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
On a related topic we need to keep a close eye on Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University who is sure of something or other. Will he be our new Viner of the Arctic? Just 0, 2 or 3 years to go.
Independent – 27 June 2008
Exclusive: Scientists warn that there may be no ice at North Pole this summer
“…..It is quite likely that the North Pole will be exposed this summer – it’s not happened before,” Professor Wadhams said.”
[Professor Peter Wadhams]
Guardian – 17 September 2012
“This collapse, I predicted would occur in 2015-16 at which time the summer Arctic (August to September) would become ice-free. The final collapse towards that state is now happening and will probably be complete by those dates“.
[Professor Peter Wadhams]
Financial Times Magazine – 2 August 2013
“It could even be this year or next year but not later than 2015 there won’t be any ice in the Arctic in the summer,”
[Professor Peter Wadhams]
But the historical was measured with JAXA 1, which means future measurements are not comparable to the historical. That does not sound like accuracy.
Ursus Augustus says:
September 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm
“V1->V2 is just fiddling at the edges really. The graph has bounced back about 50% of the perturbation from the mean of the past 30 to 35 years in only a year or two.
Now thats a comeback. Just more evidence of the utter hysteria created over AGW.”
Yes, the good news is that it is a large comeback from last year. The bad news is that there is just as much hysteria on this site as most sites on either side of the issue. And just as many that have already made up their minds, and closed it to further evidence. There’s every bit as much paranoia, conspiracy allegations, and general wing-flapping here on this site, as any site dealing with this issue.
I respect Anthony’s initial presentation in this thread that the parameters are being adjusted at a seemingly inopportune time. And he gave credit to the fact that it may be an improvement overall to the data. But it has gone way downhill from there. Now, it is seemingly agreed to on this site that it is all a clever, premeditated ploy to distort the data for a political agenda. Anthony, really? You are egging on the fact that the adjusted data exaggerates this year’s ice melt, yet don’t qualify it with the fact that all melts are similarly reduced, and even say that you were being conservative in stating this year’s adjustment?
I haven’t even decided which side I am on. I used to be in the academic world and understand the egos of scientists, the drive to publish, and the value of shock to garner attention. I now see that this side is similarly handicapped. I guess I will have to keep looking to find opinions that are not stilted to either side.
I don’t really care if everyone here thinks that I am a troll, insane, stupid, or ‘a sheeple’ (that is a term for the closed mindedness on this site, btw). I just felt the need to say what I feel, and you can now get back to reinforcing each other’s paranoia and arrogance. I will simply keep seeking the truth, and I still respect Anthony greatly. I just wish he would stick to the real evidence and give up this moment of fame for a place in history where his battle for scientific reality proves damaging to all political hacks, not just the ones that disagree with him.
Using calibrated eyeballs, it looks as if the mins got lower and the max’s got larger. So the net % change between max and min has now been MADE to be larger.
One way or another Arctic sea ice will disappear… LOL
sunshinehours1 says: @ur momisugly September 6, 2013 at 1:59 pm
All the Jaxa differences are graphed here:
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/jaxa-version-2-all-the-other-graphs-compared/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks (BOOKMARKED)
It makes the skullduggery a lot clearer doesn’t it? It reminds me of this comparison of the GISS ‘Adjustments’ for global temperature that Jo Nova published. link
Go Home says: @ur momisugly September 6, 2013 at 6:07 pm
Using calibrated eyeballs, it looks as if the mins got lower and the max’s got larger. So the net % change between max and min has now been MADE to be larger.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
YUP. The better to SCARE the Chicken Littles… OH my the Ice is Melting, Its Melting!
Incompetence or malfeasance, neither is acceptable.
Oh Dear!
[And the Band kicks in]
Trouble ahead,
Lady in Red
Take my advise,
You’d be better off dead
Switchman’s sleep’n,
Train hundred and two
On the wrong track
And head’n for you.
[Choras; All Aboard!]
Drive’n that train,
High on Cocaine
Casey Jones is ready,
Watch yo’ speed
Trouble ahead,
Trouble behind
And you know that notion,
just crossed my mind.
[Ending theme]
Trouble with you,
Is the trouble with me
Got two good eyes,
But you still don’t see
Come round the bend,
You know it’s the end
The fireman screams,
And the engine just gleams.
[Fini]
😀
Mike’s Nature Trick lives on.
“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.” Sorry Harold, that quote came from former San Diego Mayor Bob Filner, not Lincoln.
They are just taking the piss. What they are saying is, “you might have the facts and truth on your side, but we have the politicians, the MSM and the datasets in our hands, howjafeel?”
I don’t really care if everyone here thinks that I am a troll, insane, stupid, or ‘a sheeple’ says: at 5:58 pm
“I haven’t even decided which side I am on.”.-snip- I just felt the need to say what I feel, and you can now get back to reinforcing each other’s paranoia and arrogance.
——————-
Your indecision is not so apparent to this reader…
No surprise here.
JAXA comes from the same people who for three years told the World that after the massive earthquake and Tsunami, Fukushima was finally safe…
Commentated at Lucia’s earlier on this. If they remove the ice at the sea land edge the overall volume should be lower at all times yet the winter maximums are larger. What gives? JAXA only running since 2002 so all adjustments prior must be very sus.
On a lighter note the recovery this year is still very evident and hopefully will continue and make a mockery of the warmest claims.
We were told scientists were “befuddled” that sea levels were in fact not rising because of the “big wet” in Australia in 2010/2011. Now the seas are rising faster then thought?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/seas-may-be-rising-faster-than-predicted-scientists-20130906-2tanz.html
mogur2013:
Your post at September 6, 2013 at 5:58 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/06/jaxa-timing-worst-ever-switching-arctic-sea-ice-software-right-as-the-minimum-is-about-to-happen/#comment-1409987
Is a very poor example of concern trolling.
I am sure you could have disguised your purpose much better if you had put more thought into your post before sending it. For example, you write this
Rubbish!
Whenever warmunists come here wailing about how Arctic ice will all be gone, I and others ask them why they care because the loss would have benefits (e,g, shorter and safer shipping routes) but no known harm.
That question we put to alarmists is not indicative of “paranoia, conspiracy allegations, and general wing-flapping”. And it is certainly not “hysteria”: it is an expression of being unconcerned. Furthermore, it is a request for ANY information which would justify alarmism and is the opposite of being “closed … to further evidence”.
As for having “made up … minds”, we know as certain fact that climate data are all frequently “adjusted”. The global temperature data change so often that it has reached the stage whereby if you don’t like the data today then don’t worry because it will be different next month (n.b. this is NOT an exaggeration). And the adjustments always alter the past to enhance the AGW-scare. If the adjustments were to correct discovered errors then they would not almost always enhance the scare: this is how GISS global temperature has been changed over the years
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/giss/hansen-giss-1940-1980.gif
These data changes are NOT “paranoia, conspiracy allegations, and general wing-flapping”: they are documented facts.
And now we see large changes to Arctic sea ice data when Arctic sea ice loss is the final straw alarmists can cling to. Only a fool would not consider whether those changes are reasonable, justified and accurate.
But you come here and try to pretend that consideration of the Arctic data changes is “paranoia, conspiracy allegations, and general wing-flapping” of the same kind as promulgated by warmunists.
Your concern trolling is a classic fail, if only because it has encouraged my reply which explains the context of this thread to onlookers.
Richard
I was interested in sea ice a few years ago. I concluded that the teams that manage the data are the same ilk of people as Michael Mann and U of EA. The people who put Mann in his position would be crazy not to put similar agents in the satellite data teams. They’ve been finding excuses to lower the ice quantity for over a decade.
Angech says:
September 7, 2013 at 12:17 am
Commentated at Lucia’s earlier on this. If they remove the ice at the sea land edge the overall volume should be lower at all times yet the winter maximums are larger. What gives? JAXA only running since 2002 so all adjustments prior must be very sus.
======================================================
I too (along with others) have puzzled over this. Maybe someone who understands the way the masking works (possibly rgbatduke who seems to have a good grasp of the subject) could comment on this thought I’ve had.
Is it possible that, during the winter months when a lot of the ice is up against land, the ‘old’ method of masking used to indicate parts of that ice as land, which has been improved using the new system?
Oh, by the way, as regards your last point, actually you can get data from JAXA which goes right back to 1978 if you ask them nicely. As I pointed out upthread, that data haven’t changed yet the Version 2 post 2002 data includes averages from the 1980s which have and I really don’t understand that.
” As I pointed out upthread, that data haven’t changed yet the Version 2 post 2002 data includes averages from the 1980s which have and I really don’t understand that.”
Apples and oranges. Understanding’s simple. It’s so that some bedwetter journalist-activist can use thier graphs to show the massive drop and keep the gravy flowing.
Later they’ll correct them like “oops” but the PR job will be done and Obahma will have used it to peddle climate change to the nation.
Apparently this came from the mouth of James Lovelock
Referring to the arctic sea ice — “Ice is pure water so when it melts it becomes fresh water not salt water, which is lighter, so it floats on the surface of the sea and drifts downwards”
http://www.thegwpf.org/james-lovelock-global-warming-stalled/
They did something similar last year. Just as the (reported) ice level was to rise above the level of previous years, an ‘adjustment’ was made to the data that resuled in the (reported) ice level be reduced to a level not higher than previous years. This also resulted in the slope of the decrease from that point to the lowest point of the year having a decidely different shape than all previous years and the shape of the bottom of the curve being different from all other years as well.
I quite enjoyed calculus in college and have always had a keen eye for the comparitive slope of different functions. It is difficult to understand how the changes in slope I observed could correlate to a change of physical penomenon.
Such large changes from version 1 to version 2 indicates there is very high uncertainty in the result, for both version 1 and 2.
In any kind of software versioning, in my experience, is that if you go from one whole version “number” to another whole version “number” there are usually significant, as well as and usually accumulative changes, included. Maybe not in “climate science”.