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).
“Arctic sea ice is retreating at a dramatic rate.”
Only if you’re a drama queen instead of a scientist. It has retreated over the 35-year period that satelites have been keeping track. Periods of melting arctic ice have been noted before though, in the last century. Nothing unusual is happening, let alone “dramatic”.
“What’s causing Southern Hemisphere sea ice cover to increase in a warming world has puzzled scientists since the trend was first spotted.”
By “puzzled”, they really mean “worried” since Ice expanding goes against the whole warmist meme, and would tend to threaten the globaloney gravey train. Can’t have that.
“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.”
Whew! What a relief that must be. Gravey train safe for a little while longer.
So who gets to check their model, that checked the other two models, that can’t tell which of the other two is wrong, but is sure that one of them is?
But But… Arctic is NOT retreating.Its appears to be expanding again back to normal levels (since satellite records anyway).
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
The solution is they should send a research ship to sail around the edge of the Antarctic Sea Ice ,and take actual measurements of the extent of the sea ice and compare it to the current cryosphere sea ice data.
If is data is so in question why can’t they do that?
I am quite sure cryosphere data is correct.
@Eliza:
“But But… Arctic is NOT retreating.Its appears to be expanding again back to normal levels (since satellite records anyway).”
Silly. The Arctic sea ice that disappeared was hiding in the Antarctic. It was not doing a very good job of hiding as it made it look like the Antarctic sea ice was increasing. So now, Antarctic sea ice is decreasing and Arctic sea ice is increasing. See how simple everything is? One just has to accept that sea ice can hide, and that sea ice can travel 12,000 miles from one pole to the other relatively easily, and quickly, I might add.
Just a simple question for those that know. Satellites in ‘polar orbit’ measuring the sea ice cannot be geostationary so they orbit around both poles. So presumably the same algorithms are used for measuring sea ice at both poles. The result from these algorithms for the Antarctic is ‘suspect’ because it shows increasing ice, but the result from the same algorithms for the Arctic ice is correct because it shows decreasing ice? Do I have that right?
That would be picking sufficient cherries to make a really big ‘Cherry Pie’ **
** See Cockney rhyming slang.
Eliza beat me to it, Arctic Ice reduction is a favourite meme of the Planet Savers, except that the reduction appears to have stopped in 2007:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.arctic.png
So where does this leave all of the crappy theories to blame expanding ice on global warming?
Was it not Trenberth who came up with the latest gem, something about warmer waters making it colder?
Well sunshine hours is showing record Antarctic ice again…and solar 24 is down to nothing again. Note this will not affect us seriously until perhaps the start of cycle 25 as predicted
http://www.solarham.net/
B Illis: If Antarctica has reached Sandwich Island (which I doubt) I would be extremely worried. What is their latitude?
i like the use of “Claim” in the headline Anthony – but i think it should be used with all research – even those you agree with – it’ll remind us that no one research paper is authoritive
An even better picture of the health of Arctic Ice, makes you wonder what all the fuss was about:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.area.arctic.png
“One just has to accept that sea ice can hide, and that sea ice can travel 12,000 miles from one pole to the other relatively easily, and quickly, I might add.”
I understand that the icemen have several of those Star Trek teleporter things and love to move ice around to confuse us. Silly jokers they are.
Salvatore Del Prete says:
July 22, 2014 at 10:29 am
I think insurance rates for Antarctic expeditions went up as a result of the Akademik Shokalskiy debacle. Modelling studies are much cheaper and no one has to miss out on their regular banana milkshakes.
B Illis: South Sandwich islandsand Antarctic ice expansion
54.2500° S, 36.7500° W thats way to north man or Mann! LOL
MikeUK says:
Yes, but look at those wild, seasonal swings. Now that’s dramatic!
No way Jose Sandwich Islands see here
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/NEWIMAGES/antarctic.seaice.color.004.png
My first thoughts were questions about motives: What prompted Eisenman to look into this? Why is the idea there could/maybe/might be something wrong “news”?
Then I thought, it takes guts to stand up and point out something is wrong with the accepted/settled science. And the fact the initial speculation made it into the news is a good thing because it sets a tone.
As long as his findings are made public, whatever is discovered/uncovered during Eisenman’s investigation will only benefit the climate science body of knowledge in the long run. Eisenman is skeptical of the data and I believe it’s a good thing.
Isn’t Climate Change the result of an AlGoreithm?
Unfortunately for these researchers, there is no visible step in the Antarctic sea ice anomaly circa 1992. In fact, the graph is unusually flat during this period. On the other hand, starting around 2011, the graph shoots up at an uncharacteristically high rate. The error they describe cannot have produced this.
Good question that deserves a good answer.
And we have the actual images, right? Why can’t we just use those to figure out what is going on here?
I don’t care about the data, I just look at the pictures and compare to previous years. I am not smart enough to mess with datasets. Seems like there is a lot more extent down there this year than last year. What do I know….?
Matt L. says: July 22, 2014 at 11:13 am
“Then I thought, it takes guts to stand up and point out something is wrong with the accepted/settled science.”
The problem being: Antarctica record high sea ice didn’t fit in with “accepted/settled science”.
Matt L. says: July 22, 2014 at 11:13 am
” Eisenman is skeptical of the data and I believe it’s a good thing.”
Absolutely, but doesn’t justify being biased.
Um… the numbers matter… That blue / red graph shows a 0.1 shift in millions of km^2 of ice.
The graph here (linked by Ren above): http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
shows the present status to be +1.054 millions of km^2 anomaly. OK, subtract them…
At most, it changes it to a 0.954+ anomaly. Now, given that it was about 2.1+ just 6 months or so ago, that makes it about a 2.0+ anomaly.
In all cases there is still record sea ice now even if their speculation about 0.1 is correct.
The “error” doesn’t explain a thing.
Okay, in any case this is a shift of only ~200,000 km^2. That is chickenfeed, a mere 10% compared with the recent ice increase of 2,000,000 km^2.
What I was interested in is why a million km^2 dropped off the charts in one weekend. Instead we are being treated to a smidgen of a step change in 1991, which is going to reduce the trend by ~70,000 km^2 per decade? What about the elephant in the room?
All error corrections go in the warmists direction. Errors in the lukewarmers direction are conveniently ignored.
I don’t like to say this, but there are dozens of examples to support and I can’t think of any that refute.
Can anybody think of a case where models forecast too cool or that data was adjusted to make the trend cooler?
Why can’t you just snap a picture and count the area that is white ? I’m serious. All we are looking for here is areal coverage.