Antarctic Sea Ice Trend by Pixel
Posted by Jeff Id on May 10, 2009
Updated twice.
——-
The antarctic sea ice trend is important as another baseline for Steig et al as a method of checking whether conclusions about temperature are reasonable.
As before, each ice pixel represents the trend in ice area per year. Brown is land, black is shoreline, grey is ocean. White represents zero trend while the maximum red value is +10Km^2/year for each 25×25Km pixel. The trend is for the full length of the satellite data 1978 -2009, only pixels with 120 months of ice data were used for the trend plot. This was arbitrarily chosen because pixels with 5 years of data aren’t sufficient to show a low noise trend.
The data has more variation in it than I expected. From previous work I knew the South edge of the graph would show a strong red color to the plot. The tip of the peninsula on the left is deep blue as expected because this is one of the fastest warming areas on earth. As we expect though ice has grown slightly so there is slightly more red color than blue.
The next graph is temperature plot, be careful because higher temperature trend is in red which would in theory add more blue (less ice) to the first graph.
This next graph is from an area weighted temperature reconstruction I did
I can’t make anything out of this but I had to show it so that others could understand better what noisy data can do.
In exploring the reasons behind the splotchy look of the Arctic, it is important to look at individual pixels to understand what creates the trend. Below is a typical ice pixel as recorded by the NSIDC. For most of the year the pixel is water only. You can see why the noise level is high.
The next 3 plots are of pixels which are adjacent to each other.
Well there it is. I was quite surprised the trend wasn’t smoother from pixel to pixel. I notice that in the first plot, the ice is demonstrating a growing trend on the top and bottom edges of the plot quite strongly while at the peninsula only the very tip is showing melting. The same spot where seven manned surface stations are maintained.

The green smudge at the tip of the peninsula represents seven manned surface stations.
Update: I’ve added plots which represtent the locations of the four trend graphs above. The first trend graph above is located at the topmost dark green point in the gray ocean area in figure below.The pixel had less than the required number of months (120) for the trend plot in Fig 1. The second green dot represents the three adjacent pixels represented in the other 3 trend plots.
Update again:
The shorter months of data give a better view of why the ice level is increasing in the Antarctic. You can see the maximum extent of the north south edges have grown strongly while the east west edges have reduced in maximum extent in the last 30 years. The net is positive ice growth.






curious said
Hi Jeff – interesting plots. Tenatative question – Is it possible to put the ice extent plot for a pixel next to or on top of the temp record for that pixel? For example in the first plot where it looks as if 1986 and 2002 didn’t freeze? Also it would be interesting to know the geographical location of the example pixels. Thanks
Jeff Id said
#1 I don’t have temps for the sea ice areas. The comiso satellite record doesn’t cover that area.
As far as the location of the pixels, it will take about an hour of my time and it’s Sunday baby 😀 so I’m taking a bit of a rest. The pixels are typical but I’m interested in the location also. I’ll add it later today. Maybe before the hockey game!
Let’s go Red Wings!
curious said
Ok! Have a good one 🙂
curious said
and sorry – I think ’86 should be ’87!
Jeff Id said
I added the plot you requested above.
TCO said
I don’t understand the comment “you can see why the noise level is so high” referring to the three pixels.
curious said
Thanks – appreciated. Re: terminology – would it be better to give clock face references here? Or a sector ref. from 0 deg? Maybe I’ve misunderstood but as we are looking down on the south pole I think the references to n/s and e/w are ambiguous?
On first reading I’m not sure I follow why you think the lower record numbers (ie months data available) give a better picture of what’s happening? – I read it again later.
curious said
Also OT but there is a report on WUWT on the Surface Stations project.
Quick skim suggests it is statement of the problems and suggestions for improvements but it doesn’t seem to include datasets derived by class of station:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/10/a-report-on-the-surfacestations-project-with-70-of-the-ushcn-surveyed/
TCO said
He’s been near 70% for a long time. And he has not been posting on it much. I wonder how likely or soon he gets to 80%
cogito said
#9 TCO, the flight to Boston leaves at 11:45 am. Why don’t you try to catch it?
Kenneth Fritsch said
At Post #8
Thanks for the link, Curious, as I am not a regular reader there. I was pleased to hear that Watts plans to analysize and write up the results of his teams CRN ratings, that Jeff ID has offered his help (I judge that it is very important that Watts get the right kind of help in doing his analyses) and that Watts appreciates the small number of stations in the CRN1 and 2 categories and wants to continue the project to get these numbers up- if possible. That is why I used CRN 1,2 and 3 categories versus CRN 4 and 5. The station to station trend variations are large and getting significant statistical differences takes larger station numbers.
Something that I judge that John V in his haste to vindicate the GISS series did not appreciate – and I suspect there are others also who do not.
It may be time for me to visit a couple of stations here in northern IL.
Carrick said
TCO:
Hmm?
He’s at 79% according to the last update.
Want to put a bet down he won’t make 80%?