The 100-meter retract

A new Olympic record for retraction of a mistaken analysis of NSIDC data 3

The gold medal goes to Steven Goddard of The Register. On Friday, Aug. 15, he published a scathing article, "Arctic ice refuses to melt as ordered: There's something rotten north of Denmark" attacking the National Snow and Ice Data Center plot of Arctic Sea Ice Extent (below) that I and pretty much everyone else on the planet use.

nsidc-8-25j.jpg

Based on some (mis)analysis too obscure for mortal men and women to follow, he concluded "The problem is that this graph does not appear to be correct":

The Arctic did not experience the meltdowns forecast by NSIDC and the Norwegian Polar Year Secretariat. It didn't even come close. Additionally, some current graphs and press releases from NSIDC seem less than conservative. There appears to be a consistent pattern of overstatement related to Arctic ice loss ...

Unless you are a denier, you may not be surprised to learn the amateur denier was wrong and the country's leading cryosphere scientists were right. But you might be surprised that Goddard issued an unequivocal retraction within days at the site of the original article:

Steven Goddard writes: "Dr. Walt Meier at NSIDC has convinced me this week that their ice extent numbers are solid ... It is clear that the NSIDC graph is correct, and that 2008 Arctic ice is barely 10% above last year -- just as NSIDC had stated."

In the words of Rosanne Rosanna Danna, "Never Mind."

Kudos to Walt Meier of NSIDC for the rapidity with which NSIDC handled this. As he posted on Real Climate last Friday:

NSIDC has worked with Mr. Goddard to get to the bottom of the issue ... and as has been mentioned in the comments above, he has posted a correction. I thank Mr. Goddard for his cooperation in this matter.

Unfortunately, this disinformation has raced around the world, with more than 70 blog reactions as of today according to Technorati, including headlines and comments such as:

  • Arctic Ice Grows 30 Per Cent In a Year
  • The Global Warming Theory takes a hit
  • Fishy Data From the Government
  • Here's another installment about the silliness of "global warming" as posited by politicians and "environmentalists".
  • Cooking the Books to Cook the Ice
  • Global Warming is about global government and depopulation

Oh well. Live by the blogosphere, die by the blogosphere.

In any case, if you look at the graph, you'll see the Arctic ice extent is shrinking perilously close to last year's record. It should be an exciting few weeks to see whether the record gets beat. But again, what's important isn't the year-by-year fluctuation, but the astonishingly fast decline in Arctic ice in the last few decades driven in large part by global warming, which may have catastrophic implications for the planet.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Laurence Aurbach Posted 9:28 am
    26 Aug 2008

    (mis)analysisBased on some (mis)analysis too obscure for mortal men and women to follow...
    It's not so obscure. Goddard simply did not understand how a map projection could affect his numbers.
    A map projection is a way of representing the 3-D Earth on a 2-D piece of paper (or a screen). The map projection a lot of people grew up with is Mercator. Check it out:
    Mercator projection
    The Antarctic is HUGE -- bigger than all the other land masses. That's because the standard Mercator projection distorts the area near the poles.
    Now, just for fun, here's a different map projection:
    Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
    This one shows the size of the Antarctic in correct relationship to the size other land masses. But the shapes of the continents are distorted.
    In fact, all map projections have some form of distortion. It's unavoidable.
    But Goddard simply counted the pixels on one map projection, compared it to different map projection, and ignored the fact that they were different.
    That's why the NSIDC says,
    Such an approach is simply not valid.
    The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their [area] based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does.
    By the way, who is Steven Goddard and what are his credentials, training or background? It seems to be a mystery. Some bloggers speculate he is a pseudonym.

    Ped Shed Blog
  2. wendigo Posted 12:08 pm
    26 Aug 2008

    geography 101......don't leave home without it.
  3. Craig Allen's avatar

    Craig Allen Posted 1:54 pm
    26 Aug 2008

    Stop the pressesThe ice extent plotted by NSIDC has taken a nose-dive in the latest plot. This is kind of wierd, the decline should be leveling off at this time of year, but has accelerated in the past week.

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement