It looks as if we are about to see the turn in Arctic sea ice, and if so it will be earlier than last year. But right at that same time, JAXA has decided to switch horses mid-stream.
They say timing is everything, and this timing couldn’t be more wrong. You”d think they would have waited until after the minimum had been recorded, so that there would be no questions or issues with the timing. But for some reason, JAXA has decided that now is the opportune time, right when everyone is watching. An update on their Arctic Sea-Ice Monitor page dated September 6th shows that they are switching from Version 1 to Version 2, and revising 2012. Of course the revision is for less ice:
In Sep. 2012 the arctic sea ice extent renewed the smallest record in observation history, but as the result of the version 2 using AMSR2 data of 2012, minimum sea ice extent became 3.18×106km2 which was 0.3×106km2 smaller value than Version 1 result using WindSat.
Here is what they display, on the plus side, at least they are keeping version1 in place until September 30th:
I have overlaid the two graphs, and it looks like all of the sudden about 250,000 square kilometers of ice has disappeared.
Note: I don’t have issues with their methodology, which is to remove uncertainty/noise related to the land mask boundary, which is always a good thing. But, the timing is certainly odd.
=============================================================
From their update page:
With the version upgrade of AMSR-E Level 1 brightness temperature data, geolocation errors were improved from ±10km to ±1km.
The Version2 sea ice extent was calculated after the analyzing the arctic sea ice concentration derived from the upgraded AMSR-E brightness temperature data.
In addition, the other satellite observational data (1980, 1990, 2000 and 2010′ s average of SMMR, SSM/I and WindSat) was used to calculate sea ice concentration after adjusting the brightness temperature of each sensor using AMSR-E as standard data, and the adjustment of the sea ice concentration threshold which counts the sea ice extent was applied to consist with the AMSR-E sea ice extent.
The modified processing point due to the improvement of the geometric precision of AMSR-E Level 1 brightness temperature data is shown on description below.
With version 1, sea ice can be falsely detected along coasts due to contamination of ocean pixels by the passive microwave emission of land (the false sea ice). To decrease this false sea ice, we applied the “land expanded mask” (See Fig.1).
By improvement in AMSR-E geometric precision and decreasing of the false sea ice, we stopped the land expanded mask in the processing of version2.
Compared to Version 1, Version 2 sea ice extent has increased.
For the purpose of eliminating the false sea ice near the coast, Land Expanded Mask consider horizontally and vertically adjacent pixels as land when the 3×3 box centered on the land pixel.
Version 1 used the land-ocean mask which is provided for SMMR and SSM/I, but for Version 2, due to the AMSR-E geometric precision improvement, we made new land-ocean mask which is adjusted for footprint size of the 18GHz band of AMSR-E (IFOV: 16×27km) and applied to the analysis of sea ice concentration.
Compared to Version 1, the sea ice extent of Version 2 has decreased.
![fig1-ii-1-SIC_AMSE_N_PS12_20030301_05diff_only-cncl[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fig1-ii-1-sic_amse_n_ps12_20030301_05diff_only-cncl1.png?quality=75)
In version 2, the false sea ice near the coast has decreased by the geometric precision improvement of the AMSR-E. But the false sea ice still cannot be removed completely, so we applied the land filter which Cho (1996) proposes. When at least one of 3×3 pixels was inspect as land, as the considering that the central pixel is effected by land spill over and has increased in sea ice concentration, central pixel will be replaced with the minimum value within the 3×3 pixels.
By applying this land filter process, sea ice extent of Version 2 has decreased in the melting period compared to Version 1.
After the observation halt of AMSR-E, the sea ice extent was calculated by WindSat in Verion 1, but in version 2, it was replaced by AMSR2 since July 2012.
In Sep. 2012 the arctic sea ice extent renewed the smallest record in observation history, but as the result of the version 2 using AMSR2 data of 2012, minimum sea ice extent became 3.18×106km2 which was 0.3×106km2 smaller value than Version 1 result using WindSat.
Furthermore, there is no modification in ranking of the successive sea ice extent due to the latest upgrade.
![fig2-1-Sea_Ice_Extent_ver1[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fig2-1-sea_ice_extent_ver11.png?quality=75)
![fig2-2-Sea_Ice_Extent_ver2[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fig2-2-sea_ice_extent_ver21.png?quality=75)
Fig.4 Arctic Sea Ice Extent during the minimum period
(Left:Ver.1, Right:Ver.2) – click to enlarge
Um, fool.
Steve Goddard’s put an interesting link up.
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull165/16505796265.pdf
Notes the high ice expanse in the Arctic.
Harold Ambler Sept 6 2013:
“You really can feel some of the people all of the time…..” (sic)
I wouldn’t advise it, Harold; you’ll get arrested.
Well it’s actually very simple. You see the earth has actually expanded, which is why the sea levels are going down, and when the earth expands, ice doesn’t expand, so the size of the ice relative to the blown up earth gets less.
Anybody who has ever studied the history of the world from the scratch marks on the main tunnel in the great pyramid of Giza, knows that those records of the history of the universe; which are precorded in those scratch marks, only make sense to historians if you know exactly where in the tunnel, the pyramid inch changes from one size to a new size.
So its the same thing with the JAXA ice; they probably adjusted their computer virus to bring it into accord with the pyramid inch.
So everything changes when it is more convenient.
I believe that at one time, the metre was exactly one ten millionth of the quadrant of the line of longitude passing through Paris; which is the way the French would do it.
And a nautical mile used to be the length of one minute of arc along the equator, making earth circumference exactly 21,600 nautical miles. Then they changed it to be exactly 1,000 fathoms, which is not 6,000 feet as the 4-H club lessons say, but is more like 6,076 feet which means a fathom is not 6 feet, but is 6.076 feet which is 6 feet and 0.912 inches; but then they decided that was too hard to remember so they changed one nautical mile to exactly 1852 metres.
Now I don’t know if that is the French metre that gose through Paris; but if not, they will change it again when it’s more convenient. Metrology is an exact science Climatology is not; so the pyramid inch is close enough for Climatology.
“You really can feel some of the people all of the time, as Lincoln said, but not all of the people all of the time.
To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, I Do Not Think He Said what you say He Said.
There has always been a problem with interpretation of this data along shorelines in the arctic. There have been a number of times that visible images show clear water, but the ice extent showed solid ice along the shore which peters out a few tens of kilometers from shore. These corrections just clear up that issue. As long as they applied the same analysis technique to all the years in the dataset, it should actually be better data. If they didn’t then I would agree that it is shenanigans, but that doesn’t appear to be the case.
They can adjust away all they want. Soon no adjustment in the world will be able to hide what will be occuring at both poles, winter and summer. All they will be able to do is postpone the inevitable.
I concur on the change in extent. It’s just over 250k different. Interestingly, the melt is going to stop about the same time for both datasets (roughly two weeks).
I guess this means, for the foreseeable future, all published papers and presentations are only going to include data up to 2012, and sea level measurements will have to be adjusted up to account for the missing ice (water).
I’ve come to the conclusion that the biggest challenge Climatology faces is not one of pure science, it is one of engineering. The physical act of accurately measuring our atmospheric/planetary conditions and recording them properly befuddles us.
I spotted it this morning (http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-and-notes-2/#comment-1409330). I’ve been downloading their data for a long time so I compared all of it back to 2002. In general it seems to have made the lows lower (i.e. summer) and the highs higher. I agree with Anthony that the timing sucks but I also agree that if it actually means the data is more accurate then that is a good thing.
Interestingly, their long term historical data which goes back to 1978 (which I got by asking them for it) don’t appear to have been changed (yet), although the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s averages on their revised graphs are different, so I’m really not sure what’s going on there.
Never plan poker with these people , for you stand no chance against people with such ‘luck’ that ever adjustments , by lucky chance , ‘always’ result in them being able to claim ‘its worse than we thought ‘
PEAK Season #’s look wonky. Didn’t you notice that when you did overlay?
I disagree w/ you-Ice was not lost at minimum-ice was gained at max.
& how could the both possibly be correct?
They have made the lows lower and highs higher, thereby creating the impressions the minimums are “worse than we thought”.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/jaxa-version-2-make-the-low-even-lower-and-the-great-big-con-continues/
As far as I know, microwaves underestimate ice at minimum because thy see melt ponds as water.
The adjustments should have gone int he opposite direction.
UM…. did the 1980s average just get revised upward? How TF is that?
I think it must be pointed out to them that if they put the older plots along with V1 for the purpose of comparison with V2 then its like comparing apples with oranges. If they do not start from scratch or update the old databases then what they would show would be bordering on fr@aud.
Somehow this quote seems very appropriate: “Figures don’t lie but liars figure:.
Is anything real now? How would one know? What is real and what is fraud? I look for Obama care to start eugenics once again and someone will want to cleanse the world just like Hitler. We repeat the same history over and over. It all reminds me of the Nazi’s, this time they are world wide and through out society. Green Cars, Ban guns, Social medicine, Green Energy and total government control. Wake up people…..
D’oh, others beat me to commenting on Harold’s quote. Darn! Was going to ask if that’s why Lincoln was such a popular president……:P
When I was a child my grandmother told me “A man with two watches cannot be sure what time it is.”
Later, in analytical chemistry class, my professor stressed the importance of making exact temperature measurements with a calibrated thermometer when calibrating volumetric glassware with the question “What do you expect to measure with a rubber ruler?”
Canonically, the measurements reported by the two protocols are incommensurable. Any effort to ‘harmonize’ the results is ad hoc and thus invalid.
It is a shame, they had a nice data set going…
Harold Ambler says:
September 6, 2013 at 9:46 am
You really can feel some of the people all of the time, as Lincoln said, but not all of the people all of the time.
Freudian Slip, Harold? I didn’t realize Lincoln was that ‘frisky’!
};>)
Version 2: Since we still can’t tell the difference between melt ponds and open water, and even get faked out at times by certain snow consistencies, what the heck, stop trying to winnow. Assume it’s all open water. DONE!
“Of course the revision is for less ice:”
Of course. They’ve revised ocean temperature data, they’ve adjusted land temperature data, and they even faked up to 80% of the ozone data.
I think Anthony should make a post that lists all of the climate science factors that were adjusted or revised by climate (and related) scientists and what the old and new results were and are. Some of them I am sure are valid such as the revised TSI data and it would good to list the valid adjustments as well.
Maybe it could be put it in the reference page (or pin it to the side) so it’s always easily accessible.
Just my two cents…
“I have overlaid the two graphs, and it looks like all of the sudden about 250,000 square kilometers of ice has disappeared.”
Why am I not surprised?
Speaking of Abe Lincoln, I learned this today:
tycoon
PRONUNCIATION:
(ty-KOON)
MEANING:
noun: A wealthy and powerful person, especially in business or politics.
ETYMOLOGY:
From Japanese taikun (great lord or prince), from Chinese ta (great) + kiun (prince). Earliest documented use: 1857.
NOTES:
The word was used as a title for the shogun of Japan. Abraham Lincoln’s aides used the word as an affectionate nickname for him. Later the word came to be applied to powerful people in business.