Re: [asa] Satellite sea ice sensor has "catastrophic failure" - data faulty for the last 45 or more days

Here's a suggestion.

Post one or both of these issues as questions on RealClimate.org. The
first seems to be a legitimate concern. The second is an old issue,
and has been thrashed out ad nauseum.

I have been getting some reasoned responses over there.

On 2/19/09, Lynn Walker <lynn.wlkr@gmail.com> wrote:
> [image: 2008-science-winner]
> The 2008 weblog awards winner for Best Science Blog
> *http://wattsupwiththat.com/
>
>
> NSIDC: satellite sea ice sensor has "catastrophic failure" - data faulty for
> the last 45 or more days * ("Although we believe that data *prior to* early
> January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check in the coming
> days. ...it became clear that there was a significant problem -
> sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. ..."
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/18/nsidc-satellite-sea-ice-sensor-has-catastrophic-failure-data-faulty-for-the-last-45-days/#comments
>
> Click for larger image [at above link]
>
> Today NSIDC announced they had discovered the reason why. The sensor on the
> Defense Meteorological Satellite
> Program<http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/dmsp/index.html>(DMSP) satellite they
> use had degraded and now apparently failed to the
> point of being unusable. Compounding the bad news they discovered it had
> been in slow decline for almost two months, *which caused a bias in the
> arctic sea ice data that underestimated the total sea ice by 500,000 square
> kilometers.* This will likely affect the January NSIDC sea ice totals.
> .... [snip]
>
> *John Egan* (22:29:11) asks :
> Will NSIDC issue a correction to the media?
> "Arctic sea ice coverage was at its sixth lowest January extent since
> satellite records began in 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data
> Center. Average ice extent during January was 5.43 million square miles."
> This was released in a number of news outlets -
> http://www.examiner.com/x-219-Denver-Weather-Examiner~y2009m2d18-January-was-seventh-warmest-for-globe
> And
> was also part of the larger NOAA January report -
> http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090218_globalstats.html *<>
>
> William Schlesinger on IPCC: "something on the order of 20 percent have had
> some dealing with climate."
> *17 02 2009
> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/william-schlesinger-on-ipcc-something-on-the-order-of-20-percent-have-had-some-dealing-with-climate/
>
> This is a bit disturbing, though in retrospect, not surprising. One of our
> local IPCC wonks <http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/inside/07_05_10/ipcc.shtml> at
> Chico State University, Jeff
> Price<http://news.csuchico.edu/2007/10/12/un-climate-control-panel-shares-2007-nobel-prize-with-al-gore-csu-chico-environmental-scientist-one-of-lead-authors/>,
> is a biologist, but lectures me about climate all the same. - Anthony
>
> *by Paul Chesser, Climate Strategies
> Watch<http://www.climatestrategieswatch.com/>
>
> *I had intended to return to this point when I originally posted about this
> debate<http://www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/12/john-christy-debates-william-schlesinger/>last
> week, but time got away from me. Thankfully, my colleague Roy Cordato
> brought
> it up today <http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=18982>:
>
> *During the question and answer session
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08hd141-Hac>of last week?s William
> Schlesinger <http://www.ecostudies.org/people_president.html>/John
> Christy global
> warming
> debate<http://www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/%20http:/www.johnlocke.org/lockerroom/lockerroom.html?id=18946>,
> (alarmist) Schlesinger was asked how many members of United Nation?s
> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were actual climate
> scientists. It is well known that many, if not most, of its members are not
> scientists at all. Its president, for example, is an
> economist<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Pachauri>.
>
>
> *Picture:
> http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/13/Rajendra_Pachauri_wideweb__470x317,0.jpg
> Rajendra Pachauri, *Chairman of the IPCC* - trained initially as a* railway
> engineer <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_Pachauri>
>
> **This question came after Schlesinger had cited the IPCC as an authority
> for his position. His answer was quite telling.
>
> First he broadened it to include not just climate scientists but also those
> who have had ?some dealing with the climate.? His complete answer was that
> he thought, ?something on the order of 20 percent have had some dealing with
> climate.? In other words, even IPCC worshiper Schlesinger now acknowledges
> that 80 percent of the IPCC membership had absolutely no dealing with the
> climate as part of their academic studies.
>
> *This shatters so much of the alarmists' claim, as they almost always appeal
> to the IPCC as their ultimate authority.
>
> - Lynn
>

-- 
Burgy
www.burgy.50megs.com
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.