A spurious jump in the satellite record: Is Antarctic sea ice really expanding?

[StudentOfClimatology]

Looks like the NASA scientists behind the algorithm in question reject the conclusion drawn from Eisenman et al:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarcticas-sea-ice-expanding-experts-clash-over-new-study-n162391

Eisenman's view is contested, not least by the scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, who developed the algorithm that is being criticized in the new study.

"The apparent expansion is real and not due to an error in a previous data set uncovered by the Eisenman et al paper," that scientist, NASA's Josefino Comiso, wrote in a response to the new study that he sent to Live Science. "That error has already been corrected and the expansion being reported now has also been reported by other groups as well using different techniques."

Either the way, the error hypothesized by Eisenman et al is an ~200K step change post-2007, which would not alter the long term trend anyway..so this seems to be fairly inconsequential either way

[Jonger]

Looks like the NASA scientists behind the algorithm in question reject the conclusion drawn from Eisenman et al:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarcticas-sea-ice-expanding-experts-clash-over-new-study-n162391

Either the way, the error hypothesized by Eisenman et al is an ~200K step change post-2007, which would not alter the long term trend anyway..so this seems to be fairly inconsequential either way

 

Lets see if this ends up passing the peer review process anyhow.

[nflwxman]

Looks like the NASA scientists behind the algorithm in question reject the conclusion drawn from Eisenman et al:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/environment/antarcticas-sea-ice-expanding-experts-clash-over-new-study-n162391

Either the way, the error hypothesized by Eisenman et al is an ~200K step change post-2007, which would not alter the long term trend anyway..so this seems to be fairly inconsequential either way

It's not like there is much of a long term trend anyway.  

[blizzard1024]

It makes sense that the Antarctic sea ice is high and the Arctic sea ice is lower due to natural variations. The thermohaline circulation has pumped more heat into the NH oceans, especially the North Atlantic. Therefore it is warmer in the NH and less sea ice. The southern oceans are generally colder than normal and there is more sea ice down there.

 

 

This can all be explained by the natural variations of ocean currents that has been happening since about 2.6 million years ago when the isthmus of Panama closed off! Global sea ice has be at or even ABOVE normal recently.

 

 

Climate scientists relentlessly are trying to adjust this inconvenient fact out. It is very predictable. Why not go and try to improve upon the pre-satellite era Arctic sea ice coverage which is very poor? nah, we don't need to do that because it fits our theory. Great "science" here huh?

 

 

 

[nflwxman]

It makes sense that the Antarctic sea ice is high and the Arctic sea ice is lower due to natural variations. The thermohaline circulation has pumped more heat into the NH oceans, especially the North Atlantic. Therefore it is warmer in the NH and less sea ice. The southern oceans are generally colder than normal and there is more sea ice down there.

 

anomnight_7_28_2014.gif

 

This can all be explained by the natural variations of ocean currents that has been happening since about 2.6 million years ago when the isthmus of Panama closed off! Global sea ice has be at or even ABOVE normal recently.

 

global_daily_ice_area_withtrend.jpg

 

Climate scientists relentlessly are trying to adjust this inconvenient fact out. It is very predictable. Why not go and try to improve upon the pre-satellite era Arctic sea ice coverage which is very poor? nah, we don't need to do that because it fits our theory. Great "science" here huh?

It hasn't even passed peer review as SOC said.  Besides Arctic Sea Ice decline makes the Antarctic "increase" look pretty minuscule. Algorithm problems or not. 

 

I don't know why you want to paint climate scientists with such a broad condemning brush.  Very Joe Bastardi like.

[blizzard1024]

It hasn't even passed peer review as SOC said.  Besides Arctic Sea Ice decline makes the Antarctic "increase" look pretty minuscule. Algorithm problems or not. 

 

I don't know why you want to paint climate scientists with such a broad condemning brush.  Very Joe Bastardi like.

 

Global sea ice anomaly is close to and above normal. That is a fact. There is no way that CO2 increases has much to do with the loss of Arctic sea ice. Black carbon could be helping diminish the sea ice and snow cover with an even smaller component related to CO2. But by and large if you look at the Earth's climate history and the anti-phase behavior in NH and SH ocean temperature anomalies, you can't draw any conclusions that Arctic sea ice will vanish just yet. We don't really know what that Arctic sea ice extent was prior to satellite data. We have estimates but its not the same as the present measurements.  Anyway, yes you are correct. I shouldn't be so harsh on climate scientists. But one thing I have come to see is that EVERY single dataset, every one, that is adjusted, always points toward it being warmer now and colder in the past. I have yet to see one that shows an adjustment the other way. If you can find one, please share. I have looked and could not find any.  

[nflwxman]

Global sea ice anomaly is close to and above normal. That is a fact. There is no way that CO2 increases has much to do with the loss of Arctic sea ice. Black carbon could be helping diminish the sea ice and snow cover with an even smaller component related to CO2. But by and large if you look at the Earth's climate history and the anti-phase behavior in NH and SH ocean temperature anomalies, you can't draw any conclusions that Arctic sea ice will vanish just yet. We don't really know what that Arctic sea ice extent was prior to satellite data. We have estimates but its not the same as the present measurements.  Anyway, yes you are correct. I shouldn't be so harsh on climate scientists. But one thing I have come to see is that EVERY single dataset, every one, that is adjusted, always points toward it being warmer now and colder in the past. I have yet to see one that shows an adjustment the other way. If you can find one, please share. I have looked and could not find any.  

 

I don't think there is a lot of evidence on your first point there.  I think history will not be kind to that prognostication. 

 

Global sea ice is a very noisy metric and the long term trend is downward.  As far as temperature data, UAH and GISS both have undergone revisions that have lowered the short term trend at times.  The long term trend generally remains the same and with in the margin of error.  Remember, a lot of the places that we aren't directly measuring temperature are the places that are warming up the quickest globally.  

[blizzard1024]

I don't think there is a lot of evidence on your first point there.  I think history will not be kind to that prognostication. 

 

Global sea ice is a very noisy metric and the long term trend is downward.  As far as temperature data, UAH and GISS both have undergone revisions that have lowered the short term trend at times.  The long term trend generally remains the same and with in the margin of error.  Remember, a lot of the places that we aren't directly measuring temperature are the places that are warming up the quickest globally.  

 

This is a biased assumption. how would you know that is it warmer where you are not measuring?

 

I do know that satellite data both UAH and RSS are adjusted both ways for orbital drift. GISS adjustments, well, are largely colder 100 years ago and warmer now. see below....

 

 

Most of the trend in GISS, NCDC, and HadCrut4 are statistical adjustments and not actual measured temperature.

[ORH_wxman]

This is a biased assumption. how would you know that is it warmer where you are not measuring?

 

I do know that satellite data both UAH and RSS are adjusted both ways for orbital drift. GISS adjustments, well, are largely colder 100 years ago and warmer now. see below....

 

GISS%20MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif

 

Most of the trend in GISS, NCDC, and HadCrut4 are statistical adjustments and not actual measured temperature.

 

 

I feel like every thread you post in always ends up bringing up the temp adjustments...we've been over this before so many times. Most of these adjustments are from TOBS and themometer changes (liquid to digital)...they are necessary.

 

There's definitely room for nitpicking...esp on some of the other adjustments.... but honestly, it won't drastically chage the overall look. Its been tested before. You can try it yourself looking at station metadata...go check all the stations that don't need TOBS adjustments and look at their trend. It isn't that different from stations that needed the TOBS adjustment, and then were adjusted.

 

 

 

 

This is a thread about antarctic sea ice anyway.

[blizzard1024]

I feel like every thread you post in always ends up bringing up the temp adjustments...we've been over this before so many times. Most of these adjustments are from TOBS and themometer changes (liquid to digital)...they are necessary.

 

There's definitely room for nitpicking...esp on some of the other adjustments.... but honestly, it won't drastically chage the overall look. Its been tested before. You can try it yourself looking at station metadata...go check all the stations that don't need TOBS adjustments and look at their trend. It isn't that different from stations that needed the TOBS adjustment, and then were adjusted.

 

 

 

 

This is a thread about antarctic sea ice anyway.

 

 I have little faith in long term records that go back over 100 years. My scientific opinion only.  I just don't know how you could account for microclimate changes that occur from land use changes like UHI, vegetation growth, moving stations and also instrumentation changes and have a record that is precise to the nearest .1 degrees!! Seems dubious. Anyway you are correct this is about Antarctic sea ice and my point is that is should be higher than normal given the configuration of the oceans at present. Its a natural process including the decline of Arctic sea ice since the late 70s.  I don't believe CO2 levels have much to do with the state of the Arctic. Some...yes...but not the dominate factor. anyway, thanks for your polite response. You are one of the few on this site that can disagree with a point and be professional about it. Sometimes I even get too frustrated and fire off something I shouldn't. Kudos to you.

[StudentOfClimatology]

It's not like there is much of a long term trend anyway.

Yeah pretty much. I'm surprised how much media attention this is getting..

[tacoman25]

Yeah pretty much. I'm surprised how much media attention this is getting..

 

Basically none?

[blizzard1024]

Basically none?

 

The media pretty much ignores anything that would not be consistent with global warming.  Like the tremendously

chilly air that has spread to the deep south in the US. All we hear is how it is the warmest ever. That is why people won't ever buy this

idea of global warming. The media bias is so apparent. Then when it is snowy and cold, they blame the warming

Arctic for this which is absurd...its called the negative phase Arctic oscillation. anyway, don't expect to hear anything on

the record sea ice in the Antarctica.

[Isotherm]

Basically none?

 

 

 

It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next several years-decade with Arctic and Antarctic sea ice fluctuations. It's been apparent that the two poles have essentially been going in opposite directions since the 1990s. Even if the argument that AGW has induced the higher southern hemisphere sea ice anomaly (through stronger winds, freshwater freezing, etc), if the sea ice continues to grow, this will eventually have an impact on the global climate. I agree with your idea that it could be a negative feedback. Time will tell as it always does.

[skierinvermont]

I have yet to see one that shows an adjustment the other way. If you can find one, please share. I have looked and could not find any.  

 

This is a lie. I have shown you several.

[skierinvermont]

 I have little faith in long term records that go back over 100 years. My scientific opinion only. 

 

More like your un-scientific childish biased ranting.

[PhillipS]

There is a new post on the NSIDC site that talks about the paper and the changes to the Bootstrap algorithm for processing Antarctic SIE data.

 

 

Figure 5. This graph shows the differences in Antarctic sea ice extent between Version 2 and Version 1 of the Bootstrap algorithm. Blue indicates when Version 2 derived values were lower than Version 1; red indicates when Version 2 derived values were higher than Version 1. The vertical dashed lines indicate satellite sensor changes. 
Credit: I. Eisenman et al., The Cryosphere 

 

An excerpt from the post:

 

The paper studied the Bootstrap algorithm, which has been used in several published reports of Antarctic trends, including the last two IPCC Assessment Reports. These reports suggested that the Antarctic sea ice extent shifted from a small, statistically insignificant upward trend in the early 2000s to a more substantial, and statistically significant upward trend in recent years. (NSIDC uses a different algorithm, called NASA Team, to estimate sea ice extent.)

The paper found that following an update to the algorithm in 2007, using the newer Version 2 of the Bootstrap algorithm produced Antarctic sea ice extent trends that were approximately two times larger than those derived using Version 1. Closer examination of the data showed a noticeable step change in extent at the point of transition to a new satellite sensor in 1991. This step change appeared to be related to an error in calibration between the sensors, rather than actually being an abrupt shift in Antarctic sea ice.

Trends derived from both versions for time periods either before or after the sensor transition are similar. However, the two algorithms produce different results when trends that span the 1991 sensor transition are calculated. Using Version 2 of the algorithm produces a markedly higher trend.

Using the newer version of the algorithm, Antarctic extent trends agree much more closely with the trends from the NASA Team algorithm used by NSIDC. Regardless, the expansion in Antarctic sea ice is confirmed by other groups using different techniques.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

tu hut, you guys hear about this....?   (somewhat off-topic but related) 

 

http://www.cfact.org/2014/08/07/british-antartctic-survey-trapped-without-power-during-record-cold-55-4-c/

 

British Antarctic Survey trapped without power during record cold -55.4° C

If researchers lose power again they could freeze to death

 

Thirteen members of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) were trapped and in danger of freezing to death when their base, Halley VI, lost power.  Power went down on July 30th and is now partially restored.  The BAS waited to report the incident until power came back up, however now reports that the incident was so serious that all science activities have been suspended and emergency contingency plans to abandon some of Halley’s eight modules and attempt to shelter in a remaining few have been prepared.

The incident is particularly serious, as the station is likely completely cut off from rescue for months.  The incident occurred during the height of the Antarctic winter while southern sea ice is at or near record highs (Marc Morano has details at Climate Depot).

One Survey member, Anthony Lister, managed to send a out a “tweet” when power came back up, reporting that the outage occurred while the station was experiencing record cold temperatures of -55.4° C (-67.72° F).

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

The United States might have some drones they could send them a generator or something.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

The United States might have some drones they could send them a generator or something.

 

 

hehe, I guess. as long as the drone doesn't freeze at that altitude.   ( -100 F ? )

 

Their mentioning now that the power outage actually occurred for 19 hours. 

 

My initial thought process was , "they've got to be complete idiots if they haven't thought of having numerous power sources living down there".     Dying because of a power failure is completely unacceptable / idiotic living in such uninhabitable land. 

 

Pretty cool lookin setup they have though...I envision the Mars project to look similar -

 

[The_Global_Warmer]

Yes.

 

The apparent lack of redundant power sources is strange.  They should have multiple back up generators, wind mills, solar panels.

 

If that costs to much then don't go.

[FloridaJohn]

Yes.

 

The apparent lack of redundant power sources is strange.  They should have multiple back up generators, wind mills, solar panels.

 

If that costs to much then don't go.

 

According to this link:

 

"The next two modules are known as the energy modules, which contain all the services required to keep the base running throughout the Antarctic winter. As well as diesel generators, they house the sewage treatment, water and fuel storage tanks, waste management and fire suppression systems. Each of the energy modules is capable of generating enough power to run the station without the other, providing a level of redundancy."

 

Sounds like they have 100% redundancy. I wonder where the problem is.

[The_Global_Warmer]

that is redundancy.

 

Talk about a mass failure.

[ORH_wxman]

Man that sounds pretty awful down there. Scary losing power in that environment

[bluewave]

Here's the twitter and blog links:

 

https://twitter.com/AntAntarctic?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fantantarctic.wordpress.com%2F&profile_id=1907516898&tw_i=497471749089677314&tw_p=embeddedtimeline&tw_w=383531794160549888

 

http://antantarctic.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/the-big-power-down/

 

 

 wasn’t going to say anything about this but now BAS has issued a press release I will write a little. The following is the statement released by BAS today.

British Antarctic Survey (BAS) is dealing with a serious operational incident at its Halley Research Station. On Wednesday 30 July 2014 a major technical issue resulted in the station losing its electrical and heating supply for 19 hours. All 13 station staff are safe and in good health. Our urgent priority is to ensure the continued safety and wellbeing of the wintering team. Power and some heating are back online, and some other essential services have been restored, but the staff are having to live and work in extremely difficult conditions. The station has had good satellite communications throughout the incident. Contingency plans for alternative accommodation on site are in place and ancillary buildings are being made ready in case of a further power-down. It is now clear that because of the nature of the incident, and the prolonged loss of power, the station cannot now return to normal operation in the short or medium term.Everyone at Halley and Cambridge is doing everything that can be done to ensure that the incident remains under control. All science, apart from meteorological observations essential for weather forecasting, has been stopped.

From here: British Antarctic Survey News

 

I don’t really want to add any detail about what has happened down here (it’s nowt exciting honest!) but would just like to reiterate that we are all healthy, in good spirits and are busy setting about getting, and keeping the station in as good an order as possible. No-one here on station is responsible for the technical issues we are having and we are all working extremely hard.

Tea making facilities are still going strong.

On a happier note, despite the difficulties I really am still loving the place. Having made mention of how Antarctica can take things to another level just when you think you have seen something truly beautiful, well, I’ll have to say it once again. To prove that every cloud has a silver lining Halley, during the time without any power, was the clearest I have ever seen. This, coinciding with the loss of the small amount of light pollution we have, made the night-sky of the power-down the most beautiful I have ever seen – or probably ever will. the whole galaxy in its majesty, brighter than ever – going outside was almost a religious experience!

Another fairly cool, but problematic at the time, event occurred around the time of us losing power – the coldest temperature ever recorded at Halley Bay of -55.4 degrees. Throwing a cup of boiling water into the air resulted in small explosion as the water instantly turned into a cloud of ice crystals. This obviously didn’t help us on station at the time but it was nice to see a record set!

In other news, the Sun is on its way back to us. On a cloudy day the sky is really lighting up as the light from the Sun, still far below the horizon, is reflected upwards. After what we are used to it seems like there is daylight for a few hours a day now – though I know it;s just a pale (or dark) imitation of the real thing. Next week we’ll see the real thing, and shortly after we’ll need shades on all the time whilst out and about. Then it won’t be long at all till the night-sky is just a memory!

I’ll try to post updates when I can but I may well be fairly busy for a while!

About these ads

 

 

 

[chrisf97212]

According to this link:

 

"The next two modules are known as the energy modules, which contain all the services required to keep the base running throughout the Antarctic winter. As well as diesel generators, they house the sewage treatment, water and fuel storage tanks, waste management and fire suppression systems. Each of the energy modules is capable of generating enough power to run the station without the other, providing a level of redundancy."

 

Sounds like they have 100% redundancy. I wonder where the problem is.

 

I wouldn't have thought diesel generators would work there, as diesel turns into a gel at cold tempertures.  They must be keeping them inside.

[StudentOfClimatology]

I wonder if the severe cold had anything to do with the failure? A temp of -70F is no joke. The fact that an all time record was set right as the power failed makes me suspect the temperatures may have had something to do with it.

[FloridaJohn]

I wouldn't have thought diesel generators would work there, as diesel turns into a gel at cold tempertures.  They must be keeping them inside.

I believe all the equipment (and fuel) is kept indoors. I tried to find a more detailed description of the two energy modules, but so far haven't found anything. It's a very interesting station, and the comparison to a Mars station is quite apt.

[FloridaJohn]

According to this link:

 

"The next two modules are known as the energy modules, which contain all the services required to keep the base running throughout the Antarctic winter. As well as diesel generators, they house the sewage treatment, water and fuel storage tanks, waste management and fire suppression systems. Each of the energy modules is capable of generating enough power to run the station without the other, providing a level of redundancy."

 

Sounds like they have 100% redundancy. I wonder where the problem is.

Looks like each power module has two generators, so four total generators. They must have had something major happen to take out most if them.

[Sophisticated Skeptic]

I wonder if the severe cold had anything to do with the failure? A temp of -70F is no joke. The fact that an all time record was set right as the power failed makes me suspect the temperatures may have had something to do with it.

 

 

also, the fact that very little equipment has been tested to survive -70F or more.

 

I mean, how do you test equipment over the long haul to survive these types of temps....their kind of like in uncharted territory ..