Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - magnamentis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 15, 2017, 01:57:34 PM »
This sucks so much!  I, like all on this forum, need ZERO ice!  Those damn denialists have to be proven wrong!  Our earth is going to go ice free and they have to pay!!

you mean to value being right and revenge (they have to pay) over the health and wellbeing fauna and flora ?

this is an approach that caused most wars in the past and still does. we need a healthy stable climate and not a catastrophe just to feel we were right. i was wrong about this melting season when it came to my expectations for second lowest and that's GOOD not bad, for example LOL

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 13, 2017, 08:07:32 PM »
i can't comment on your assumptions about the ice having little impact/importance to the rest of the global climate, just taking it as a statement and express my doubts, while even should that be as you say, the sea-ice is significantly impacted by what's going on on the planet as a whole (climate change etc.) and hence even should your assumptions be true and my doubts in vain, the ice is definitely one key indicator of ongoing changes and as such it's by no means unimportant because it's an "eye catcher where changes of .x degrees in global temps are becoming obvious.

this is not exclusive to sea-ice of course, glaciers and many other indicators exist but then sea-ice-extent is just easy for everyone to compare to let's say 30 years ago or even earlier.

I just meant sea ice is a following indicator not a leading one. Obviously it's of interest to many different disciplines to study it and track it's behaviour but there are few where it's worth modelling a forecast of a few days.

The wavewatch model and, as far as I'm aware, the GFS, both only take the ice field at the start and treat it as fixed through out the forecast. It simply doesn't vary enough in that time scale to have noticeable effects (and in reality there is so little monitoring in the areas that would be affected that no one would notice anyway).

got what you mean, all about terms like so often, all good ;) :D

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 13, 2017, 12:01:34 AM »
i can't comment on your assumptions about the ice having little impact/importance to the rest of the global climate, just taking it as a statement and express my doubts, while even should that be as you say, the sea-ice is significantly impacted by what's going on on the planet as a whole (climate change etc.) and hence even should your assumptions be true and my doubts in vain, the ice is definitely one key indicator of ongoing changes and as such it's by no means unimportant because it's an "eye catcher where changes of .x degrees in global temps are becoming obvious.

this is not exclusive to sea-ice of course, glaciers and many other indicators exist but then sea-ice-extent is just easy for everyone to compare to let's say 30 years ago or even earlier.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 05, 2017, 07:40:21 PM »
The slushy ice in the CAB will refreeze and build up to 3m thickness until next June if it will stay in CAB. If The Fram export will be slow, the CAB will have quite enough volume

that's a rarely mentioned corelation, thanks for the reminder that fram export is not a give thing ;)

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 05, 2017, 07:36:00 PM »
This is a most unexpected wind down to the season.
After the very mild winter I didn't necessarily expect a new record, but I also never expected us to fall this far back after so much global warming.


Whenever I think I understand Arctic Ice, it slaps me in the face.
Terry

+1

good school however, i often say that who claims he got it has just proven he/she didn't because we never really will understand/know it all.

the part i love with this things is that we learn, the second highest goal after love, and then we get cut back to real size by cosmic powers, this considering that our planet and all on and in it is a part of the universe/cosmos ;)

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 04, 2017, 06:26:57 PM »
It is safe to say, no matter if the minimum is today or by end of the month, that the amount of ice, and more importantly the spatial distribution of it, is similar to last year's end of season, with more and thicker ice in the Atlantic side, and sparser and thinner ice in the Pacific side, although the way the ice pack has reached to it is really different.
Interesting observation. Indeed the path to this distribution was quite different, but the end result similar. I still wonder myself what the end result will be, the thin slushy ice is in competition with the looming refreeze.

currently all speaks for your theory that the relative widely spread slushy ice could make for an early relative jump in extent and area gains, also similar to last year. IMO it depends how much of the reminder is 10, 20 and 30cm thick. in case of a lot of 10cm ice my theory still has a chance, if all remaining ice is 20+ cm thick i think your views will prevail, i give it another 5-10 days max to declare defeat LOL

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: September 03, 2017, 09:24:55 PM »
Look like it has been snowing:

true that ;)

when looking towards horizon in the pics taken by this buoy it often looks like a lot of open water while at least one side of the buys is heavily surrounded by persisting ice, the thought crossed my mind that the buoy may have it's own freezer on board ;) :)

just to make sure, i hope that everyone got it that i'm just kidding ;)

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 02, 2017, 03:56:59 PM »
OK, so this is where I officially give up trying to make sense of this melting season, IJIS.  Thanks gerontocrat.  Any ideas why the melt suddenly picked up?

because bottom melt takes over while surface refreeze is sparse or not yet existent and the ice is very thin hence more and more parts of the puzzle are going to disappear as long as there will be no serious surface freezing for which it will take temps around -10C to kick off in serious and over significant areas to compensate for bottom melt. if on of those storms eventually will make it into the arctic, let's say one of the kind of last december/january, some would be heavily surprised to see half of the reminder or close to that go within 2-3 days.

apparently we dodged the canonball but who can tell whether there isn't a cluster bomb under way ?

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 01, 2017, 10:51:26 PM »
so, instead of repeating words i thought to illustrate where i see this season end:

2n lowest in the second half of the range of dates that minimums occured earlier.

reason is that there is a lot of ice widely spread in parts even peripheral and it's so thin
and fragmented that bottom melt and every kind of wind and wave action will have an impact on that ice in parts till october and i'm sure we shall sooner or later see heavy winds and waves
hit different regions so that the ice will remain in a fragile and relatively thin state so that bottom melt can continue to do it's job quite late into the year. even an october minimum would be possible even though i more tend to see a minimum between 17th and 23rd of september which of course is an arbitrary choice more of a gut feeling, let's see.

and now i'm curious and i did not say it will, only it could and that's my guess !!!

what @oren wrote somewhere would be the opposite stance which is very well possible as well while i believe that bottom melt due to the heat in the system and wind and wave action due to the bad consistency of the ice will prevail this year but again @oren's theory makes sense as well and it will be interesting to see how things go.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:46:52 PM »
Right. So who's we?  In my opinion
You should write the chief scientist there and tell them of the big mistake in their model.
No, I don't find anything essentially mistaken in their model, don't misunderstand my words.
Let's not make a ball effect of misunderstandings. I don't agree with some of what you said, not with what the maps indicate. You being whatever collectivity or an individual. Ok? That's all.

probably an individual sharing his views with others or even a majority, at least i see things similarly and if bottom melt is a reality (which of course it is) is still think we could be in for a surprise, similar to what happend in beaufort recently 25% gone in no time.  as i mentioned earlier, i expect a very late in the season effect of bottom melt to the final result of this season due to generally thin and fragmented ice, not even talking about a storm an wave action which could happen almost any time during the next few weeks that are still well within the average period of melting.

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: August 27, 2017, 02:16:04 AM »
a few knots less and that battery reqirements could be reduced significently. add what neven said plus a skite sail or two and perhaps the reduced long term costs would become attractive for some goods ?

just throwing in a few thoughts but i think that sooner or later efficiency and environmental concerns should overrule speed at all costs.

12
The rest / Re: What is going on
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:39:20 PM »
since i dislike too many "me too(s) i just say that reading this page can do the for some job :-)

especially i find it kind of brave to admit certain things in public since there are still too many old school people who'd say that a man doesn't cry, totally disagree, on the opposite, a good man
should be able and self-confident enough to cry not only in secluded places.

i personally am of the "movie" fraction as well as get tears most often from happiness and recognition of new valuable insight.

13
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:33:35 PM »
Hounding any president out of office is wrong.

So it was wrong for Nixon to be "hounded out of office"? Should Americans--and the House--have simply looked the other way, shrugged, and said, "Yeah, obstruction of justice, abuse of power, and criminal cover-up are all bad things. But we shouldn't hound Nixon, so it's all good."

I disagree.

We need a President who's not just capable of handling the duties of the office, but one who is beholden to no one or nothing but America's citizens and its ideals. And given that an increasing amount of the data contained in the so-called "Steele dossier" has been corroborated, meaning that perhaps most if not all of it is true, Russia has been working Trump for years, grooming him while amassing major quantities of compromat to be used against him.

The guy with access to the nuclear codes shouldn't be in such a position. And I am perfectly comfortable "hounding out of office" anyone in that position if that's what it'll take to keep us safe.

lack of being held responsible on all kinds of higher echelon is a general flaw in the system, i'd even go much farther than just ousting those irresponsible kind but make them pay, throw them into prison and the likes. however, what i'm saying is that i fully agree with your views like so often ;)

14
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: August 24, 2017, 01:19:11 AM »
Who cares about Russiagate. In the next 5 years the world population will grow by something between 500 and 600 million people. Most of them in places where people are already running from in large numbers. Most of them will end up in places like the US and Canada. And they will all support the left wing. What will be the impact of that on the artic sea ice melt, and on things like US aquifers. Because many are already in a bad shape. And after 8 years Obama, you can be sure they will all come.

while you may have point one can still care about now and about other things than that, there is no contradiction in it. only limit is the individual multitasking bandwidth so to say  ;) ;) i see little sense in playing out one topic that is an integrated part of the whole against another.

15
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: August 23, 2017, 08:15:52 PM »
+1 to 1-5, those reasons are a proper base for an assessment of this kind.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 23, 2017, 08:13:03 PM »
Really big icebergs that break off ice sheets rather than glaciers are generally called "tabular icebergs", although the largest are sometimes called "ice islands".

great to get the picture finally, very much appreciated both replies @oren's and yours

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 23, 2017, 08:11:53 PM »
I always thought the 15 percent rule originated from the days of sail as a measure of when it would be dumb to venture further into the ice. But I have never found a confirmation of this.
I thought the same as you, i.e. anything more than 15%, and you don't even want to think about going there.

However, there is also another reason for that particular value. During one of my dialogues with the NSIDC team, I was given the following response...

"15% concentration is useful for some marine navigation. However, the contour was originally developed since this threshold provided the best agreement between passive microwave remote sensing on space-paced platforms and aerial overflight work in early studies (e.g. Cavalieri et al. 1991: Aircraft active and passive microwave validation of sea ice concentration from the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Special Sensor Microwave Imager. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 96, 21989 – 22008, doi: 10.1029/91JC02335.)"

15% is the accuracy at the lower end of the concentration scale, which is why the match works best at this level. A measurement of above 15% almost certainly has ice in it, one below could well be open water.

thanks for explaining this and especially good to know that it's not arbitrary ;)

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 23, 2017, 07:08:43 PM »
thanks, didn't know that,

to extend the question a bit, of course without questioning your reply as such, the ice-shelf that broke of in the antarctic is what then, a floe ?

i know its OT but i hope one more question is allowed since it originated on-topic and is just a side-question to further make use of the correct terms and since we're already at it, if an ice-floe ( thick one of course ) would brake loose and later would be sighted somewhere south of greenland from the bridge of a vessel, would there really be made a difference and that one floe would be called floe while all the bergs around it would be bergs ?

i hope it's not too much asked but i really wanna know once and for all :-)

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 freezing season
« on: August 23, 2017, 07:04:55 PM »
@Ned nice job, for further discredit of my opening post :)
For the last metric, I was expecting area to really start reaching bottom, but not really. As unusual as this season usually has been. The area curve should be getting flat now and extent keep dropping, not the opposite.

@Ned nice job, for further discredit of my opening post :)
For the last metric, I was expecting area to really start reaching bottom, but not really. As unusual as this season usually has been. The area curve should be getting flat now and extent keep dropping, not the opposite.

thanks for opening this thread now. the price for thinking or even acting ahead of the main stream seems to be high enough once more, i, like yourself, find it interesting to speculate the transition now that the season once more has proven it's "off any norm status" sooner or later we probably need a rule for opening such threads, until then i enjoy this and more to come. IMO it would even be possible to discuss the impact on much earlier states of the melting season on the coming freezing season. perhaps some people planned to open the freezing thread themselves ? ;)

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 23, 2017, 06:52:35 PM »
There are no icebergs in these waters as far as I know. I would say it's part of an ice floe that due to pressure from other floes got turned on its side or broken and squeezed upward or whatever. The experts here should have names for such phenomena. Ridging?
It seems to be a recurring theme, if you browse far upthread you will find more.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg61703.html#msg61703
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg63303.html#msg63303
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg86917.html#msg86917
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg87887.html#msg87887


mind to elaborate the correct definition of "ice-berg" if it's a berg that is made of ice, no matter how small and how it came to existence it would be an ice-berg, except the definition of "ice-berg" is more specific as to size and origin. ( no sarc, i really wanna know, just to make sure it's like that )

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 20, 2017, 10:50:28 PM »
Really? You look at models over ice itself?


No Killian. I look at the ice charts kindly provided by the Canadian Ice Service.

YMMV.


Take it up with the CIS. And actually that's an image I posted:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,762.msg125874.html#msg125874


those are on the safe side, it's about money once again, liability, eventual rescue costs etc.
IMO NWP is navigable looking at all the info that is floating around but the official status by canadian ice service is a bit about covering their back.

22
i doubt that any humanly built barrier can withstand that kind of force, forces like ice-drift on a very large scale. doubt does not mean i say it's not possible, i'm not an engineer or architect but i'd guess that such barriers would simply be pushed away and if it were feasible, maintenance and construction would cost huge and then for what benefit. the ice would simply melt on the other side of the barrier very soon ;)

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:11:01 AM »
I often wonder why there is so little consideration for biofuel for aviation to reduce (or eliminate) net carbon emissions from planes. It is proven technology which is mostly limited by high cost at this point.

Turns out biofuels can also reduce  other pollution currently emitted by jet engines.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2580/nasa-study-confirms-biofuels-reduce-jet-engine-pollution/#.WP-pErf3r4g.facebook

depends which biofuel, fuel from "FOOD" is a bullet in starving peoples foot as well as bad for those who cannot easily or at all afford raising basic food prices like corn, wheat and the likes.

there are many enough examples where biofuel has started to produced ins significant quantities while they were far from the quantities needed to replace fossil fuel and already there have arisen serious issues as mentioned above and more.

food, as long as there are people who starve on this planet is a crime to be used for energy purposes hence if biofuel it has to be produced from real waste and with very strong regulations.

the regulations needed i don't trust will be implemented due to our corrupt and lobby driven
political system, especially once the big players join the party in serious.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 08:06:34 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)


Go look at this area in PolarView (there's an image from this morning that shows the area just north of the buoy) and you can see that the buoy is near the edge of a lot of ice to the west and open water to the east. We couldn't see it up until now because the buoy wasn't free to rotate. Definitely I think there was a lot of melt and break up this weekend, but it isn't like all that ice we were seeing before has all but disappeared.


i think i clearly mentioned that the other side may look different, nevertheless the buoy has till recently been surrounded by ice, sitting inside a floe, visible on the very same sat images you mentioned. of course i can read between the lines, hence nothing new from that side.


i wanted to avoid identical double-posts since they're often not welcome, hence read both my posts on the matter, combine them and all is said and clear

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg125274.html#new

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 08:04:47 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)

In view of the GPS track, and of the satellite images, some here were wondering why we were not watching an image like this before.
I am not sure what you have been claiming since since months but I hope you are not 🍒 picking or utilizing this otherwise expectable image


i think i pointed out "NO CLAIM" how much clearer can one be ? i have the opinion that due to thinner than usual ice, bottom melt will sooner or later see to some kind of sudden death and this image looks like that. whatever one can say, short ago the buoy was inside a flow on all sides and that has first slowly and now more or less suddenly disintegrated at least on one side.

i wanted to avoid identical double-posts since they're often not welcome, hence read both my posts on the matter, combine them and all is said and clear

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg125274.html#new

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:52:00 PM »
Watching closely yet reserving judgment.  I recall quite a prolonged warm spell across the CAA a few years back, which I thought would cause a dramatically early opening of the NWP.  In the event, it was only a little early (end July iirc).  It takes a lot of heat to melt all that ice.

as to the NWP, due to last years import of more than usual MYI chuncks it will take even more to clear it, keyword "garlic press".

once the CAA kept the thick ice north of it the more southern parts were easier to melt out. as we have seen O-Buoy 14 has made quite some distance south-east which is somehow showing the path the ice that in parts originates in the CAB would take.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:28:52 PM »
Much like last year:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/summer-2016-images/#OBuoy14


exactly and last year ended second extent wise and not sure about area but depending on the source that was even lower, hence we're on a schedule expected by many if not most, nevertheless the poor melting momentum and once the atlantic side will get hit by storms, waves and humid warmth, who knows how it will end, probably second lowest again but this time by far, somewhere in the middle between 2012 and 2016 is well possible.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:22:07 PM »
i'm sure many remember what some here are expecting over wider areas (as a possibility of course, no claim that it has to) then look at this image and those a few hours before:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg125272.html#msg125272


29
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:19:57 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 14, 2017, 03:17:23 PM »
By my calculation, the odds of finishing in various places are as follows:

1st:  0%
2nd:  39%
3rd:  11%
4th:  36%
5th:  01%
6th:  12%
7th:  01%
8th or worse:  ~0%

1st 0% would have been the value in 2012 throughout most of the season, what happened then was something new that never happened before,  hence could not be foreseen.

2017 something new could happen as well ( in polls i opted for 2nd all season so no disagreement with that ), just saying, only, even though it can't be predicted, this time most of us are aware of the possibility, (thin, fragmented ice that could be eaten up to zero extent by bottom melt, as well as possible strong winds and wave action )

what i want to say is that 0% chance for 1st i wouldn't sign, (a) for the above reasons and (b) because i generally try to never say 0% and to never say 100% sure if it's avoidable.

i would give a 1st place still a chance or 5-10%, going down by the day of course but for the next 10 days i'd not call it 0% chance.

i know you did the math and they're correct, the above i just wanted to add to round up the picture.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 12, 2017, 08:35:34 PM »
For some ground-truthing, compare Wipneus' high-contrast map with O-Buoy 14's location and camera image (60% water?)


beside the fact that you're right when it comes to the direct optical comparison it has to be mentioned that he many times pointed out that this images of his come with a somehow extremely increased contrast to show where things get "watery" only with that in mind those images can be interpreted correctly. they are artificial to point something out and not meant to be 1:1 readable as ice covered or ice-free which is why the comparison for the purpose of truth finding is not appropriate.


32
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:49:37 PM »
you're right but why reaches ? it has been like that for most of the year or do i translate the word "reach" wrongly. until now i thought reaching is to get to a point/state/place where one has not been the moment before? would gladly make sure that i'm not mistaken or learn.

33
be patient, the main difference this year is thickness and logically it will show on the last mile, means during the last few weeks of the melting season. it's already hinting and if the weather conditions won't see to a very early minimum and a calm reminder of the season i still think we're getting close ( opted for second lowest from the beginning and stick to it )

BTW, talking about being close at the end of the season, IMO we are permanently close to the lowest at almost any time this year or below earlier. i opt for a sudden death over wide areas for the reason mentioned above.

34
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:42:38 PM »
It's devastating for the local wildlife. Tundra grows very slowly.
I would think it's a normal part of nature there.

growth is fastest after wildfires, where i live almost half of the area has been on fire once during the past 20 years and growth, including speed and hight of brushes has doubled after each fire. further i think that the soil is building a bit faster since the tundra does not build that much of humus while ashes and burned residues do. even though in places it's blown away, it will accumulate in places and build fruitful earth, behaviour would be simiilar to sand and snow, filling throughs and building little thicker spots where different plants can grow once the climate allows.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:35:06 PM »
The water-ice interface once again looks (to me) like some surface freezing recently took place, and that afterwards the water level fell, or, more likely, the ice edge raised up. 

For the ice edge to rise, I think this means surface melt has to be significantly faster than bottom melt. Enlargement from Obuoy 14 camera image.


don't think so, the ice is melting from below and the edges get thinner and thinner. temps were well above zero yesterday and hover around zero for the reminder, certainly it's too warm there to build new ice from water.

the raise comes with the melting ice sitting higher in the water, well observable with ice-bergs that melted so much that the former waterline at times can be serveral meters above the water surface.

further, again looking at  bergs, one can often see how they get some mushroomy form factore, well visible once they capsize and the underwater melt being stronger than the surface melt is the very reason why they topple at all, they become top-heavy.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:45:46 PM »
a good page in this thread, many possibilities have been mentioned and no non-sense has spoiled it, we're getting to terms ;) ;)

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »

Then look at the filtered versions -- attached to following posts. They eliminate most of the purple flashes, and instead show a record of an earlier value (exactly what value they show depends on the algorithm).

i'd have to repeat myself but that exactly makes this so valuable for many of us and considering the consistency of retread by getting rid of the noise makes it a real tool that provides better information about the ice than any other i have seen. laymen or not, facts remain exacxtly that and these images show the short/mid term development in a most comprehensive way, at least for me and some others as it seems.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 07, 2017, 09:29:05 PM »
2017 cannot keep up with 2012, despite the very poor ice conditions.

not yet, just because 2012 started to drop to the bottom on day "X" does not mean that other years can't start the race earlier or later. it's too early to tell. as it was mentioned a few times the condition of the ice would "allow" for a sudden death of huge areas while this in no way means that it must happen. should we by any means look at a relatively calm and cool late summer it won't happen and the canon ball would be dodged for the umpteenth time this year.

generally as i said earlier it would certainly be good for the discussion if we were less jumping to conclusions because of daily ups and downs of the curve compared to other years, only 1 or 2 days ago there were voices calling the cliff (was possible) and now that we got one bin up others are calling the race off (it's possible) we simply don't know while my opinion is clear, i expect at least one or two bigger drops over a few days ahead and opted all season for second lowest in the polls.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 07, 2017, 06:06:31 PM »
These animations are a really nice addition the forum.  Thanks gd2 for taking on this project.

One suggestion I have is to add a pause on the last frame of each animation.
[/b]

this one can easily suggest to 99% of all the gif makers, not only is it good for the eyes to rest for second or two to be prepared to digest the succession but also it would be much easier to distinguish the last from the first picture, including the content of the two.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 07, 2017, 12:10:41 PM »
I'll try again

80 hour loop. August 3-6

Not sure why the gif won't run, I'll use another method.

working well (gif running) no problem, thanks

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:56:56 AM »
Adam, yes the ship is going backwards!

It is a double acting ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_acting_ship

"The propulsion system of the new gas carrier consists of Azipod type propulsion units. They provide a very high degree of manoeuvrability, and allow use of the stern-first motion (Double Acting Tanker, DAT function) principle, which is necessary to overcome hummocks and heavy ice fields. Uniquely Christophe de Margerie has three Azipods – this is the first time so many of these propulsion units have been installed on an Arctic ice class vessel."
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/unique-ice-breaking-lng-carrier-christophe-de-margerie-ready-to-serve-yamal-lng-project/


In thick ice, it is faster when going backwards!

"The stern section is designed to enable navigation in severe ice conditions.
The double-acting tanker capability allows the vessel to break heavy ice in both bow and astern manuoevres.
The vessel proved her capability to move stern-first in 1.5 metres thick ice at a speed of 7.2 knots (target figure was 5 knots) and head-on at a speed of 2.5 knots (target figure was 2 knots)"
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/christophe-de-margerie-class-icebreaking-lng-carriers/


perhaps i overlooked, then sorry, but it seems noteworthy that latest those pods/props can be used to crash the ice, with the props themeselves while before recently props had to be protected by either hardware appliances and/or hull shape to produce the right flow to steer the ice clear of the props and/or rudder if there is one (does not apply to pod equiped propulsion systems of course)

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:50:39 AM »
Thanks Sterks. I have similar thoughts. For long-term animations the median is probably is best, nice and smooth. It may even filter out some of the low concentration artifacts in the original images. On the other hand, it is relatively insensitive to day-to-day changes. For instance, if you watch the pacific side, you can see it "breathing" in some of the other animations, which I think does reflect real physical changes to the ice (although maybe not exactly just concentration). So for short-term animations, I am leaning towards one of the noisier versions (to better watch the horse race  ;D ).

your entire idea and approach with using filters on those graphs is a great improvement to get the bigger picture of how things went and are currently developing. great thanks for that, something really new and noteworthy. wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later some of the idea would be adopted by one or several of the main data providers.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:47:51 AM »
I think what is being said is that 2012 still had large, contiguous floes whereas this years pack does not show this? In 2012 a 1km sq would be covered with 100% ice whereas this year the 1km squarer might only have 16% of ice yet be counted as the full 100%?

The '15%' or greater ( and 30% and greater) were brought in to deal with peripheral , fragmented ice and not designed to work well over the central basin where 'roundups' can make for a large difference in the numbers?

Didn't someone contact NSIDC earlier on in the year concerning this issue?

Certainly last year but I think maybe the year before? showed this 'fragmented pack' across the central basin? The 'crackoplalypse' events, since 2013, have tended to reduce floes sizes by riddling the pack with 'fault lines' (over late winter) which readily fall apart once melt season arrives leaving us with a very broken pack?

+1 thanks

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:46:01 AM »
But if you are going to make grandiose claims, challenging the fundamental reliability of rigorously tested models, then you should damn well be held to the same standards as the people you are challenging – in this instance the Polar Science Center.

I don't disagree in substance.  What I would say is if you're going to pull someone up about it, then do at least make the case a bit more strongly.  PIMOAS  is a model based on data and not verified data in and of itself.

All volume models have been criticised on these boards because the enthusiast effort we see on a daily basis can, at times, make a complete nonsense of the volume models when there is patently no ice where the model says there is 2M ice or more.  Even worse when a storm kicks up and the area showing 2M ice, in whatever concentration,  suddenly vanishes in a day or two and the whole area is clear of ice.

These are statistical anomalies and they do exist in all the models.  Even more so in challenging times of rapid and fundamentally outside current understanding, rates of change in ice dynamics.

It is correct to challenge.  That is how science gets better.  But it is also a requirement to provide the evidence of where the model is failing, so that those who work with the models can work out why it failed.

As you say most of us do this as a hobby and very few subject their comments to rigorous statistical analysis.  Most don't have the time and the rest of us wouldn't know how to anyway.

But it doesn't meant that the analysts among us can't spot inconsistencies.

I guess I'm saying educate don't berate.

all you're saying is totally correct while to repeatedly mention obvious (visible) flaws in any model can't be wrong at all. we should never settle with what we get as long as flaws are obviously present.

the problem with criticism if any is the wording of it which i know from own experience is often subject the language barriers. even people who speak a language well in daily life at times reach some limits as soon as it comes to scientific and/or most precise talks where the exact terms become more and more important, especially when it comes to criticism of any kind, including intent constructive criticism.

each of us know his true intentions but often through imperfect wording/tone the good intentions/motives get omitted to the native speakers of a language. the worst level of
language skills for high level talk is between 50 and 80% level, because once language and
orthography appears to be good, a wrong word is understood as intended while it perhaps was not.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: Solar wind storms effect on ICE?
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:31:55 AM »
add the word "significant" to your theory and there you have the answer.

beside the fact that every kind of interaction in the entire universe has an effect of some kind, while it remains to determine which and where, i think if you add the word significant to the word effect the answer is clearly "NO" it might have an effect like everything else has, but which effect that is and where it does apply is somehow of low relevance as long as the effect is not "significant" which i think is quite obvious considering the levels of energy needed to affect polar ice caps in general.

however, i still like the question and any discussion on such topics because however things are on the topic, there is usually something to learn for everyone who is not active directly in the field of science in question.

don't hesitate to continue and bring up further arguments and stuff, i'll read, consider and filter with pleasure and should by any means the discussion here end, there always remains PM for a further exchange.

plus what jim said ;)

46
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 06, 2017, 12:14:50 PM »
magnamentis,
I probably would have worded it different myself, had I written it, but what can you do. Like you said, they write the headline to get attention. That is most likely why Neven is so ticky about how we word our posts. It detracts from it later, if something is over-stated.

P.S. Sorry if I over defended. It is an old habit, you know. Take care.

ohhh... no, i'm glad you did reply, this way i learn to do things better, i need this kind of feedback, less about what but about how to word/post things as you say. constructive feedback makes that much easier and i'm grateful for that.

wish you a nice sunday  8)

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 06, 2017, 11:17:32 AM »
Was pretty sure in spring the 2017 would be rivalling 2012 by now. Wouldn't have been astonished by a half a million lead by this time. It could be the estimates of the thicknesses of second-year floes are more accurate than what i guessed. In other words, i could have been wrong in april and may and henceforth during the summer. I'm rather happy to see this likely end up over 2.5 mkm2

if all the currently remaining ice would be building a solid ice-sheet as it once was we would be well below that mark. fragmentation and the resulting dispersion are the main reason IMO why the numbers don't tell the entire story but eventually will. just discount from the current values a certain percentage for all the blue between floes that is clearly visible on sat-images and one would be surprised how low we really are. always keep in mind the 15% threshold and that all above that counts as 100% even though it's often a lot less than that, especially nowadays.

48
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:46:18 AM »
magnamentis,
I don't see any of the places in this article that you have mentioned specifically that have wrong information. If there was a train wreck in my hometown, a headline may read," American Train Wreck Kills Two" and mainly on the world news, but that does not mean that it happened everywhere in America or the U.S. This article gives specific times and dates of events including fires. Which of these do you dispute? Also,
At least two people have died - one in Romania and one in Poland - and dozens more have been taken to hospital suffering from conditions related to the extreme weather, Reuters news agency reports.
Is the World's most known news source lying?  And,
On Thursday, temperatures hit 43C near Rome while Sicily recorded 42C as a blanket of hot air from Africa swept through the Mediterranean.
Which of these are not true?

People who argue against global warming use a similar argument to say that it is not warm everywhere. It is an average of temperatures from all over the area, and there is always some places that are going to be pleasant nearby.
it's ok, it was the "europe" term while it's local but you are right, it's common to word things like you did, wasn't necessary to be so d ;)etailistic

49
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 05, 2017, 12:53:11 AM »
Europe heatwave sparks health warnings as temperatures soar

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40825668



coolest summer since 11 years in southern spain, hence take news with a prise of salt. what's Europe, sweden, spain, italy greece, each with their own peak years and cool years. it's like saying americans are like ......... where in california or new york? huge difference. european summer hat peak temps in june in some places and temps on the cool side in others and again i did not have to sleep one single night on the sofa in the airconditioned living room as compared to the last 11+ years in southern spain.

you know by now how much i appreciate your spot on contributions but this is just not a statement that is true under the "europe" label. we each day at breakfast discuss and enjoy the ectraordinary cool nights for july and early august and we know the difference whether we can open our windows at 10 pm or 03 am ;)

i'm always fuming when i hear news weather telling that it's cold in spain = madrid at minus 1C while at the costa del sol it's 15-20C, same applies to summer heat where sevilla hits 40C+ each year in june and rarely gets below 30C till mid/end september while temps at the coast can be very pleasant. that's only spain weather and calling "europe" hot that includes scandinavia, british islands as well as greece, poland, spain, portugal and the likes is simply to simplistic and mostly outright wrong.

there are hotspots indeed but they are not european but local and most of europe is currently on the cooler side. watch this image of europe:

36 in madrid for example is not hot, it could be much hotter, way beyond the 40ies.

same applies to portugal, 31C in lisbon is no heatwave at all, it's quite pleasant for the time of the year.

in my place we call it hot beyond 36C and night temps hardly below 30C or even above 35C that's what we call a heatwave and currently we are permanently 10C below that for almost 1.5 months and enjoy a historically "cool" summer.

that's nothing personal but headlines are not helpful to narrow things down since too many people know they are disconnected, sorry the word, "fake news" an in the aftermath shed a bad light on the facts that really matter.



50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 04, 2017, 07:48:17 PM »
I suggest not to give this "second-lowest July volume loss" thing too much meaning. Years with low volume tend to lose less, as a lot of the easy ice is already gone. 2012 was 3rd lowest, with a relatively small difference. It was still enough for 2012 to take back the lead, but it's not a huge move. In addition, IJIS loss during July and especially the 2nd half was relatively slow, and temperatures relatively cool with lots of clouds, so why expect PIOMAS to report an unusual melt? If anything, I consider this year's volume loss to be surprisingly resilient (and disturbing) in the face of such a slow July.
I would expect the 1st half of August to show above-usual melt, due to the recent storm with its flash melt, but if a GAC fails to arrive don't expect volume numbers to get back into the lead over 2012.

+1 so grateful you wrote, i deleted mine for known reasons LOL

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 25