Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: IJIS  (Read 2150692 times)

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4400 on: June 19, 2017, 07:38:21 PM »
Based on temperatures leveling out and the fact that the ice around the edges was thinner than usual and has melted out fast, there is a good chance the rate of melting will begin to decrease somewhat and ice extent will maintain 4th place for a while and then climb perhaps to 6-8th place. Just a hunch. If I knew how to project the future I'd be rich trading stocks!

For your "hunch" to come to fruition, the rate of extent decrease, which has been the second fastest on record for this time of year so far this month, would have to magically slow to by far the slowest on record.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Friendly advice: stay away from the stock market. :)
I'm trying to understand this and, apparently, failing.

The most recent 2017 value for IJIS is 9982791.  FTB didn't specify an exact time frame, so let's say this is over the next two weeks:

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011 or 2016 it would climb to 6th place.

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2015 it would reach 8th place

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2004 it would reach 9th place

So melt rates from 8 of the past 14 years would bring FTB's "hunch" to fruition. 

Maybe I've badly miscalculated something, or maybe I misunderstood the claim.  But Jim Pettit's comment makes no sense to me.

following the path of the 80ies or the 90ies would bring things even higher, what's the point to use past years as a base if the ice and temps in the arctic are different nowadays. each year has its own factors that contribute or hinder melting, no-one can know about those in advance and how they play together and when they have to happen to have their max effect on either side, but what we already know, and that's all we can assess right now, is the current state of the ice in general and the current "ranking" which i'm getting tired of to read about, it's such a poor indicator concerning september-low where we stand now. one could read back in 2012 melting season when the max was late and high, without going there i'm sure that everyone (many) were talking about imminent recovery and we all know where 2012 ended.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4401 on: June 19, 2017, 10:24:51 PM »
IJIS:

10,106,722 km2(June 16, 2017)down 50,383 km2 and 4th lowest measured for the date.

Based on temperatures leveling out and the fact that the ice around the edges was thinner than usual and has melted out fast, there is a good chance the rate of melting will begin to decrease somewhat and ice extent will maintain 4th place for a while and then climb perhaps to 6-8th place. Just a hunch. If I knew how to project the future I'd be rich trading stocks!
The problem with this hunch is the unsubstantiated claim that "the ice around the edges was thinner and melted out fast".  At the beginning of the melt season the ice overall was 10% thinner.  If this was on the edges and melted out fast we would have seen a drop in extent in May like 2016.  In fact there was very little thin ice in the Pacific and the May melt was slow.

This suggests that the ice is thinner right across the pack and we should continue to see rapid extent losses across the next couple of months even if the loss in volume is only average.
The difference between second and fifth place at the end of the month is only 120K so we could end up anywhere in that pack or 200K either side. 200K above 5th would still be sixth.

200K below second would be first. This would be achieved if the ratio of the loss to June 30th / loss to June 18th was average.

Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3247
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 523
  • Likes Given: 206
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4402 on: June 20, 2017, 05:44:55 AM »
Based on temperatures leveling out and the fact that the ice around the edges was thinner than usual and has melted out fast, there is a good chance the rate of melting will begin to decrease somewhat and ice extent will maintain 4th place for a while and then climb perhaps to 6-8th place. Just a hunch. If I knew how to project the future I'd be rich trading stocks!

For your "hunch" to come to fruition, the rate of extent decrease, which has been the second fastest on record for this time of year so far this month, would have to magically slow to by far the slowest on record.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Friendly advice: stay away from the stock market. :)
I'm trying to understand this and, apparently, failing.

The most recent 2017 value for IJIS is 9982791.  FTB didn't specify an exact time frame, so let's say this is over the next two weeks:

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011 or 2016 it would climb to 6th place.

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2015 it would reach 8th place

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2004 it would reach 9th place

So melt rates from 8 of the past 14 years would bring FTB's "hunch" to fruition. 

Maybe I've badly miscalculated something, or maybe I misunderstood the claim.  But Jim Pettit's comment makes no sense to me.
The problem lies in an assumption of equivalency of the ice across all those years.  Further it assumes equivaleny of other conditions - total enthalpy, volume. Weather among others - so using purely statistical methods of predicition are no more reliable for this years minimum than last year's price movement would reliably predict where your favorite NYSE ticker will be in two months. Don't bet on it.
This space for Rent.

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4403 on: June 20, 2017, 01:05:47 PM »
I'm not particularly betting on anything.  I'm just pointing out that when Jim Pettit said that melt rates "would have to magically slow to by far the slowest on record," that seems very wrong to me.  2017 would end up in 6th-8th place at some point in the next two weeks if melt rates matched those from 8 of the previous 14 years, including both of the two most recent years. 

So, sure, you can argue that something about the condition of the ice or the weather is so extreme right now that even "ordinary" behavior like that of 2012 or 2015 or 2016 is unthinkable. I'll freely admit I don't have the grasp of the subtleties of the weather and its impacts on the ice that some others here seem to. 

But I don't see how one can say that hitting 6th-8th place would require "by far the slowest [melting] on record".  It wouldn't even require slower than average melt rates, let alone any kind of "magical" record.


[Note: the figures I gave in my earlier post were based on IJIS extent/trends from the date I replied to JP, not from the date of his post.  Going back two days to when he made the original comment changes the set of years slightly, but not the overall outcome -- if the ice follows the pattern of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, or 2016 it would hit 6th-7th place during the next two weeks.  Still 8 of 14 years.]

woodstea

  • New ice
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4404 on: June 20, 2017, 02:25:08 PM »
The IJIS website goes down more than Candy Darling. It drives me crazy. Don't they know I'm entitled to see their graph first thing every morning?  ;)

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4405 on: June 20, 2017, 02:27:00 PM »

[Note: the figures I gave in my earlier post were based on IJIS extent/trends from the date I replied to JP, not from the date of his post.  Going back two days to when he made the original comment changes the set of years slightly, but not the overall outcome -- if the ice follows the pattern of 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2011, 2012, 2015, or 2016 it would hit 6th-7th place during the next two weeks.  Still 8 of 14 years.]
To  be higher that  6th in 14 days the loss from now would need to be one of the three lowest since 2003 at  ~790,000. All the years which had very low melt rates over the next fourteen days have very low melt rates for all of June.  This month has seen one of the highest  melts so far this month. . It  is possible but  not likely that  2017 will be worse than 6th in 14 days.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

Ned W

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4406 on: June 20, 2017, 03:03:32 PM »
That's right; if you alter FTB's "hunch" from "6th place or higher" to "7th place or higher" then it becomes much less likely.  Patterns from 8 previous years would cause 2017 to reach 6th place, but only 2 previous years' would cause it to reach 7th place. 

As for the temporal autocorrelation thing -- it's pretty weak. There is a slight positive correlation (0.24) between the rate of loss from 1-18 June vs the next two weeks ... but it's not statistically significant.  It's probably true that all else being equal, if the rate of ice loss has been high in the recent past it will continue to do so in the near future.  But it's a weak correlation at best.  There are factors that work both for and against it.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2017, 03:15:38 PM by Ned W »

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4407 on: June 20, 2017, 03:21:43 PM »
I appreciate the comments and will take them for what they're worth. ;)
Feel The Burn!

pauldry600

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • weathergossip
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4408 on: June 21, 2017, 12:17:52 AM »
Dunno whats the deal with JAXA but studying all the extent maps id say we are near 9.8m now. Id estimate near century losses the past day or two.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4409 on: June 21, 2017, 05:23:38 AM »
IJIS:

9,817,660 km2(June 20, 2017)and 4th lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2315
  • Likes Given: 1956
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4410 on: June 21, 2017, 06:04:22 AM »
Down 165K in two days.

Bill Fothergill

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4411 on: June 21, 2017, 08:56:45 AM »
9,817,660 km2(June 20, 2017)and 4th lowest measured for the date.

For those who haven't accessed the .csv and are pining for June 19th's value...
 9,891,859 sq kms

That comes out as 3rd lowest for both dates on the spreadsheet I use. The discrepancy between rankings may be due to the fact that 2012 was a Leap Year, and hence the Day Number for June 20th would have been 172 in 2012, but just 171 this year.

The exact position is somewhat immaterial, as just 39k covers the June 20th values for 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2017.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2017, 10:18:28 AM by Bill Fothergill »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3637
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 633
  • Likes Given: 407
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4412 on: June 21, 2017, 02:13:14 PM »
It looks like in two days we can have a four-way tie for second place!  ::)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Jim Williams

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4413 on: June 21, 2017, 04:17:08 PM »
It looks like in two days we can have a four-way tie for second place!  ::)

I'm not sure what the error range for these measurements are, but I bet we already have a five-way tie for first place.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4414 on: June 21, 2017, 06:18:00 PM »
JAXA reports to the nearest 1 km, so that's the error right?  ::)

RoxTheGeologist

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 522
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 126
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4415 on: June 21, 2017, 06:23:58 PM »
Precisely inaccurate?

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3727
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4416 on: June 21, 2017, 07:07:45 PM »
JAXA reports to the nearest 1 km, so that's the error right?  ::)
Absolutely not. People like Jim Hunt, Wipneus, Neven et al can give you a good idea. Unlikeme, they know what tbey are doing. But if there is error in a particular series produced by a consistent set of instruments, changes over time are likely to be pretty close - +/-50km2 on extent?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 591
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 261
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4417 on: June 21, 2017, 08:39:38 PM »
I was joking gerontocrat.  I was poking fun at the precision of the JAXA reporting in spite of the obvious lack of accuracy.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3727
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4418 on: June 21, 2017, 08:55:42 PM »
I was joking gerontocrat.  I was poking fun at the precision of the JAXA reporting in spite of the obvious lack of accuracy.
I tbought as much. But worth talking about. Statistical significance and all that stuff. But Jaxa and NSIDC just tell us the result of the calculation. Perhaps they need to highlight the standard error for us dumbos.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Bill Fothergill

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4419 on: June 21, 2017, 11:58:04 PM »
... But Jaxa and NSIDC just tell us the result of the calculation. Perhaps they need to highlight the standard error for us dumbos.

I know this is the IJIS thread, but here's what NSIDC have to say about this subject on their FAQ page...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#error_bars

peterlvmeng

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 9
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4420 on: June 22, 2017, 05:34:11 AM »
appears to be second or third lowest

gregcharles

  • New ice
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4421 on: June 22, 2017, 06:56:33 AM »
Third, but just by a sliver.

DavidR

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 736
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4422 on: June 22, 2017, 10:15:34 AM »
With another drop like today 2017 will move to second lowest tomorrow. More interestingly it would be the fourth different year to hold 2nd position in four days (2011,2012,2010,2017). It needs about half todays' drop to stay in third place.
Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore

pauldry600

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • weathergossip
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4423 on: June 22, 2017, 01:30:48 PM »
IJIS down to 9.728m a drop of 89K

its still 157,202 behind 2016

only 816 behind 2010

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4424 on: June 22, 2017, 04:01:41 PM »
IJIS:

9,728,666 km2(June 21, 2017)down 88,994 km2 and 3rd lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4425 on: June 22, 2017, 06:11:36 PM »
... But Jaxa and NSIDC just tell us the result of the calculation. Perhaps they need to highlight the standard error for us dumbos.

I know this is the IJIS thread, but here's what NSIDC have to say about this subject on their FAQ page...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#error_bars

basically true, as long as the error remains the same, comparison is valid, only that i suspect that with more fragmented ice, all within the 15% threshold but still not the same like before (not solid anymore) the error is greater or in other words, the comparison is not as valid as before because a en entirely new factor over such large areas has joined the game and until now has not been implemented into the models.

this might account to the fact that extend serves less and less as a good indicator at this time of the melting season which i expect to clearly show later this summer when we shall face more and more poof events once large areas fall under the 15% threshold or disappear within extremely short time.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4426 on: June 22, 2017, 06:17:35 PM »
has anyone recognized that 2017 made it ahead of 2012 again ?

wanted to post a proof but that bloody site comes up with that error message for the umpteenth time, here is the link so you can check later, best visible by zooming (reducing the time frame )

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

rboyd

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1332
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 232
  • Likes Given: 52
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4427 on: June 22, 2017, 06:24:33 PM »
Yes. This link works and has the 6/21 numbers. 9.73 (2017) vs. 9.76 (2012)

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2315
  • Likes Given: 1956
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4428 on: June 22, 2017, 06:34:28 PM »
2012's freakiness, besides the early June cliff that it had, begins in July and never ends until minimum. Rankings now among the top 4-5 are not very meaningful.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4429 on: June 22, 2017, 06:43:12 PM »
2012's freakiness, besides the early June cliff that it had, begins in July and never ends until minimum. Rankings now among the top 4-5 are not very meaningful.

you're totally right, ranks are not very meaningful except perhaps the max the low and the time when those 2 happen LOL, i was just wondering why there was no mention, somehow a paradoxon because i was the one fuming against the permanent ranking and now my subconscious
obviously missed it haha... insert a prize of humor here and all is well LOL

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4430 on: June 23, 2017, 05:26:44 AM »
IJIS:

9,656,277 km2(June 22, 2017)down 72,389 km2 and 3rd lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4431 on: June 23, 2017, 01:05:47 PM »
That may be the last IJIS update we see until Monday:




pauldry600

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 231
    • View Profile
    • weathergossip
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4432 on: June 24, 2017, 09:21:53 PM »
Id say it will be 9.58m today and 9.5m tomorrow looking at maps

Actually Beaufort Sea is gone yellow on dane map and unibremen has it cracking up a bit too

If its gone by July its really a case of a melted greenland ice cream cone image by Sept 10th

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4433 on: June 26, 2017, 05:23:56 AM »
IJIS:

9,469,903 km2(June 25, 2017)
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 05:48:45 PM by Espen »
Have a ice day!

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6300
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2315
  • Likes Given: 1956
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4434 on: June 26, 2017, 06:41:57 AM »
A relatively tame loss of 186k in 3 days.

Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 40
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4435 on: June 26, 2017, 12:44:12 PM »
A relatively tame loss of 186k in 3 days.

Tame, indeed. The average daily IJIS SIE decrease over the past week has been just over 73k, which is identical to the ten-year average for the same span.

That ten-year average daily loss for the next 14 days has been just under 94k per day. 2017's going to have to accelerate things to keep up...

jplotinus

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4436 on: June 26, 2017, 02:10:31 PM »
Tame? Perhaps, but by the 'eye ball,' it looks like 2017 may have moved into 2nd place with that 186k loss during the last 3 days.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 02:49:09 PM by jplotinus »

dmarcus

  • New ice
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4437 on: June 26, 2017, 03:43:44 PM »
9470K on June 25th is 3rd lowest, above 2016 (9251K) and 2010 (9382K), and barely below 2011 (9483K) and 2012 (9494K).

Feeltheburn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4438 on: June 26, 2017, 10:14:48 PM »
Tame? Perhaps, but by the 'eye ball,' it looks like 2017 may have moved into 2nd place with that 186k loss during the last 3 days.

Isn't your screen shot a couple days old? June 25 shows 2017 to be in a virtual tie for 3rd place and could therefore easily be 5th place within the statistical margin of error?
Feel The Burn!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4439 on: June 27, 2017, 05:22:35 AM »
IJIS:

9,409,764 km2
(June 26, 2017)down 60,139 km2 and 5th lowest measured for the date.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 06:41:06 PM by Espen »
Have a ice day!

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3727
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4440 on: June 27, 2017, 02:42:25 PM »
Some more boring numbers based on JAXA data. 5 days of somewhat modest melt has reduced the arithmetic projections of the 2017 minimum somewhat, as the little table below shows. Melt required is from June 26 to minmum.

 As at June 26             Melt required    % of 2007/2016 avge      Resulting Minimum
 For 2016 Result            5,392,500             101.3%                             4,017,264
 For 2012 Result            6,232,309             117.0%                             3,177,455
 For 2007 Result            5,344,025             100.4%                             4,065,739
 Avge 2007-2016 melt     5,325,075             100.0%                             4,084,689
For 1 million km2      8,409,764             157.9%                             1,000,000


With about 80 days of the melting season left, of which about 10 are usually of minimal melting, the possibility of 1 million km2 or even a 2012 result look remote. However, it still looks as if an awful lot of ice is just waiting to die.


« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 03:24:29 PM by gerontocrat »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3637
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 633
  • Likes Given: 407
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4441 on: June 27, 2017, 03:19:34 PM »
Did you mean "... or even a 2012 result look remote"?

I expect 2012 was on the order of 150% of the best previous year on this date, but I would never predict it happening again in any particular year.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3727
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4442 on: June 27, 2017, 03:33:11 PM »
Did you mean "... or even a 2012 result look remote"?

I expect 2012 was on the order of 150% of the best previous year on this date, but I would never predict it happening again in any particular year.
Thanks, Tor. (also thanks to Neven for the modify button)
Correction  made.

2012 melt from now to minimum was 17 % greater than the 10 year average.
2007 melt from now to minimum was 10 % greater than the 10 year average.

No other year came close, not in the previous 10 years or any year in the satellite record.

So I am still expecting the slow-motion train wreck to continue. Given my age, it could be a close run thing as to whether I see the Blue Ocean Event.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 04:02:27 PM by gerontocrat »
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4443 on: June 27, 2017, 03:41:02 PM »
Did you mean: "2012 melt from now to minimum was 17 % greater than the 10 year average"?  ;D
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9328
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3727
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4444 on: June 27, 2017, 04:04:28 PM »
Did you mean: "2012 melt from now to minimum was 17 % greater than the 10 year average"?  ;D

Thanks Neven.
I certainly did. Thanks again for the modify button. Definitely time I put my pen away. The little grey cells between the ears have turned to mush.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4445 on: June 28, 2017, 05:41:19 AM »
IJIS:

9,330,928 km2(June 27, 2017)down 78,836 km2 and 4th lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3295
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 204
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4446 on: June 29, 2017, 05:35:12 AM »
IJIS:

9,204,315 km2(June 28, 2017)down 126,613 km2 and 4th lowest measured for the date.
Have a ice day!

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7756
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1133
  • Likes Given: 521
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4447 on: June 29, 2017, 06:17:05 AM »
Third century break of the melting season. By now 2010 had tallied up 9 CBs, as had 2014, while 2012 already had 19, but this had to do with JAXA using Windsat data while they were transitioning to AMSR2, I believe. Last year also had 'only' 3 CBs so far, but still managed to end up in second place in September (with 15 CBs in total).
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

meljay14

  • New ice
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4448 on: June 29, 2017, 06:20:59 AM »
Interesting stats, Neven, and as always thanks to Espen for the daily updates. (I'm sure we don't want to clog thread with repetitive thanks, but hope occasional appreciation is excused.)

Meljay

budmantis

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1220
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: IJIS
« Reply #4449 on: June 29, 2017, 06:50:30 AM »
Ditto. Thanks Espen for data and Neven for perspective!

BudM