Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"

dtjohnson writes "The National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) has been at the forefront of predicting doom in the arctic as ice melts due to global warming. In May, 2008 they went so far as to predict that the North Pole would be ice-free during the 2008 'melt season,' leading to a lively Slashdot discussion. Today, however, they say that they have been the victims of 'sensor drift' that led to an underestimation of Arctic ice extent by as much as 500,000 square kilometers. The problem was discovered after they received emails from puzzled readers, asking why obviously sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as ice-free, open ocean. It turns out that the NSIDC relies on an older, less-reliable method of tracking sea ice extent called SSM/I that does not agree with a newer method called AMSR-E. So why doesn't NSIDC use the newer AMSR-E data? 'We do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data.' Turns out that the AMSR-E data only goes back to 2002, which is probably not long enough for the NSIDC to make sweeping conclusions about melting. The AMSR-E data is updated daily and is available to the public. Thus far, sea ice extent in 2009 is tracking ahead of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008, so the predictions of an ice-free north pole might be premature."

Comments

Re:Not consistent?

[morgan_greywolf]

When are you "global climate fraud" people going to stop looking through ideology-tinted glasses and actually look at this the current climate crisis we are in with an open, objective, scientific mind? Are you really going to wait until 80% of Florida, the entire West Coast of California and New York City are under water?

There are actual photographs taken from outer space in different years that show that the polar ice caps are melting. They found a new land mass that they never new existed due to the polar ice caps melting. You can't possibly sit here and tell people with a straight face that the polar ice caps are not melting. The empirical evidence is as plain as the nose on your face and you don't need a degree in geology or climatology to see it.

Re:Rocket science?

[Joce640k]

At least we HAVE a calculation. The CDPs are just pulling crap out of their asses.

Re:Rocket science?

[alexborges]

Or even from trauma from having "their guy" loose an election....

erm...

yeah.

Re:Rocket science?

[Cally]

Flamebait? For blockquoting a bit of TFA?!? Go to TFA, scroll down a bit, and read the goddamn article, willya??

Re:Manmade global warming is bullshit

[Cally]

So where's your Nobel prize, genius boy?

Re:Oh gosh.

[Cally]

Any other questions?

So, are the nurses looking after you alright? Can you feed yourself OK with that rubber spoon?

Re:Rocket science?

[commodore64_love]

>>>Science isn't an exact science, people are involved and people [ignore data they don't like]

Fixed that for ya. For many people global warming is like a religious belief, and just as a religious person might ignore data that shows earth is millions of years old, so too will someone ignore sensor data that contradicts their global warming belief system.