From the European Geosciences Union

New research suggests that Antarctic sea ice may not be expanding as fast as previously thought. A team of scientists say much of the increase measured for Southern Hemisphere sea ice could be due to a processing error in the satellite data. The findings are published today in The Cryosphere, a journal of the European Geosciences Union (EGU).
Arctic sea ice is retreating at a dramatic rate. In contrast, satellite observations suggest that sea ice cover in the Antarctic is expanding – albeit at a moderate rate – and that sea ice extent has reached record highs in recent years. What’s causing Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover to increase in a warming world has puzzled scientists since the trend was first spotted. Now, a team of researchers has suggested that much of the measured expansion may be due to an error, not previously documented, in the way satellite data was processed.
“This implies that the Antarctic sea ice trends reported in the IPCC’s AR4 and AR5 [the 2007 and 2013 assessment reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] can’t both be correct: our findings show that the data used in one of the reports contains a significant error. But we have not yet been able to identify which one contains the error,” says lead-author Ian Eisenman of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at University of California San Diego in the US.
Reflecting the scientific literature at the time, the AR4 reported that Antarctic sea ice cover remained more or less constant between 1979 and 2005. On the other hand, recent literature and the AR5 indicate that, between 1979 and 2012, Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent increased at a rate of about 16.5 thousand square kilometres per year. Scientists assumed the difference to be a result of adding several more years to the observational record.
“But when we looked at how the numbers reported for the trend had changed, and we looked at the time series of Antarctic sea ice extent, it didn’t look right,” says Eisenman, who set out to figure out what was wrong.
Scientists have used satellite data to measure sea ice cover for 35 years. But the data doesn’t come from a single instrument, orbiting on a single satellite throughout this period. Instead, researchers splice together observations from different instruments flown on a number of different satellites. They then use an algorithm – the most prevalent being the Bootstrap algorithm – and further processing to estimate sea ice cover from these data.
In the study published in The Cryosphere, Eisenman and collaborators compare two datasets for sea ice measurements. The most recent one, the source of AR5 conclusions, was generated using a version of Bootstrap updated in 2007, while the other, used in AR4 research, is the result of an older version of the algorithm.
The researchers found a difference between the two datasets related to a transition in satellite sensors in December 1991, and the way the data collected by the two instruments was calibrated. “It appears that one of the records did this calibration incorrectly, introducing a step-like change in December 1991 that was big enough to have a large influence on the long-term trend,” explains Eisenman.

“You’d think it would be easy to see which record has this spurious jump in December 1991, but there’s so much natural variability in the record – so much ‘noise’ from one month to the next – that it’s not readily apparent which record contains the jump. When we subtract one record from the other, though, we remove most of this noise, and the step-like change in December 1991 becomes very clear.”
With the exception of the longer time period covered by the most recent dataset, the two records were thought to be nearly identical. But, by comparing the datasets and calculating Antarctic sea ice extent for each of them, the team found that there was a stark difference between the two records, with the current one giving larger rates of sea ice expansion than the old one in any given period.
If the error is in the current dataset, the results could contribute to an unexpected resolution for the Antarctic sea ice cover enigma.
###
This research is presented in the paper ‘A spurious jump in the satellite record: has Antarctic sea ice expansion been overestimated?’ to appear in the EGU open access journal The Cryosphere on 22 July 2014.
The scientific article is available online, free of charge, from the publication date onwards, at http://www.the-cryosphere.net/recent_papers.html. *A pre-print copy of the paper is available for download at http://www.egu.eu/news/118/is-antarctic-sea-ice-cover-really-setting-record-highs/*.
The team is composed of Ian Eisenman (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California at San Diego, USA), Walter Meier (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, USA) and Joel R. Norris (Scripps).
Given the polar see-saw, it is a bit surprising that Antarctic ice is hitting a maximum while Arctic ice is increasing again. So the idea that the Antarctic measure is in error is at least a bit credible. But it is still disturbing that effort to find errors is still only being made when data goes against AGW.
Mark says:
July 22, 2014 at 6:39 am
______________________________________
Mark I think they haven’t a clue as to what the possible errors could be.
Can’t we see this ice from satellites? Isn’t such a thing important enough to go down there and fly an observational sampling? You can see that the Antarctic ice has become very troubling to the committed. It was only a matter of time before they began to ‘correct’ it. Why do we have all these expensive Anarctic expeditions? If they can’t keep tabs on the ice, what in hell are they keeping tabs on???
I think sceptics are going to need a big fund to keep tabs on these guys. We need to have independent flights with photo and gps around the sea ice, or at least a number of transepts. Maybe there is enough coverage of the Ship of Fools incident to compare observed with measured in that area to check up on the health of the instrumentation.
David Rodgers – “I wonder what that stuff was that the ship of fools was stuck in last summer then?”
Going by the SPIN of hyperventilating media;
It was a large floating Salt flat. Resulting from evaporation of sea water, caused by extreme heat of GW.
/sarc
Remember that story about Prof. Chris Turney getting stuck in the ice? Never happened. Data processing error.
Gary Pearse: “I think sceptics are going to need a big fund to keep tabs on these guys.”
Quite the opposite. We need to CUT the funding of all the GW Climatologists.
Wouldn’t hurt to reset/reboot NASA, and cut E.P.A. down to a staff the size WattsUpWithThat has.
Ahh so Antarctica isn’t melting? Look chaps some fools argued that the increased extent was due to melting ice. So which is it? A slippery lot indeed.
So they aren’t sure and they haven’t found where the alleged fault is. So what, pray tell, was the point of this paper???
There is no reason to call into question the data. The ice may temporarily fluctuate because of circulation.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/antarctic.sea.ice.interactive.html
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/daily_ao_index/aao/aao.obs.gif
We now need to investigate ALL the satellites for possible errors. Think Arctic et al.
Can we assume that the sea ice the Australian expedition that got stuck in, in the Antarctic last January, was imaginary and just an artifact of a computer programme? If not we should keep our eyes on these people, I see more adjustments coming and they will not show ice growth. I am all for getting accurate data but adjustments so far are nearly always in one direction.
Regards
Keith Gordon
Mike Jonas says:
But it is still disturbing that effort to find errors is still only being made when data goes against AGW.
—
I thought AGW was the null hypothesis… anything that supports the null hypothesis doesn’t need investigating.
Another climate data error, another adjustment in the favorable direction. It is beyond curious that climate data adjustments never favor an “it’s not as bad as we thought” direction, isn’t it?
Amazing this is being put forth a week before arctic ice extent is forecast to go above normal for the first time since 1996.
Coincidence, I think not.
Simple enough way to validate. Start a ship at a known GPS point 1 mile off Antarctic coast. Circumnavigate Antarctica until return to GPS starting point staying 1 mile distant from ice all the way around. Subtract distance from circumference to ice (1 mile). Calculate area from distance of calculated circumference.
So let me get this straight.
We’re talking about a single step of considerably less than 0.2 million sq km in 1991 (based on eyeballing the graph). That would make the 1979 – 2008 mean, at most, 0.1 million sq km higher.
Current anomaly is more than 1 million sq km above the mean. . An order of magnitude larger than the discrepancy in the mean.
And they claim that this step accounts for “much of the measured expansion ” and has “large influence on the long-term trend”?
Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
David Johnson says:
July 22, 2014 at 6:56 am
Others using the data or previous papers depending on the data can be aware that there may be a problem and adjust their research accordingly. Plus this way they get two publications on their CV’s: one announcing the error and one announcing the fix.
Any talk about Antarctic Sea ice expansion and the year 2007 crops up.
NOAA Reynolds Sea Surface Temperature anomalies (rel to 1971 to 2000)for 60 to 70 South from Jan 2000 to Jun 2014:-
http://nomad1.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&var=ssta&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=2000&fmonth=jun&fyear=2014&lat0=-70&lat1=-60&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800×600&title=&dir=
Circa 2007 there is an almost “step change” as the anomalies went into negative territory and apart from a couple of months have stayed there since. Latest value Jun 2014 = -0.29C.
NOAA Reynolds says the waters down there are “cooler” than “normal” and have been for circa 7 years.
This error is stupidly insignificant. Look at the vertical axis of their tell-tale graph. The “error” represents a shift in Antarctic ice extent of 0.2 million sq km. The increase in sea-ice extent as I write is 1 million sq km over the long term average, and it has in the recent past been as high as 2 million sq km. So at best, they’ve accounted for less than 20% of the increase, probably nearer 10%.
It’s the implicit dishonesty of presenting this as an “explanation” of the high sea ice area that really dismays me. It’s not even slightly convincing, and everyone involved must have realised that. Gun… foot…
Arctic sea ice loss can’t be due to an algorithm problem, so let’s not study that.
But the excuse for the record expansion is that the modles predicted it.
Watch the climate obsessed turn on a dime if it turns out there is less ice and claim that any reduction was predicted as well.
The noise -even if the error is insignificant- will be enough for the MSM to play its prop role…
It seems to me that the ‘step change’ – if there was one – affected both poles so that when Antarctic ice apparently grew, Arctic ice shrank. Perhaps the mysterious error affects both poles, albeit in an opposite sense. The authors’ not considering this possibility looks like confirmation bias favoring AGW-friendly hypotheses.
Reality changes as the algortithms change? We must be living in the matrix after all.