Latest PIOMAS Volume update

[Andreas T]

this IR image from the 10. Jan shows there were small polinyas in this area then.http://go.nasa.gov/29mMXWE
 It also shows the ice Wayne talks about moving back then, meaning that some ice there was formed at that time , not in autumn when there was early snow if I understand what he says.
The line where the ice south of Cornwallis broke recently is a break line from February, when sunlight allowed visible images on modis too. http://go.nasa.gov/29xyPs6
I think PIOMAS which models ice from weather data, does not reproduce polinyas, but I don't know enough about what and how it assimilates observations to be sure.

[abbottisgone]

Now PSC has updated their PIOMAS  daily volume data. I updated my graphics, see the top post

Attaching my anomaly graph.

Wipneus: can we cut a long story short and ask, "...what does this graph mean?"

 

 

[Neven]

Aig, have you noticed that you continuously ask questions? How about figuring things out for yourself some more?

edit: Given more nonsense on other threads, I've decided to send abbottisgone on a 30-day holiday.

---

So, my guess is that total June volume loss will come in at around 6500 km3, plusminus 100km3. That would take 2016 into second place, around 500 km2 higher than 2012.

I wouldn't be surprised if June total volume loss is lower, but this is what my eyeballs are saying.

Well, given a June loss of 5890 km3, my eyeballs were way off. I probably didn't compensate enough for the fact that extent loss was relatively low during June. Still, given the similarities with 2013 and the torch over the ESS at the beginning of the month, I didn't expect it to end up so much below 2013's 6458 km3 loss.

I've told my eyes to also look a bit more at the extent graphs next time. They winked back.   

[Lord M Vader]

Seems like my eyeballs happened to be perfect In my post #975, I put a estimated volume loss of 5700-5900 km³.

Nevens estimate of 6500 would most likely have been correct if we hadn't started out from such a record low level. In addition, the cyclonic weather dominance also impacted the outcome.

Given the lack of melting momentum in June, a similar path like 2010 doesn'tseem too unrealistic right now.

[Neven]

Love your eyeballs, LMV!

[Richard Rathbone]

Seems like my eyeballs happened to be perfect In my post #975, I put a estimated volume loss of 5700-5900 km³.

Nevens estimate of 6500 would most likely have been correct if we hadn't started out from such a record low level. In addition, the cyclonic weather dominance also impacted the outcome.

Given the lack of melting momentum in June, a similar path like 2010 doesn'tseem too unrealistic right now.

I was thinking 6000 but I wanted to look at some other pictures than Neven's set (the omission of 2008/9 struck me as liable to cause a high bias on eyeballing) and while I was doing that the numbers came in. I hadn't actually found anything strong enough to back a different conclusion from the eyeballs though, just going on the ice starting in a relatively thick state in a relatively small area was likely to cause stalling at some point.

I think the anomaly might well go up more during July and level out at in August at around the 2013 level. I think there's still a bit more payback due from the ice being relatively thick in a record small area at the beginning of the season. I reckon it will take favorable weather to hold the 2010 line.

[seaicesailor]

Seems like my eyeballs happened to be perfect In my post #975, I put a estimated volume loss of 5700-5900 km³.

Nevens estimate of 6500 would most likely have been correct if we hadn't started out from such a record low level. In addition, the cyclonic weather dominance also impacted the outcome.

Given the lack of melting momentum in June, a similar path like 2010 doesn'tseem too unrealistic right now.

Hi,
Looking at the plot of anomalies, if 2016 follows the path of 2015 ---which does not seem unrealistic either if July is warm---, the anomaly might catch 2011-2012 in August at least. If you are talking about minimum volume instead of anomaly, then I don't know.

[Neven]

Over on the ASIB: PIOMAS 2016 July.

[ktonine]

ktonine, Wayne's post was about the ice in the Barrow strait. Clouds cover the open water in the first two frames, and is not ice.

Yes, and my point was that PIOMAS, per your PIOMAS modeled ice thickness 6-30-2016 map,  shows this as mostly 1m or thicker ice.

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=119.0;attach=32017;image

[iceman]

This is the UW Today Blog article on PIOMAS that Neven linked to from the blog:
    http://www.washington.edu/news/2016/07/07/arctic-sea-ice-volume-now-tracking-record-low-stars-in-data-visualization/

The last graph shows PIOMAS ice thickness predictions for upcoming months.  Beaufort is predicted to have more ice this September than last year, not what I would have guessed.

[OSweetMrMath]

Here's the updated PIOMAS Anomaly (or residuals) graph for the June data. As before, 2016 is the thick black line, 2010-2015 are colored lines, and previous years are thin black lines. In 2010, 2011, and 2012, the volume anomaly became sharply more negative during the month of June, and that has not happened this year. It is very unlikely that the volume anomaly will fall far enough during the next two months for this year to set a record for minimum volume.

[slow wing]

OSMM, could you please define Anomaly\residuals as you used it, and give units?

[OSweetMrMath]

OSMM, could you please define Anomaly\residuals as you used it, and give units?

This is the same graph I've posted for the past couple of months. I fit a linear trend plus a Fourier series model to the daily PIOMAS data, and this is a plot of the differences between the actual data and the model. The units of the y-axis are thousands of cubic km.

The largest difference between this graph and the anomaly graph posted by Wipneus is that this graph builds in the long term trend, so recent years are expected to have a low volume and the anomalies can have small negative values or even positive values, as in 2014 or 2015 (the blue and purple lines). Wipneus does not consider the trend, so all recent years have large negative anomalies.

[Flocke]

Here's the updated PIOMAS Anomaly (or residuals) graph for the June data.

What year is the lowest line? Maybe 2007, but did it start that low?

[crandles]

OSMM, could you please define Anomaly\residuals as you used it, and give units?

This is the same graph I've posted for the past couple of months. I fit a linear trend plus a Fourier series model to the daily PIOMAS data, and this is a plot of the differences between the actual data and the model. The units of the y-axis are thousands of cubic km.

Isn't anomaly usually difference from average? This appears to be difference from trend so isn't residuals a better term for it?

[Richard Rathbone]

OSMM, could you please define Anomaly\residuals as you used it, and give units?

This is the same graph I've posted for the past couple of months. I fit a linear trend plus a Fourier series model to the daily PIOMAS data, and this is a plot of the differences between the actual data and the model. The units of the y-axis are thousands of cubic km.

Isn't anomaly usually difference from average? This appears to be difference from trend so isn't residuals a better term for it?

Anomaly is the term for the residuals from this sort of model. Its a detrended anomaly, but its an anomaly because its taking out the seasonal variation.

[OSweetMrMath]

What year is the lowest line? Maybe 2007, but did it start that low?

It's the end of 1981 and the beginning of 1982. If you look carefully, you can see a line which starts higher and then drops down to the bottom in about August, staying flat for the rest of the year. That was 1981. 1982 starts flat at the bottom, and then you can see it rising starting in about August through the end of that year.

2007 is one of the lines somewhat above the lines for 2010, 2011, and 2012.

[OSweetMrMath]

Isn't anomaly usually difference from average? This appears to be difference from trend so isn't residuals a better term for it?

I based this on an extent graph created by Tamino on his blog. I had originally labeled it as a residuals graph, but he called it an anomaly graph, and I figure that if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for me.

[JimboOmega]

When does the August figure get released?

Apologies if this is something that's readily available - I've tried some googling and not had much luck finding it.

[Neven]

It varies, but it's usually in the first week of the month.

[Wipneus]

Gridded data has been released, again before the official numbers are out.
From those gridded data I estimate the volume at day 213 to be 7.448 [1000 km3], fourth place after 2010-2012

Thickness maps will be posted when ready.

[Wipneus]

Here is the animation for July.

[Adam Ash]

Wipneus!  Great work.  Your thickness gif.  Is that showing the thickness of ice that is found in each grid square regardless of how much ice is there, or is it a proxy for volume in each grid combining observed concentration times thickness?

[Wipneus]

Wipneus!  Great work.  Your thickness gif.  Is that showing the thickness of ice that is found in each grid square regardless of how much ice is there, or is it a proxy for volume in each grid combining observed concentration times thickness?

Answers to both questions are yes, think about it. One, it is the average thickness in each grid cell. Second the volume in the grid cell is the average thickness times the area of that grid cell (they all have different area's).  Concentration does not matter, it is just the portion that has a local thickness zero. 

[slow wing]

Thanks Wipneus, that's really interesting! Please can you post the thickness map for 31 July 2016.

[Wipneus]

Here is the (average) monthly thickness map for July, and a comparison with previous years. The thinner (or no) ice in Beaufort is a feature but also the thinness of the ice off the north coast of Greenland sticks out.

[Wipneus]

Thanks Wipneus, that's really interesting! Please can you post the thickness map for 31 July 2016.

That would be this one.

[slow wing]

Thanks!

[A-Team]

Whatever else might be said about the accuracy of Piomas or its merits relative to Cryosat, perhaps we can all agree -- while saluting Wipneus' admirable work in providing it -- the map is one of the poorest quality products in the history of scientific cartography.

Both pixel and thickness resolutions are mediocre, the choice of projection is poorly motivated, the gratuitous inclusion of south Asia, the heavy jpg dithering even of the meagre 16 palette square, the 256 distinct colors that change with every frame, the sloppy dithered land and boundary mask etc. This has been going on for way too many years.

Try to compare this 31 July Piomas to the 31 July Modis/S1A/S2A or 31 July AMSR2 3k. That's a real basic requirement for a heavily modeled product.

The recoloration below simply seeks to highlight 'islands' deviating from monotonic increase in thickness towards the CAA and extreme northern Greenland (Morris Jesup).

[Peter Ellis]

Whatever else might be said about the accuracy of Piomas or its merits relative to Cryosat, perhaps we can all agree -- while saluting Wipneus' admirable work in providing it -- the map is one of the poorest quality products in the history of scientific cartography.

Only if you're trying to reverse-engineer the underlying data from the display image.  But why would you do that?

[seaicesailor]

Whatever else might be said about the accuracy of Piomas or its merits relative to Cryosat, perhaps we can all agree -- while saluting Wipneus' admirable work in providing it -- the map is one of the poorest quality products in the history of scientific cartography.

Only if you're trying to reverse-engineer the underlying data from the display image.  But why would you do that?

I was thinking the same, with all due respect. I like these maps because the jumps in color make very clear where the ice starts being >1m approx. then >2m and so. Maybe not scientifically usable?

[Wipneus]

Whatever else might be said about the accuracy of Piomas or its merits relative to Cryosat, perhaps we can all agree -- while saluting Wipneus' admirable work in providing it -- the map is one of the poorest quality products in the history of scientific cartography.

Both pixel and thickness resolutions are mediocre, the choice of projection is poorly motivated, the gratuitous inclusion of south Asia, the heavy jpg dithering even of the meagre 16 palette square, the 256 distinct colors that change with every frame, the sloppy dithered land and boundary mask etc. This has been going on for way too many years.

Try to compare this 31 July Piomas to the 31 July Modis/S1A/S2A or 31 July AMSR2 3k. That's a real basic requirement for a heavily modeled product.

The recoloration below simply seeks to highlight 'islands' deviating from monotonic increase in thickness towards the CAA and extreme northern Greenland (Morris Jesup).

No need for insults, I am probably guilty to about everything but I am not using JPG, I would like to see that rectified..

In order to create a monthly gif with an acceptable file size, the original map had to be shrunk. That is now done by scaling the original with cubic scaling, probably causing all the artifacts that you are complaining about. That could have been done better, but as it stands that would have meant to wait until I have time. That and a better choice of projection, and about 20 other ideas are on a to-do list. To get things done, it may help to notify me that there exits a need (i.o.w. just ask).

BTW, the data that this graph is based is unofficial and may or may not be there the next month. Only this year it has arrived frequent enough that investing time into making better graphs can be considered. This is not "way too many years". It also explains the monthly average graphs, during a developing season it would be soo much more interesting to show the latest date instead. Those monthly data exist for soo much longer, and when daily data became available were still updated more regular. 

[Gray-Wolf]

I feel ( and hope?) that A-Team was not out to insult you Wipneus, I wish I had a fraction of your skills/motivations!!!

Sadly my disabilities involve fatigue so just making muster is enough for me most days!!!!

[Neven]

The map is more than fine, as far as I'm considered. Especially if it's coming from someone who makes it in his/her spare time.

[Thawing Thunder]

I'm sure A-Team was trying to motivate you, Wipneus. I've seen so may times that the intention of a collegial tongue-in-cheek-tone gets lost involuntarily in these blogs. Your work is great for specialists and not so specialists like me, my learning curve is steep 

Anyway, the false color proposal of A-Team also helped me to enhance the understanding of the development of the ice. Though I'm also fine with the green tones of your chart. But maybe another tonal jump within the lowest thickness ranges could be even more clarifying.

[FishOutofWater]

You know, A-Team there are bigger problems with that map than the technical details of how it dithers and how is constructed but they have nothing to do with the person here who puts them together in spare time.

Take a look at the NASA MODIS products. The area north of Greenland where PIOMAS shows the thickest ice looks like hell on the MODIS products. There's no way the ice is as thick there as the PIOMAS model has it. The ice has been shattered and stretched by longshore movement and melted by weeks of normal to above normal temperatures after a warm winter.

I appreciate the maps all you guys make and I look at them very carefully.

[TerryM]

Wipneus


I've been a fan for years, and don't express my appreciation nearly enough.
Thank you for all the work that you have done which has helped so much in my understanding of the complexity of the world changing events we are witnessing. In my experience it's very unusual to find in one person both the capacity to push the envelope and the tenacity to continue the drudge work long after the thrill of discovery has past.


A-Team
I'm also a fan of yours. You've taught me more about the science of cartography than I'd gleaned in a lifetime of interest. I have to assume that you thought you were attacking the product of a taxpayer funded project rather than the output of a very gifted and prolific amateur.


Terry

[JimboOmega]

You know, A-Team there are bigger problems with that map than the technical details of how it dithers and how is constructed but they have nothing to do with the person here who puts them together in spare time.

Take a look at the NASA MODIS products. The area north of Greenland where PIOMAS shows the thickest ice looks like hell on the MODIS products. There's no way the ice is as thick there as the PIOMAS model has it. The ice has been shattered and stretched by longshore movement and melted by weeks of normal to above normal temperatures after a warm winter.

I appreciate the maps all you guys make and I look at them very carefully.

Actually I was pondering this very question the other day. Is it possible for ice to be cracked but still thick? If not, why not?  Thicker ice is harder to crack, of course, but it still could crack. I don't see how visible cracks when viewed from above says anything about thickness.

[Andreas T]

The thick ice does not have a uniform thickness because it becomes thick by compression, ridging. This ice with high average thickness has plenty of weaker refrozen fractures which open again when melting starts or when stresses are sufficiently large.

[Adam Ash]

I for one am happy enough with Wipneus' images as I don't kid myself that my understanding of the overall trend will be enhanced significantly with having more disagregated data to consider.  But the point is also well made that one source is only part of the picture - regardless of scale.

For me a great feature of this season has been my first persistent access to the satellite images showing what the ice is actually like across the entire basin, and the helpful commentary by many skilled contributors as to what that info plus all the 'traditional' metrics mean.

Thanks to you all... 

[budmantis]

I don't think any insult was intended towards Wipneus by A-Team, he was just criticizing the quality of the graphics. My thanks to both Wipneus and A-Team for the great work you've both done over the years.

[Andreas T]

I agree, we benefit from their dedication and skills, they  both contribute a lot of work to make information available, which would too difficult to access for most readers here. I am very grateful for that.
Would it be possible to combine those skills (which I do not have) so that A-team develops the visual processing for the data which wipneus collects from the PIOMAS source?
A-team has repeatedly suggested more collaboration by contributors here.
 I myself am trying to make my posts useful (in most cases) rather than just voicing an opinion. The little snippets of information I contribute require a considerable amount of time (due to my inefficiency no doubt) so a focussed effort by many contributors lightens the load, or makes it more worthwhile because the combination yields more substantial results.

[Siffy]

A-Team
I'm also a fan of yours. You've taught me more about the science of cartography than I'd gleaned in a lifetime of interest. I have to assume that you thought you were attacking the product of a taxpayer funded project rather than the output of a very gifted and prolific amateur.

I'm not A-Team but I actually had presumed the map being distributed was an official Piomas product that was being compiled into an animation by Wip. Had no idea it was his own work based off their data set. 

[DoomInTheUK]

..I actually had presumed the map being distributed was an official Piomas product that was being compiled into an animation by Wip. Had no idea it was his own work based off their data set.

I thought that too (and I also suspect that A-Team did). I also didn't think it was possible for my respect of Wip's work to get any higher but it just has!

A-Team sets a standard in image processing that few of us can hope to compete with.

I think we should award each of them a badge for extreme cleverness.

[Gray-Wolf]

Will all of this good work be lost once we go ice free?

 What I'm saying is once the unthinkable is common place will interest dwindle or will we then be looking for the increased early arrival of melt out?

[Okono]

What I'm saying is once the unthinkable is common place will interest dwindle or will we then be looking for the increased early arrival of melt out?

Shrug.  Our collective response is harder to predict than the melt season itself.  Watching Venezuela trade oil for food, the conversation is probably going to be all mitigation and geoengineering eventually.

It's beyond speculation and into hypothecation already.  The huge changes in energy dynamics won't let us ignore it, but the conversation will probably assume a broader context.

[Thawing Thunder]

... the conversation will probably assume a broader context.

I think so too, Okono. Peak Ice, Peak Oil, Peak Food, Peak Water, Peak Population, Peak everything. One of the thinkers who already have this approach for a long time is Richard Heinberg. I feel his last publication is spot on:[url http://www.postcarbon.org/you-cant-handle-the-truth/]

[Wipneus]

Now the PSC has updated their PIOMAS  daily volume data, I updated my graphics, see the top post

Attached the current anomaly graph. July's curve of 2016 is closest to that of 2010, currently 3rd lowest year.

[abbottisgone]

Will all of this good work be lost once we go ice free?

 What I'm saying is once the unthinkable is common place will interest dwindle or will we then be looking for the increased early arrival of melt out?

"What is ice free?"

 That question, from my point of view, will just become ever more defining and so the conversation between vested interests will continue until government intervention is forced to pull a pin of some description!!

 All market forces are regulated so the propaganda surrounding all these issues has always been addled by the lies politicians are allowed to make and the lies the media and direct advertising are allowed to make,.. then there is free speech allowing the dumb punter to chime in and there is billions of those!!

[abbottisgone]

Now the PSC has updated their PIOMAS  daily volume data, I updated my graphics, see the top post

Attached the current anomaly graph. July's curve of 2016 is closest to that of 2010, currently 3rd lowest year.

Would I be right in saying you find this one of the more defining graphs: as in, this graph really highlights the idea of an acceleration of what was to begin with an already worrying trend?