Arctic Ice Extent Understated Because of "Sensor Drift"

"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 relys 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."

Interesting....just think what other data could be incorrect and out-of-date if something like this can happen on something so widely researched.

im a little confused...does this mean that were not in as much trouble from global warming as everyone says?

reply to post by Attackhoe


Thats my understanding of it, 500,000KM Sq of underestimated ice growth, thats quite alot?

Just adds more fuel to the fires of the global warming BS, which i think it is BS, if im wrong im sure ill burn up with the rest of the world as and when it or what ever happens.

[edit on 19/2/2009 by phushion]

at the same time that it means Global Warming has been overblown, it would also mean that a possible indicator of global cooling has been overlooked.

This is great news. Someone mentioned global warming. I still don't think we have as much or any control over it as a lot of people would like to think.

If the toxic pollution , that spews from factories all over the world, got a fraction of the press devoted to 'global climate change'( and it's 'star', carbon dioxide) we might start solving a real problem that can't as carbon dioxide is known to do contribute in any way to life flourishing.

Since the plan seems to be to reign in human , or any other, growth by any means possible i have for some time not been greatly surprised by what we hear about and what we do not.

Stellar