Consistency for its own sake isn’t science: Satellite sensor drift cause sea ice coverage analysis errors
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
As some of our readers have already noticed, there was a significant problem with the daily sea ice data images on February 16. The problem arose from a malfunction of the satellite sensor we use for our daily sea ice products. Upon further investigation, we discovered that starting around early January, an error known as sensor drift caused a slowly growing underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent. The underestimation reached approximately 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles) by mid-February. 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. See below for more details.
We have removed the most recent data and are investigating alternative data sources that will provide correct results. It is not clear when we will have data back online, but we are working to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
Sensor drift is a perfect but unfortunate example of the problems encountered in near-real-time analysis. We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above.
Some people might ask why we don’t simply switch to the EOS AMSR-E sensor. AMSR-E is a newer and more accurate passive microwave sensor. However, we do not use AMSR-E data in our analysis because it is not consistent with our historical data. Thus, while AMSR-E gives us greater accuracy and more confidence on current sea ice conditions, it actually provides less accuracy on the long-term changes over the past thirty years. There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time periods.
I fully understand the issues with calibration, drift, real-time data collection, etc. I agree that it can and will happen. Ignoring for a moment their statement about consistency for a moment I’d have say I have no problems with events like this. Shit happens. The problem is with the religious fanaticism of the eco-statists. Just as a news paper correction is almost always lost and forgotten relative to the original headline… data like this has more often than I’d like been used as legitimate. “Skeptics” who doubt the data are often lumped into the “deniers” group with flat-earthers and Holocaust deniers. Hyperbolic and ad-hominem statements incongruous with real science.
About real science and consistency. Perhaps its just the way they explained it but they seem to be advocating using potentially inaccurate data for the sake of consistency. As if they have their conclusion set and they want the closest data set available to match it. That’s not science. If historical data does not match current and supposedly more accurate data they need to find out why the historical data is off or why explain why the supposedly more accurate data isn’t.
It is the far too regular fuck ups, slight of hand, outright lies and political influences which make the whole global warming global climate change topic so controversial and people like myself so skeptical.
