Sunshine hours writes:
I have been a bit worried about the deep deep dive in Antarctica Sea Ice Extent.
It appears to be a processing or sensor error. As of today the NSIDC data confirms it. (see image below)
In a deja vu all over again moment, I find that it isn’t just the Antarctic with wonky readings.
I agree that looks like a sensor failure of some sorts, and this NSIDC graph looks a bit odd as well. NSIDC uses a 5 day average, so the transients get smoothed out.
![S_stddev_timeseries[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/s_stddev_timeseries1.png?quality=75)
This Arctic graph from DMI has what appears to be a spurious element also, note the recent uptick:
![icecover_current_new[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/icecover_current_new1.png?quality=75)
(added: that uptick could be wind affecting the ice extent, or it could be a sensor/processing issue, we simply don’t know)
Tomorrow there will be a new paper released by former NSIDC scientist Walt Meier and others that tries to argue that some of the record sea ice extents from Antarctica recently are a victim of an adjustment in a processing algorithm that changed in 2007 from Version 1 to Version 2.
Back in 2009, in the “deja vu moment” I wrote:
In the prior thread I raised a question of why there was a large downward jump in sea ice extent on the graph presented by NSIDC’s Artic Sea Ice News page. The image below was the reason, dozens of people called my attention to it in emails and comments overnight because in the space of a weekend, a million-plus square kilometers of Arctic sea ice went missing.
Walt Meier wrote this response that he later had to eat crow for:
Thus errors do happen from time to time and one shouldn’t draw any dramatic conclusions from recent data.
I’m not sure why you think things like this are worth blogging about. Data is not perfect, especially near real-time data. That’s not news.
Now, Meier has an entire paper about such errors, and the error is far lower in magnitude than that incident where the sensor actually did fail and NSIDC was caught napping.
It makes me wonder just how good these estimates of sea ice are; what else awaits discovery?
I wish they’d exhibit the same investigative zeal when it comes to looking at Arctic sea ice record low extents, for all we know, the 2007 low extent might also be a victim of the same algorithm shift that occurred that year.
But you see, confirmation bias prevents such investigations, they expect the Arctic to be low, so they only looked at the Antarctic where there’s more ice than there is supposed to be. To paraphrase their viewpoint on it: “it didn’t look right”.
On the plus side, it looks like this means the AR4 and AR5 reports are wrong about sea ice extent values, and as we know IPCC reports are wrong about a lot of things.
We’ll have that new paper here at 6AM ET tomorrow.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
JAXA doesn’t show this “bump”, but shows continuing melt albeit slowing; http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/plot_v2.csv
What it does show is that there is now 77,360 km2 more ice than the same day last year
274,217 km2 more ice than the same day in 2012
494,428 km2 more ice than the same day in 2011
etc.
see table below
2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003
77360 274217 494428 -231919 -535941 -682514 142110 -380430 -650029 -1342394 -1194524
of course daily values can change rapidly and switch sign in a matter of days; for example, >5 days ago 2014 sea ice extent was less than 2013 and 2007.
Greg, my question is directed to anyone who can identify and quantify the development and evolution of sea ice measurement processes and changes over time. My post was simply sharing what I could find while at lunch.
I am certain there are eyes gazing at this who are much more qualified to answer such questions and have the citations to verify the information requested.
Sometimes I wonder if these things are not done just for fun, to see how much we ‘skeptics’ jump…. ;p
It was likely that before the “problem” with the sensors, global sea ice would have broken the all time high record. This would be devastating to the alarmist position. I think the sea ice as been “disappeared” and is swimming with the fishes never to be seen again.
In other news: With their up to date sea ice maps clutched in their hands, the Blue Planet Odyssey dinghy’s have bravely set out to conquer the northwest passage. What could possibly go wrong?
brians356 says:
July 21, 2014 at 9:54 am (Edit)
—————————————————–
I think that it is the same satellite Brian, sort of orbiting the globe.
One other thing on that sea ice data. To validate your data. Compare with reality whenever possible. Anyone with the internet can do this in the next minute. Step one. Go to cryosphere today and check arctic ice extents paying close attention to sea ice levels near Barrow Alaska. Step 2. Based on what you saw at Cryosphere today, what would you expect to see if you were standing in Barrow right now? Go to the Barrow Sea Ice cam. Is what you see the same as you expected? Me neither.
A picture is worth a thousand models.
Take a look at the actual conditions at the poles in relation to sea ice extent and please tell me why I should be concerned.
Visual Arctic comparison from July17, 2007 to July 17, 2014 is a muse.
footnote: see http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/sea-ice-page/ for all the info.
Kudos to Anthony Watts for presenting an insightful 10000 foot view!!!
At The Peak Of The Melt Season, The Arctic Goes Silent
Posted on July 21, 2014 by stevengoddard
There has been almost no change in Arctic sea ice over the past three days. Green shows ice gain since July 17. Red shows ice loss.
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/07/21/at-the-peak-of-the-melt-season-the-arctic-goes-silent/
Keitho,
>> I think that it is the same satellite Brian, sort of orbiting the globe.
Fair enough. If it is the very same satellite monitoring both poles, how likely that one pole’s dataset has a spurious uptick while the other has a spurious down-tick?
Beats me Brian. I don’t have much confidence in much of this satellite stuff at the moment to be honest. A lot of it looks like overreach in terms of capabilities, ice extent, temperature, sea level. Now we have a new satellite looking at CO2.
We seem to have so much confidence in our new technologies and yet interpretation can be so varied depending on some algorithm or other. Hell we are busy reinterpreting old weather data with new algorithms that show whatever it is we want it to show.
I am just in curmudgeon mode I suppose. The fact is that so much is made out of the tiniest variations in natural events and it is all our fault. In the meantime the climate I live in seems pretty much like it always has despite changes in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice as measured by satellites since 1979.
Hey, they told me the science is settled. There is nothing left but imagination, and projections. The ice in my coke glass seems to be melting at an unprecedented rate this morning… I wonder is it still summer ?
Given a so-named ‘polar vortex’ has recently swept across the eastern US I wonder if the uptick represents a refreeze in Hudson Bay and other bodies of water as that cold air mass slid down through Canada.
Latitude says:
“.. no change” ; )
LOL, You and I both know its always changing. Please define “almost” 😛
Funny thought came to mind as I was reading the News Buzz this morning. Imagine climate scientists as Ear Mites. Isn’t it logical they perceive noise in Their environment?
Anyone have or know a good charting program. I have asked Bruce at sunshinehours to cart a few things but never did.
I am still doing ART CHARTS
John says:
July 21, 2014 at 10:54 am
Latitude says:
“.. no change” ; )
===
John…..that’s just a copy and paste from Steve’s blog
..follow the link and you’ll see
njsnowfan says:
“good charting program”
What is the point of charting crap data related to a poor understanding of its meaning to a “program/code” that has yet to leverage knowledge in results????
“dp says:
July 21, 2014 at 10:49 am
Given a so-named ‘polar vortex’ has recently swept across the eastern US I wonder if the uptick represents a refreeze in Hudson Bay and other bodies of water as that cold air mass slid down through Canada.”
No, the colder polar that came south in the polar vortex like weather event warmed up the Arctic circle some just like last winter did.
The reason for the UP-Tick is most of the First year Thinner ice that did not compact is almost all melted leaving only thicker slower to melt icev(was a warmer then normal winter like in 1976 and first year ice was thinner then in 2013). Anomalies for N hem sea ice will continue to rise from now till the minimum is reached is my feeling unless there is a huge weather pattern change, temps in the Arctic spike or large cyclone forms.
Latitude says:
“…Steve’s Says”
A “Mosh” pit isn’t smart unless you like to knock heads over simple realities.
“John says:
July 21, 2014 at 11:22 am
What is the point of charting crap data related to a poor understanding of its meaning to a “program/code” that has yet to leverage knowledge in results????”
There is still good data to make charts, not all the data has been corrupted by the Climate change funding virus’s yet.
The Arctic sea ice is exhibiting very unusual circulation patterns this year which should lead to a substantial increase in the retention of multi-year thicker ice.
The Beaufort Gyre has become dominant over almost all the Arctic ocean basin and there is almost no ice export out of the Fram Strait (it has been flowing/moving backwards into the basin for a few months now).
This pattern has lead some to forecast that melt rates would fall substantially once the peripheral areas melted out.
Indeed, this is now occurring and the melt rates over the last 7 days have been the 3rd lowest in my database going back to 1972. Daily melt rates are approaching 50% of average. Hold onto your hats.
http://s12.postimg.org/5i9irs0pp/Arctic_SEI_Melt_Daily_Avg_Jul20_2014.png
njsnowfan says:
July 21, 2014 at 11:32 am
Sadly all the data is crap. In one way or the other it was poorly gathered and poorly defined. Thus, zero reason to chart the adolescent mess.
Bill Illis says:
July 21, 2014 at 11:34 am
says, “Hold onto your hats.”
I completely agree and we had one famous character, earlier this year, predict this event.
Looks like Weathermen are far smarter than Climate Ear Mites.
MikeP, I’m with you, in that I regard ‘data’ as plural, so must be followed by ‘are’, not ‘is’. I pulled Leif up on it once, but got shot down. I argued the point, but got bored. ‘Data’ is the plural of ‘datum’. Leif is often right about stuff, but he was wrong this time. And if anyone wants to argue it all over again, forget it, I’m going for a cup of tea.
Ice falls, when the polar vortex is weakening.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/intraseasonal/z200anim.gif
The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:
July 21, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Though you’re correct, We’re not in “old” Rome.
data |ˈdatə, ˈdātə|
noun [ treated as sing. or pl. ]