctic-death-spiral-or-dead-sensor/#comment-714700
1) you cannot work in ppm’s because you have to put the increase in Co2 in context (i.e. next to)with the gases that also absorb at between 14 and 15 um which is mainly water vapor and oxygen. Nobody knows exactly how much water vapor is floating around in the atmosphere, it could be anything between 0.5 and 1.2%. We are not talking about clouds here. That is still separate. Oxygen also absorbs (very weak) at 14-15 but its % is very high, almost 21%. It appears to me man is adding a lot more water vapor in the air than CO2.
So the 0.01% increase in CO2 is very little compared to H2O and O2 and we don’t know if it is even a GHG, i.e. that the net effect of an increase in the CO2 is warming rather than cooling.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
2) As to the answers of my questions that you think I do not deserve: There are no answers. Nobody tested it….Tyndall and Svante A made big mistakes which they could not have foreseen because they could not look at the whole spectrum of the molecule. What the IPCC did, is look at the problem from the wrong end. They assumed that global warming is caused by an increase in CO2 (even though not everybody agreed with this at the time) and made an allocation (forcing) largely based on the observed global warming since 1750 versus the increase of the gas noted since 1750. None of the IPCC “profs” ever seem to have realised that CO2 also causes cooling…..it appears that this was simply forgotten or ignored. ….
It is the worst mistake a scientist can make.
steven mosher says:
well the physics doesnt care about the percentage. The physics cares about the parts per million. The outgoing long wave radiation cares nothing for the percentage. So the percentage doesnt matter. What you can do to get a first order estimate is plug your begining ppm and your ending ppm into a simple log equation. That will give you the first order effect, about 1-1.2 C per doubling.
so if you go from 100 to 200, that’s a doubling
Henry@steven
Steven, when I ask for test results I mean test results.
I am not interested in the “calculations”.
You have to come to me with the experiment’s method and an answer like:
radiative warming: W/m2/M3/0.01% CO2/24 hours
radiative cooling: W/m2/M3/0.01%/24 hours
biological cooling (due to the increase in greenery and forestry) : W/m2/M3/0.01%
If we have these 3 results, then we can actually determine what the net effect of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
As it stands, the science on the CO2 has not gone much further then when I finished here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok
I suggest you study that and let me know if there is something that you don’t understand.
Pamela Gray says:
August 8, 2011 at 7:36 pm
John B. what a silly comparison. Your beer experiment isn’t even close to atmospheric CO2 and is laughable. Try again.
—————-
Sorry you didn’t like my analogy. If not, try Stephen Mosher’s explanation. Either way, there has been a 40% rise in CO2 and a doubling is estimated to cause a 1-1.2C rise in temperature (pretty uncontroversial), or 1.5 – 4.5 with feedbacks (more arguably).
JohnB says:
and a doubling is estimated to cause a 1-1.2C rise in temperature (pretty uncontroversial),
HenryP says:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/07/arctic-death-spiral-or-dead-sensor/#comment-715021