Ward writes;
The sea ice page is something that I look at daily at WUWT. I am often perplexed at the sea ice graphs supplied by various organizations on that page, when juxtaposed against the satellite imagery. Today if you look the JAXA and [NSIDC] graphs show the 2010 levels virtually converged with the 2007 levels.
But the satellite image below seems to show a far different picture. Substantially more ice in 2010, but not reflected in the graphs.
![[NSIDC]](http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png){kind=link}
I’m sure it’s nothing.
Kate, the slowdown in ice accumulation in the past two weeks has also attracted comment on weather forums where people follow ice reports very closely. Some think it may be caused by a change in protocols for assessing full ice coverage as daylight fades out of the higher latitudes. Without getting too technical, it takes the form of a more stringent requirement for converting satellite data into ice cover after mid-October. This change was made since 2007 and caused problems with the readings last year, but it’s expected that the curves will resume their progress shortly and that the autumn 2010 data will get back to being well ahead of the 2007 pace. This acceleration may be slowed down this week by actual ice loss due to some strong winds in a few sectors with new ice.
I can’t say whether this change in protocol was inspired by politics or is just some innocent fault in the proceedings. However, since most people tend to place greater emphasis on extreme values (both high and low) annually, this will just become an annual annoyance to those who follow the ice.
If there are further developments on the weather forum scene, I will report back. Temperatures in eastern Siberia have been unusually cold this past month and I think it’s only a matter of time until the pace picks up because the Sea of Okhotsk will start to freeze soon, as will Foxe Basin then Hudson Bay (which is none too warm at this point, 3-4 C mostly).
Word on the street (in the weather fraternity) is that due to the colder than normal temperatures over the Siberian sector, the ice that is there is also thicker than previous years. There could be some very interesting developments this winter given the early start to arctic cold. It has already been well below -30 C in parts of northeast Siberia. Of course, you know where that’s heading.
There is the UN with its co-conspirators in spin. Micheal Mann & his merry band , comes to mind. Than there is the truth which you can see. I figure my eyes are not lying, so it must be the UN Global Climate alarmists.
Some years its cold, some warm. Sometimes its a run for either one.
The absolute insanity of people trying to control weather world wide, is just to much hubris to be real. as is the idea we are its authors.
These people have a god complex.
JMO
A few more years of this should disabuse them of any such notion.
Looked into this further, the more precise explanation is that mistakes were inherent in the data assessment before 2008, so the graph error is not with this year, but with 2007 adding ice faster than actually happened. This year’s curve is considered accurate by most people (whom I would trust) on the weather forums. As implied in my first post above, the disparity will work itself out soon, as the faulty technique that used to exist only affected the data around this part of the season and then again in May-June when the ice is melting back to about these levels. So in short, the graphs were wrong in 2007 and are right for 2010, but not for the extreme points which are generally considered accurate.
One person explained the problem this way — the former assessment method tended to record “ice cover” wherever sea temperatures had dropped to zero but in fact sea water does not freeze until it is about -2 C (due to salinity). So the older readings had some built in biases in high latitudes where you can’t see ice cover on visual satellite images. Later in the season, as the ice margin gets further south into daylight, this methodology became less of a problem.
While it’s not in my nature to cut the IPCC people any slack, I think this situation is probably just one of those things that happens as technology evolves (and improves). The readings are just now more accurate.
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not after you” – Kurt Cobain
I’m also a WUWT follower and all I know is people way smarter than me are dealing with the same questions- to the point of questioning Hansen and CO. at NASA whether or not they are “adjusting” the sat. data (a commen problem with the AWG crowd)
My advice: the polar bears are more likely to be shot in a garbage dump than die from “global warming” and the sea ice is only going to grow from here on to the frosty future.
Global Warming is dead- all hail Global Climate Disruption or whatever the new doublethink is this week.
[D}
This graph only shows sea ice extent for 15% coverage. A few days of the right direction wind [see last few days of this Hudson Bay low] and this ice could be compacted. The graph showing 30% extent shows something more realistic. I also would like to see plotted data from 1979 and on to 2008 in order to come up with the averages shown. Not to worry though,when warmists decide to throw this at us, just scroll down further and look at the Antarctic data.
It’s a shame that it’s become “our” job to root out these “anomilies”
If you compare the ice accumulation maps to the Toronto vote trend maps, you will see correlation.
Coincidence, I think not. Clearly Anthropogenic Ford Warming has a direct impact on climate change. I would encourage the IPCC to address this dangerous electoral activity in their next report.
Peer reviewed ballots may be the only solution.
Simle answer . . .
Narwhal farts . . . warm air bubbling up from the depths is disrupting the formation of new ice at the beginning of the six months of freeze yer nuts off Arctic winter.
It isn’t a coincidence that all of the “mistakes” seem to be on the Scaremongers side and fit their narrative of AGW.
Ah yes, narwhals. You are quite right.
But the visual juxtaposition of a narwhal and a Rob Ford may be disturbing to some readers 🙂
Gee, should I believe the nice graphs and charts, or my own lyin’ eyes?
Say, isn’t there a polar bear cast adrift in that 2010 image? Poor polar bear.
so who’s ‘right’? could it be the answer is as complex as trying to predict the weather? no clear answer
Sceptics are right if there isn’t any “clear answer”.
If AGW can’t be proved, then there isn’t any reason to change the status quo.
The answer, in abscence of any clear proof, is to do NOTHING.
The onus to prove AGW falls entirely on the Scaremongers and they aren’t proving it.
“could it be the answer is as complex as trying to predict the weather? no clear answer, nothing strictly black-and-white (which both ends of the political scetrum are fond of)?”
You could have made this argument as late as the 1960’s and been right, beagle. Since then, its all propaganda all the time. I should believe graphs made by the people who destroyed the ground-based temperature stations in the USA? Who were caught red frickin’ handed in the Climeategate emails?
I think not. Sufficient evidence exists to call their honor into question. That’s what it all comes down to in the end anyway. Personal honor, personal integrity. Too many of the climate poobahs don’t have any.
Thanks be to Peter O’Donnell for his insight and comments.
Oz @ 8:30 hits the bulls-eye.
The Weather network is full of AGW believers.
“so who’s ‘right’? could it be the answer is as complex as trying to predict the weather? no clear answer, nothing strictly black-and-white (which both ends of the political scetrum are fond of)?”
Actually beagle, the political ‘right’ has been engaged with the “complex” questions about weather and climate the entire time, only to be shouted down by the political left and the Church of Environtology as ‘deniers’. Hell, even the true believers in AGW who dare to question the ever increasing cases of fraudulent ‘science’ get branded as heretics.
Solar radiation, sunspot frequency, volcanic activity, earth axis tilt, cloud formation, ocean currents, and yes, human activity (to just name a few factors) have all been discussed and debated vociferously by the right side of the political spectrum, while the political left, as they do with most issues, marches largely in lockstep.
Or do you find it purely coincidental that pushing policies like carbon taxes, cap and trade, and energy rationing to (quite profitably) control the world population just conveniently meshes with left wing political ideology?
Don’t bother “painting a different picture” for those of us who have been touring the whole museum for some time now.
Any error from a government sponsored, subsidized, or salaried organization, is always due to malicious incompetence [incompetent malice?] and/or deliberate fraud, it is never accidental.
People defending it are nearly always on a government payroll.
“Liberal/Statists” admitting they’re wrong…but but but, everyone must be wrong because that’s equal.
“F”n mental disorder.
If there is no catastrophe, the scientists with the liplock on the public teat can’t make an easy case for money to be shoveled off the truck to fund their research, pay for them to attend conferences in Bali & Copenhagen and be feted as the new Jorels by the media – the MSM which of course needs a crisis to sell the advertising space in a desperate attempt to save their business.
One lie, multiple enablers, $trillions of dollars flushed down the toilet in pursuit of global warming mitigation.
Someday, someone will calculate the opportunity cost of this massive Eco Fraud. What other real science research has not been funded, what medical breakthroughs haven’t been discovered, what technologies haven’t been developed?
It really is a tragedy, a very expensive tragedy that future generations will look back on and wonder how so many Progressive rubes could be so easily conned.
Especially by moronic, transparent eco-grifters like Al Gore & Dr Fruit Fly.
Peer reviewed ballots! Brilliant idea!
Except that according to Drudge the Democrats
have already put the idea into practice.
Beagle
Re Peter O’Donnell’s comment at 3:59, if the graph for 2007 is inaccurate, why do they continue to use it as a benckmark? Why not use 2008? I think Oz answered my question at 8:30.
It’s just a typo – transposing of the data by a colour blind admin assistant who is just learning how to use excel/word to make a chart.
Ken (Kulak) @10:28
I second that! Praise be to Peter O’Donnell…we are lucky that he is among us here at SDA.
Hey let’s not get carried away here, I’m lucky to have the secret combination to get in here at all.
The thing is, using “too icy” 2007 won’t be a problem in the long run for the “ice returning to normal” crowd. Don’t forget, the mistake is to show 2007 as too normal. There was probably less ice in late October than the graph shows. This year is correct. There was a slowdown recently.
Ice tends to accumulate in steps rather than constantly expanding. It has to do with air masses expanding then being pushed back slightly by storms, then expanding again. Although it isn’t that simple.
Anyway, a lot of this stuff is much ado about nothing. The ice melted a bit more than usual in 2007, so there was open water longer than usual in the autumn, then it snowed a lot because of all that. So nature sort of evened out the books without even one bit of help from us. This is the fact that warmists really want to avoid discussing, the fact that ice ages can begin with warming in the high arctic. For all we know, we should be driving like there’s no tomorrow.
The ice on the Canadian side continues to be two weeks behind average. East Arctic lost more ice than it gained last week. You can see the charts here:
http://ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/app//WsvPrdCanQry.cfm?subID=38022&Lang=eng
They were made from observations from onshore and from an icebreaker doing measurements.
Don’t you know they’re supposed to adjust the sea ice data with tree ring samples from Sri Lanka?