Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor

[DavidS]

Bloomberg.com: News

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.



The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.



“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

 

[dilloduck]

Bloomberg.com: News

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.



The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.



“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

It's science ----It couldn't possibly be wrong.

 

[AllieBaba]

Ruh roh, Shaggy...
Time for a Scooby snack!

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Bloomberg.com: News

Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.



The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.



“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’

Wait, I thought GW was a conspiracy of lies? Wouldn't they just not tell anyone there was a sensor problem if they were trying to conspire to lie?

 

[Old Rocks]

Yep, the estimated loss of ice has been corrected. The mistake involved an area the size of the state of California. So the corrected figure only puts the loss as the size of Texas and Alaska combined.

 

[FactFinder]

That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

Did anyone bother to look at the alleged ocean?

I occasionally get my butt up and look out the window. Where was Google Earth?

 

[FactFinder]

Recent cold snap helping Arctic sea ice, scientists find

Canadian scientists are also noticing growing ice coverage in most areas of the Arctic, including the southern Davis Strait and the Beaufort Sea.

"Clearly, we're seeing the ice coverage rebound back to more near normal coverage for this time of year," said Gilles Langis, a senior ice forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa.

Winter sea ice could keep expanding

 

[Old Rocks]

Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis

February 26, 2009
Near-real-time data now available

Sign up for the Arctic Sea Ice News RSS feed for automatic notification of analysis updates. Updates are also available via Twitter.

Near-real-time sea ice data updates are again available from Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis. We have switched to the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) sensor on the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) F13 satellite following the sensor drift problem described in our February 18 post.

The temporary error in the near-real-time data does not change the conclusion that Arctic sea ice extent has been declining for the past three decades. This conclusion is based on peer reviewed analysis of quality-controlled data products, not near-real-time data.

 

[AllieBaba]

In other words, it's not real.

 

[Old Rocks]

In other words, it's not real.

In other words, you have comprehension problems. The real time data is what we get day to day, unchecked for drift like we saw occur on the sensor on that satelite. Perhaps you should read the article, it might improve your abilities to write a sensible answer.

 

[AllieBaba]

"GAO found that: (1) although GCM have improved their ability to predict
future climatic changes over the last decade, their estimates are still
limited by their incomplete or inaccurate representations of
climate-affecting processes and by insufficient computer power; (2)
scientists do not fully understand how the climate system responds to
potentially important physical, chemical, and biological processes; (3)
the lack of computer power requires scientists to use simplified
assumptions and structures that increase the uncertainty of the models'
predictions; (4) scientists are conducting research to overcome the
limitations of the computer models; and (5) five federal agencies spent
about $122.6 million for various global modeling projects, which
represented about 3 percent of the global change research program's
budget for FY 1992 through 1994.
Global Warming: Limitations of General Circulation Models and Costs of Modeling Efforts

"The key evidence to support claims of future global warming comes from computer models of the climate system, the accuracy of which have been frequently questioned, particularly in respect of the size of the warming they predict. The real Earth has so far responded neither in the way, nor in the degree, predicted by the models."
Warming by Proxy

"It suggests that "all models used to predict global warming underestimate the rate at which precipitation increases in response to surface warming," he said.

"If these models turn out to underpredict the global mean precipitation response, it seems plausible that they would also underpredict the increased frequency of heavy rain events," Soden said.

"RSS's Wentz believes the real work begins now, helping computer experts reconcile the differences between their models and what the satellites show.

"I hope," he said, "we've put a little doubt in some modelers' minds."
Global Warming Models Underpredict Increase in Rainfall, Study Says

You fucking flat earthers and your junk science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, you fucking flat earthers and your willfull ignorance. Yes, the scientists have underestimated the rate of the warming, the rate of the melt of the ice caps, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. As well as the amount of precipitation increase due to global warming. That is hardly reason for jubilation. It seems that there are some feedbacks that we have not taken into account, and mybe some that we do not even know about yet.

But humanity will go right on with what we are doing. And when the consequences come to pass, curse the scientists for not telling them in more forceful terms about what was coming

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, that's not what's happened at all.

What has happened is that the "models" all you flat earthers rely so heavily on are ALWAYS WRONG. They haven't been right about ANYTHING, EVER.

But go ahead with your little pretend scenario in Make Believe Land.

 

[elvis]

Ah yes, you fucking flat earthers and your willfull ignorance. Yes, the scientists have underestimated the rate of the warming, the rate of the melt of the ice caps, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. As well as the amount of precipitation increase due to global warming. That is hardly reason for jubilation. It seems that there are some feedbacks that we have not taken into account, and mybe some that we do not even know about yet.

But humanity will go right on with what we are doing. And when the consequences come to pass, curse the scientists for not telling them in more forceful terms about what was coming

Fuck you dickhead.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Ah yes, you fucking flat earthers and your willfull ignorance. Yes, the scientists have underestimated the rate of the warming, the rate of the melt of the ice caps, and the warming of the Arctic and Antarctic. As well as the amount of precipitation increase due to global warming. That is hardly reason for jubilation. It seems that there are some feedbacks that we have not taken into account, and mybe some that we do not even know about yet.

But humanity will go right on with what we are doing. And when the consequences come to pass, curse the scientists for not telling them in more forceful terms about what was coming

"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonic increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes."
Japan's boffins: Global warming isn't man-made • The Register

 

[AllieBaba]

"The IPCC uses surface weather data, which means there is inadequate data in space and time for most of the world to create an accurate model. Limitations of the surface data are surpassed by an almost complete lack of information above the surface. An illustration of the surface problem is identified by the IPCC comment of the problems of modeling Arctic climates...
In the Southern Hemisphere the IPCC identifies this problem over a vast area of the Earth’s surface. “Systematic biases have been found in most models’ simulation of the Southern Ocean. Since the Southern Ocean is important for ocean heat uptake, this results in some uncertainty in transient climate response.” (AR4. Chapter 8. p. 591.)

Atmosphere and oceans are fluids governed by non-linear rather than linear equations. These equations have unpredictability or randomness - also known as chaos – it explains why the models get different results every time they are run. These problems well known outside of climate science were specifically acknowledged in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR), “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” (TAR, p.774.)...

"The IPCC use the term evaluation instead of validation, but they don’t evaluate the entire model. To do so they say shows problems but the source is not determined. Instead they evaluate at the component level. This means they don’t evaluate the important interactions between the components at any level.

"IPCC Report AR4 makes a remarkable statement not repeated in the Summary for Policymakers. It speaks to the lack of valuation, which explains the failure of their projections. “What does the accuracy of a climate model’s simulation of past or contemporary climate say about the accuracy of its projections of climate change? This question is just beginning to be addressed, exploiting the newly available ensembles of models.” (AR4, Chapter 8. p.594.)"
Completely inadequate IPCC models produce the ultimate deception about man made global warming