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?

[M1rth]

What's the point of being consistent with a flawed methodology?

Al Gore. James Hansen. And all the other Climate Frauds who insist that (a) the sky is falling and (b) "man-made global climate change" is something we need to pay them a bunch of money to do nothing about.

Remember: Al Gore's supposed "carbon neutral businesses" are that way because he's in the business of selling so-called "carbon credits." Absent the "sky is falling" hype, as paraded by his faux documentary the Inconvenient Lie (which was actually LESS scientifically accurate than the movie The Day After Tomorrow, and we all know how accurate that was), nobody would pay money to Gore's little scam.

Using the new data would expose the fraud, which would screw the agenda of the kooks trying to use "global climate change" to scare us into paying them scam money and doing things that aren't necessary.

The story is far over-hyped

[Kupfernigk]

This error relates to Jan/Feb 2009 only. The problem has been identified quickly. It will be fixed quickly. No big deal.

For the climate change deniers among you, this is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A says something, scientist B says "hang on my experiment gives different results", scientist A checks and says "sorry, yes, we goofed" and it gets fixed. This is exactly the opposite of religion, where Religious Bigot A says "the Earth is 6000 years old", scientists B through aleph-null say "hang on, geology, biology and astronomy confirm this is rubbish", and Religious Bigot A says "you lie, the Earth is 6000 years old."

There is a British "science writer" named Nigel Calder who claims that AGW is a huge fraud by the scientific establishment, and that counter-evidence is always suppressed. This little episode shows that Calder is speaking out of his anus, which means it may serve some useful purpose.

Re:Rocket science?

[jav1231]

For many, science isn't a means of testing and learning about the world around them. Rather, it is a religion whose conclusions and methodology is as vehemently defended as Islam or fundamentalism.

Re:Not consistent?

[R2.0]

Ok. First you say:

The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case. The notion that this somehow discredits the theoretical basis of radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect is sheer lunacy. Simple stock-and-flow box models are enough to understand that anthropogenic climate change is inevitable. If you can understand how a bathtub overfills when you leave the faucet running, you should be able to understand that climate change is real and unavoidable.

Then you say:

Any one who is genuinely interested in learning about how and why complex systems change catastrophically should read "Limits to Growth" - the classic by the MIT team headed by Donella Meadows.

So the climate can be modeled by a simple system which OBVIOUSLY shows we are headed for disaster, but the climate is an extremely complex phenomenon which can only really be analyzed using complex models. Which is it?

Oh, wait - you wanted both. I see the problem. Go back to kindergarten and relearn that you can't have it your way all of the time.