Author Topic: IJIS (Read 2762373 times)

magnamentis · « **Reply #2700 on:** July 08, 2016, 08:27:43 AM »

Quote from: Acts5v29 on July 08, 2016, 07:45:28 AM

if the doubters will feel complacent, that an early melt doesn't mean disaster after all.

if your definition of "desaster" is a new record low you should reconsider that defintion. disappearance of arctic
ice, slowly (fastly) but surely is permanently ongoing and if you want to use that word, this is the desaster.

further please consider that you make this statement today when we're still lowest on record and after being lowest on record around >60% of this year? don't call those who rely on 188 days of facts "doubters" while you
own assumption is based on "eventually" and at a time when this year is lowest and has been most of the time
and then if you look at the bigger picture, graph below as well as ice conditions seen a bit beyond extent and area, how does this look, like steadily on the lowest end or like going up and down randomly?

thing is that beside the fact that this year most records and is second in the few others, it's the most steadily
on the lowest end. no huge up and downs like other years, coming from top to low and/or vice versa, and even
if that will still change, it remains a first in many aspects.

Sleepy · « **Reply #2701 on:** July 08, 2016, 09:37:39 AM »

icy voyeur · « **Reply #2702 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:06:18 AM »

Quote from: Acts5v29 on July 08, 2016, 07:45:28 AM

I wonder... now this years extent data is drawing closer to 2012 - and may ultimately lose out to it - if the doubters will feel complacent, that an early melt doesn't mean disaster after all.

I doubt this year will turn out as bad as some are boldly predicting, but 'the disaster' has already occurred, years ago. Various "tipping points" or metaphorical phase-transitions may lay closely ahead, or may not. They aren't required for things to be declared a disaster, in the perspective of an old scientist with young grandchildren.
The next four days were century+ drops for 2012, 2007. For this year's horse race, next 4 days are interesting. Big picture-wise, won't change much of anything whether ice melts twice as fast or half as fast as those years, because of the nature of big pictures.

pauldry600 · « **Reply #2703 on:** July 08, 2016, 02:39:57 PM »

Id say it will end on 4,342,657...

There

No need for anything else

Seriously the ice is very broken and surprised that in the wonderful animations on this forum it doesnt melt much even when blown all over the place by rough seas.

This year has me stumped arctic wise.

Will there be a crash or is the steady decline to continue so we are just in the top 3 worst ever years ...AGAIN

magnamentis · « **Reply #2704 on:** July 08, 2016, 03:30:46 PM »

Quote from: pauldry600 on July 08, 2016, 02:39:57 PM

... it doesnt melt much even when blown all over the place by rough seas.

that's the first and most important error, it's melting rapidly while 10cm of ice from above look similar like 20 or 30cm. in this case it's not even that bad, because for those with a good eye the damage is obvious.

further ice at 20% coverage counts as 100% extent.

my 2 cents on this whole topic: patience is a virtue, watch and see, there is a weather dependent range which is why we can neither predict the curve ( development during the season ) nor the final result, while the current results are sufficient to see into what direction we're heading with rapid steps.

Who's seeking an oracle,
Will never be able to find one!
But whoever is seeking himself,
Will be able to fathom his foundation!
The oracle is the handle bar of the weak!
The strong are building a future on the present!

Archimid · « **Reply #2705 on:** July 08, 2016, 04:02:22 PM »

Quote from: pauldry600 on July 08, 2016, 02:39:57 PM

Seriously the ice is very broken and surprised that in the wonderful animations on this forum it doesnt melt much even when blown all over the place by rough seas.

Arghh. a thought occurs to me. Since smaller pieces of ice will move up and down with the waves much more than vast pieces of ice sheets, does the satellite compensate for that "waviness"? What if the satellites pass picks up opposites sides of a block at different times? It could very well register twice the thickness if they are both at peaks when the satellites passes. Of course, the opposite is also true, but what if there is a bias somewhere?

jdallen · « **Reply #2706 on:** July 08, 2016, 05:16:50 PM »

Quote from: Archimid on July 08, 2016, 04:02:22 PM

Quote from: pauldry600 on July 08, 2016, 02:39:57 PM

Seriously the ice is very broken and surprised that in the wonderful animations on this forum it doesnt melt much even when blown all over the place by rough seas.

Arghh. a thought occurs to me. Since smaller pieces of ice will move up and down with the waves much more than vast pieces of ice sheets, does the satellite compensate for that "waviness"? What if the satellites pass picks up opposites sides of a block at different times? It could very well register twice the thickness if they are both at peaks when the satellites passes. Of course, the opposite is also true, but what if there is a bias somewhere?

I suggest browsing this thread:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1222.0.html

Acts5v29 · « **Reply #2707 on:** July 08, 2016, 10:33:02 PM »

Quote from: icy voyeur on July 08, 2016, 10:06:18 AM

I doubt this year will turn out as bad as some are boldly predicting, but 'the disaster' has already occurred, years ago.

I don't doubt that - my point is that there are other aspects which are harder to quantify which are far more persuasive of the crisis than an ice extent reading which - lets be honest - some are treating like a horse-race. If these were made the topic of reports, the doubters would be less able to refute what is happening.

sorry for going off topic, by the way...

magnamentis · « **Reply #2708 on:** July 09, 2016, 01:27:30 AM »

Quote from: Acts5v29 on July 08, 2016, 10:33:02 PM

Quote from: icy voyeur on July 08, 2016, 10:06:18 AM

I doubt this year will turn out as bad as some are boldly predicting, but 'the disaster' has already occurred, years ago.

I don't doubt that - my point is that there are other aspects which are harder to quantify which are far more persuasive of the crisis than an ice extent reading which - lets be honest - some are treating like a horse-race. If these were made the topic of reports, the doubters would be less able to refute what is happening.

sorry for going off topic, by the way...

totally ON topic and spot on, nothing to apologyse for IMNSHO LOL

Sleepy · « **Reply #2709 on:** July 09, 2016, 06:08:54 AM »

ON TOPIC:

Sleepy · « **Reply #2710 on:** July 10, 2016, 05:31:25 AM »

BornFromTheVoid · « **Reply #2711 on:** July 10, 2016, 09:16:34 AM »

Down to 3rd lowest now, behind 2011 and 2012. A drop of at least 53k is needed today to stay ahead of 2014 too.

AbruptSLR · « **Reply #2712 on:** July 10, 2016, 10:44:22 AM »

For what it is worth, per Wipneus & his Home brew, the Arctic Sea Ice Area is still 20k below 2012:

Sleepy · « **Reply #2713 on:** July 10, 2016, 11:30:48 AM »

Wipneus home brew is worth a lot.
After comparing Slaters temperature charts, central pacific SST's and stratospheric conditions (for this date) with 2014, I ended up with something like the attached picture. Hmm, if I ignore everything else and try not to assume anything, I would have to go up one bin in the ADS-IJIS poll for July.

Sleepy · « **Reply #2714 on:** July 11, 2016, 05:49:46 AM »

-63593

Espen · « **Reply #2715 on:** July 11, 2016, 06:04:27 AM »

IJIS:

8,124,461 km²（July 10, 2016）

BornFromTheVoid · « **Reply #2716 on:** July 11, 2016, 11:00:48 AM »

The we maintain the melt rate of the last 5 days (-72.5k/day), we'll be 6th lowest on record by the weekend.

pauldry600 · « **Reply #2717 on:** July 12, 2016, 12:43:02 AM »

Hurray.

Why does it seem like your not overly thrilled by this prospect. Id prefer us be the 106th lowest if that were possible

Whats likely is that every year ever will be top 10 some top 5

Whats remarkable is throwing away a 1million lead. Who knew?

magnamentis · « **Reply #2718 on:** July 12, 2016, 01:28:10 AM »

Quote from: pauldry600 on July 12, 2016, 12:43:02 AM

Hurray.

Why does it seem like your not overly thrilled by this prospect. Id prefer us be the 106th lowest if that were possible

Whats likely is that every year ever will be top 10 some top 5

Whats remarkable is throwing away a 1million lead. Who knew?

as i posted earlier, 2012 had a very high and and very late max which made for most of the lead. i think nobody really expected a 500-1000k lead till september so yes almost everyone with a clear view could expect that, while the details are within a huge range of course, a 200-300k lead was possible but unlikely. most experienced posters expect a 2nd place, again depending on weather and few unknowns of course.

Espen · « **Reply #2719 on:** July 12, 2016, 05:22:14 AM »

IJIS:

8,047,131 km²（July 11, 2016）

Sleepy · « **Reply #2720 on:** July 12, 2016, 05:37:11 AM »

Quote from: BornFromTheVoid on July 11, 2016, 11:00:48 AM

The we maintain the melt rate of the last 5 days (-72.5k/day), we'll be 6th lowest on record by the weekend.

Might still be possible, -77330 for yesterday and colder anomalies forecasted to creep in from the Siberian side over Laptev this week.

Jim Pettit · « **Reply #2721 on:** July 12, 2016, 01:07:24 PM »

Quote from: Espen on July 12, 2016, 05:22:14 AM

IJIS:

8,047,131 km²（July 11, 2016）

IJIS extent is now out of the top three for the first time since late March; extent is higher than it was on this same date in 2011, 2012, and 2013. And, despite those still forecasting a steep plunge any day now, 2016 continues to limp along, falling further behind with each passing day. This year has seen fewer June/July century drops than any of the past ten years besides 2008, seeing just two since mid-May. By way of comparison, 2012 saw 18 during that same time frame.

jplotinus · « **Reply #2722 on:** July 12, 2016, 02:02:48 PM »

The momentum of the 2016 melting season has slowed rather dramatically. That said, 2016 may still be on a path for a record low September minimum. It appears that a major cause of the slow down in melting momentum is an unusually slow rate of melting in the two Siberian regions, ESS and Laptev.

Slow in those two regions likely does not mean they won't melt out at all. In fact, in recent years both of those regions have melted out completely more often than not. Each region has had one recent exceptional year of ice retention of more than 200k km2; each in separate years.

I think both of those regions would have to defy recent history by retaining >500k km2 of ice (combined) in order to avoid a sub-2012 minimum.

Q. How long can the lag in melt in Laptev and ESS last?

i

A. I don't know.

seaicesailor · « **Reply #2723 on:** July 12, 2016, 02:27:42 PM »

The lag in Laptev is outstanding but the ESS is relatively early.
Given the lack of momentum, there will be Laptev ice in September first time in years. No open water, no surface melting... I believe the argument that it is thin is no longer valid. However the bite seems to have been offset a thousand kilometers to the East.

oren · « **Reply #2724 on:** July 12, 2016, 02:50:44 PM »

Quote from: jplotinus on July 12, 2016, 02:02:48 PM

The momentum of the 2016 melting season has slowed rather dramatically. That said, 2016 may still be on a path for a record low September minimum. It appears that a major cause of the slow down in melting momentum is an unusually slow rate of melting in the two Siberian regions, ESS and Laptev.

Slow in those two regions likely does not mean they won't melt out at all. In fact, in recent years both of those regions have melted out completely more often than not. Each region has had one recent exceptional year of ice retention of more than 200k km2; each in separate years.

I think both of those regions would have to defy recent history by retaining >500k km2 of ice (combined) in order to avoid a sub-2012 minimum.

Q. How long can the lag in melt in Laptev and ESS last?
A. I don't know.

In fact the ESS closely follows 2015 at this point. The Laptev is indeed high above the trend. The other area where 2016 is falling behind is the Chukchi. Both of these seas tend to melt out completely by the end of August, so I would expect 2016 to at least overtake 2015 and finish in the top 3.
However 2012 has the added punch of the CAB where it went almost a million km² lower than other years. This will be a hard achievement to replicate, although still possible. Therefore the ESS and Laptev and the Chukchi could all go safely to zero and still a sub-2012 result would not be guaranteed.

jdallen · « **Reply #2725 on:** July 12, 2016, 07:10:59 PM »

Quote from: seaicesailor on July 12, 2016, 02:27:42 PM

The lag in Laptev is outstanding but the ESS is relatively early.
Given the lack of momentum, there will be Laptev ice in September first time in years. No open water, no surface melting... I believe the argument that it is thin is no longer valid. However the bite seems to have been offset a thousand kilometers to the East.

I have a couple of quibbles with your conclusion.

I agree the Laptev is far behind the last few years comparing the stage of melt currently to those years. Looking at WorldView, there is still a lot of open water and melt ponding. There's plenty of time for a lot of ice to disappear. I think we've just gotten too used to conditions which drove ice out of the Laptev as well as melting it - that movement was a lot of what was behind the "Laptev Bite" in 2013.

magnamentis · « **Reply #2726 on:** July 12, 2016, 09:51:48 PM »

Quote from: Jim Pettit on July 12, 2016, 01:07:24 PM

Quote from: Espen on July 12, 2016, 05:22:14 AM
IJIS:

8,047,131 km²（July 11, 2016）

IJIS extent is now out of the top three for the first time since late March; extent is higher than it was on this same date in 2011, 2012, and 2013. And, despite those still forecasting a steep plunge any day now, 2016 continues to limp along, falling further behind with each passing day. This year has seen fewer June/July century drops than any of the past ten years besides 2008, seeing just two since mid-May. By way of comparison, 2012 saw 18 during that same time frame.

don't fall for short term stuff days, look at wipneus's data from today and all back in second place and 1st and 2nd is not short term but persist almost the entire season

Jim Pettit · « **Reply #2727 on:** July 12, 2016, 10:01:18 PM »

Quote from: magnamentis on July 12, 2016, 09:51:48 PM

don't fall for short term stuff days, look at wipneus's data from today and all back in second place and 1st and 2nd is not short term but persist almost the entire season

That "short term stuff" has been going on for six weeks now, during which time 2016 went from a million km2 plus lead over 2012 to what's now a 200k deficit. IOW, over the past month-and-a-half, 2016 has lost roughly 200k per week to 2012. Read Neven's new post on Melting Momentum; it's an eye-opener that illustrates why a record is probably out of the question, and even a top five finish is looking less and less likely.

magnamentis · « **Reply #2728 on:** July 12, 2016, 10:11:04 PM »

Quote from: Jim Pettit on July 12, 2016, 10:01:18 PM

Quote from: magnamentis on July 12, 2016, 09:51:48 PM
don't fall for short term stuff days, look at wipneus's data from today and all back in second place and 1st and 2nd is not short term but persist almost the entire season

That "short term stuff" has been going on for six weeks now, during which time 2016 went from a million km2 plus lead over 2012 to what's now a 200k deficit. IOW, over the past month-and-a-half, 2016 has lost roughly 200k per week to 2012. Read Neven's new post on Melting Momentum; it's an eye-opener that illustrates why a record is probably out of the question, and even a top five finish is looking less and less likely.

true that but the 1 mio was due to an extremely high and late max in 2012 while 2016 was almost a steady straight line lingering at the 3 lowest, hence 2016 is consistent and 2012 was the outlier, in both aspects, late and relatively high max and the well known lowest ever.

much is about terms only while i know that we generally agree, reading all your posts and following your graphs for long, long before joining this forum.

as i could see a huge junk on the pacific side just went "poof" in one day and if you look at the pics around the only working boy (14) you see that the next such event is imminent, same will happen in beaufort and who knows where, there is still a lot of potential while it of course can turn out otherwise. interestingly watching like eveyone.

using the opportunity to thank you for you various and valuable contributions :-)

Sleepy · « **Reply #2729 on:** July 13, 2016, 04:49:56 AM »

Layout and download options for the csv file changed today...

Edit; maybe should have added that if you want to go directly to the old version it's now here:
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html?N

Espen · « **Reply #2730 on:** July 13, 2016, 05:32:38 AM »

IJIS:

7,908,219 km²（July 12, 2016）

Sleepy · « **Reply #2731 on:** July 13, 2016, 05:39:23 AM »

-138912

Neven · « **Reply #2732 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:16:24 AM »

Does anyone have a URL I can link to so that the graph re-appears on the ASIG?

Acts5v29 · « **Reply #2733 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:20:19 AM »

Quote from: jplotinus on July 12, 2016, 02:02:48 PM

The momentum of the 2016 melting season has slowed rather dramatically. That said, 2016 may still be on a path for a record low September minimum. It appears that a major cause of the slow down in melting momentum is an unusually slow rate of melting in the two Siberian regions, ESS and Laptev.

Again - respectfully - I'm not sure comparing numbers is a valid indicator anymore. The dynamics of the region have changed ( accentuated Gyre / (cumulating) Altantic flow influences ) and some parts will inevitably become isolated from their historic behaviour. It will be a season or two before we can predict new-standard "norms" in the melting - but by that time, likely the influences will have changed their nature again.

Thank you for the data and the graphs.

Sleepy · « **Reply #2734 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:20:53 AM »

A link to the old style pages is above Espens last post, Neven.

cats · « **Reply #2735 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:26:53 AM »

for the new ads vishop, it seems to be located here - https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png

Neven · « **Reply #2736 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:40:27 AM »

Quote from: Sleepy on July 13, 2016, 08:20:53 AM

A link to the old style pages is above Espens last post, Neven.

Thanks, but for some reason or other the link is broken.

Quote from: cats on July 13, 2016, 08:26:53 AM

for the new ads vishop, it seems to be located here - https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png

Thanks, cats. I'm amazed that you actually know how to locate it, because I looked everywhere.

cats · « **Reply #2737 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:42:17 AM »

Neven - fortunately I saved the link the last time JAXA changed to ADS and they seem to follow the same pattern for the new site, otherwise I don't think I would have found it :-)

Sleepy · « **Reply #2738 on:** July 13, 2016, 08:59:05 AM »

Quote from: Neven on July 13, 2016, 08:40:27 AM

Quote from: Sleepy on July 13, 2016, 08:20:53 AM
A link to the old style pages is above Espens last post, Neven.

Thanks, but for some reason or other the link is broken.

Sorry, I don't visit ASIG, they moved the graph folder out of the data folder.

Sleepy · « **Reply #2739 on:** July 13, 2016, 09:20:22 AM »

Quote from: Sleepy on July 13, 2016, 04:49:56 AM

Layout and download options for the csv file changed today...

Edit; maybe should have added that if you want to go directly to the old version it's now here:
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/vishop-extent.html?N

Apart from the link provided by cats it also works to link to the image by adding ".ver1" as above:
https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop.ver1/data/graph/Sea_Ice_Extent_N_v2_L.png

Neven · « **Reply #2740 on:** July 13, 2016, 11:02:45 AM »

Thanks, guys!

Buddy · « **Reply #2741 on:** July 13, 2016, 01:22:41 PM »

Quote

as i could see a huge junk on the pacific side just went "poof" in one day

Warning: Cliff ahead.....

SST's remain extremely elevated in most areas EXCEPT for Laptev and ESS. Beaufort is toast...

Two + months and counting till minimum. Too much heat....too much crappy ice....and now the cliff is at hand. September record low is easily in sight....I think it is only a matter of by how much.

All that crappy ice is spread much more thinly than in 2012....

Quantum · « **Reply #2742 on:** July 13, 2016, 02:03:05 PM »

Quote from: Buddy on July 13, 2016, 01:22:41 PM

Quote
as i could see a huge junk on the pacific side just went "poof" in one day

Warning: Cliff ahead.....

SST's remain extremely elevated in most areas EXCEPT for Laptev and ESS. Beaufort is toast...

Two + months and counting till minimum. Too much heat....too much crappy ice....and now the cliff is at hand. September record low is easily in sight....I think it is only a matter of by how much.

All that crappy ice is spread much more thinly than in 2012....

With all due respect people have been yelling 'cliff' for more than a month now. You might be right but I think there is too much crying wolf in here.

magnamentis · « **Reply #2743 on:** July 13, 2016, 03:44:37 PM »

Quote from: Neven on July 13, 2016, 08:16:24 AM

Does anyone have a URL I can link to so that the graph re-appears on the ASIG?

probably not what you mean but worth a try, sorry if you got that wrong:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=230.0;attach=32621;image

magnamentis · « **Reply #2744 on:** July 13, 2016, 03:51:50 PM »

Quote from: Quantum on July 13, 2016, 02:03:05 PM

Quote from: Buddy on July 13, 2016, 01:22:41 PM
Quote
as i could see a huge junk on the pacific side just went "poof" in one day

Warning: Cliff ahead.....

SST's remain extremely elevated in most areas EXCEPT for Laptev and ESS. Beaufort is toast...

Two + months and counting till minimum. Too much heat....too much crappy ice....and now the cliff is at hand. September record low is easily in sight....I think it is only a matter of by how much.

All that crappy ice is spread much more thinly than in 2012....
With all due respect people have been yelling 'cliff' for more than a month now. You might be right but I think there is too much crying wolf in here.

each time we predicted that it happened look back in the stats double century followed suit and now again we have avery high average daily drop rate over the last few days. in the graphs it looks a bit less because they're taken flat ( short time span ) and there were other years with cliffs around these days but IMO, considering the several century drops up to double century drop over the last 2 weeks those ciffs are there and there will be more of it.

the point i cannot see is what your problem is if someone gets a feel that an acceleration lays ahead, if you don't share that opinion simply contradict with reason an all is good. that can be a lot of fun to see which reasons prevails and which another time, while the precondition that the motives are case oriented and not self-profiling oriented or in other words, to keep it "funny" both parties have to be good "loosers" :-)

Quantum · « **Reply #2745 on:** July 13, 2016, 04:27:45 PM »

Quote from: magnamentis on July 13, 2016, 03:51:50 PM

Quote from: Quantum on July 13, 2016, 02:03:05 PM
Quote from: Buddy on July 13, 2016, 01:22:41 PM
Quote
as i could see a huge junk on the pacific side just went "poof" in one day

Warning: Cliff ahead.....

SST's remain extremely elevated in most areas EXCEPT for Laptev and ESS. Beaufort is toast...

Two + months and counting till minimum. Too much heat....too much crappy ice....and now the cliff is at hand. September record low is easily in sight....I think it is only a matter of by how much.

All that crappy ice is spread much more thinly than in 2012....
With all due respect people have been yelling 'cliff' for more than a month now. You might be right but I think there is too much crying wolf in here.

each time we predicted that it happened look back in the stats double century followed suit and now again we have avery high average daily drop rate over the last few days. in the graphs it looks a bit less because they're taken flat ( short time span ) and there were other years with cliffs around these days but IMO, considering the several century drops up to double century drop over the last 2 weeks those ciffs are there and there will be more of it.

the point i cannot see is what your problem is if someone gets a feel that an acceleration lays ahead, if you don't share that opinion simply contradict with reason an all is good. that can be a lot of fun to see which reasons prevails and which another time, while the precondition that the motives are case oriented and not self-profiling oriented or in other words, to keep it "funny" both parties have to be good "loosers" :-)

Don't get me wrong he could be right about the cliff, but in the sea ice thread I have seen some posters consistently predict a cliff that has never come hence my skepticism at this point. What I would say is that if there is going to be a cliff this month then the weather would have to be conductive to it. Looking at the ECM forecast its not really great weather for melt. I think August is a different story when bottom melt dominates and weather matters less. But I will say with a significant amount of confidence that we would have been well below 2012 this year had there been 2012 synoptics and that is based on the fact the weather has been above average for retention this year. If we had had 2007 synoptics we might even have had <1M or 'ice free'. But at this point I think the odds on beating 2012 are low though we could still end up in the top 3 if the weather allows.

Tensor · « **Reply #2746 on:** July 13, 2016, 04:57:21 PM »

Quote from: magnamentis on July 13, 2016, 03:51:50 PM

the point i cannot see is what your problem is if someone gets a feel that an acceleration lays ahead, if you don't share that opinion simply contradict with reason an all is good. that can be a lot of fun to see which reasons prevails and which another time, while the precondition that the motives are case oriented and not self-profiling oriented or in other words, to keep it "funny" both parties have to be good "loosers" :-)

I suppose you want us to send our posts to you first, so you can approve or disapprove them as to whether or not you see the point. As a matter of fact, it seems you were so busy telling him what was wrong with his post, you entirely missed the point of his post. That there have been posts claiming a cliff for over a month now, and those cliffs didn't happen.

Where's the cliff from a month ago? What are the reasons it didn't show up? From two weeks ago? Why is this cliff going to be different from that one, that again didn't show up? How does the first century drop of the month count as a cliff? So far, it seems those cliffs were based on how individuals interpret the data. One has been repeatedly asked to provide actual images, but continues to post models, models I might add with known limitations. To defend the cliff call, sorry catastrophe.

I see you think August is going to be different in terms of weather. Why exactly do we trust you when it's known that forecasts are very inaccurate out past ten days and we have over two weeks to go before we get to August.

Sorry for the rant Neven. I've been coming here to get sober analysis of the situation in he Arctic. That I have to peck through the "looks like" chickenshit from a flock of Chicken Littles who seem to cherry peck (yes I know what I said)which info to use, base on supporting thier own point of view, then accuse one of the most helpful contributors of trolling, is more than a bit disheartening.

Tigertown · « **Reply #2747 on:** July 13, 2016, 05:14:12 PM »

More likely a steep grade than a sudden cliff. One of those you gotta downshift on or you will burn your brakes up.

P.S. If there does happen to be a cliff and anybody goes off it, on the way down, take some notes.

magnamentis · « **Reply #2748 on:** July 13, 2016, 07:22:18 PM »

Quote from: Tensor on July 13, 2016, 04:57:21 PM

Quote from: magnamentis on July 13, 2016, 03:51:50 PM
the point i cannot see is what your problem is if someone gets a feel that an acceleration lays ahead, if you don't share that opinion simply contradict with reason an all is good. that can be a lot of fun to see which reasons prevails and which another time, while the precondition that the motives are case oriented and not self-profiling oriented or in other words, to keep it "funny" both parties have to be good "loosers" :-)

I suppose you want us to send our posts to you first, so you can approve or disapprove them as to whether or not you see the point. As a matter of fact, it seems you were so busy telling him what was wrong with his post, you entirely missed the point of his post. That there have been posts claiming a cliff for over a month now, and those cliffs didn't happen. {snippage}

that's interesting, i referred to exactly his point and i say 2 cliffs happened, nobody was saying the last for an entire months, i even mentioned when there was a double century drop + a few high century drops and now again w've seen a few of them recently. a few consecutive century drops are a cliff because double century drops are still very rare and cannot serve yet to be meant with that term.

what is much more interesting to me is the reaction such (my) post is producing. since my field of work before retirement was mainly in the fields of psychology and philosophy and especially ethics, i know exactly what that is and there is only one way out, ignore such users and ultimately refrain from sharing thoughts. there was nothing offensive in my post while you blamed me exactly for what you did, not reading and/or understanding my post, neither the words nor the positive meaning behind it.

EDIT: basically i said that i don't understand one point and that is a form of asking, being open for elaboration which BTW he did and it's all good, why should others chime in on behalf of someone who can easily elaborate himself and then where did i appear of "DISAPROVAL" i mean disagreement and disapproval are distinct, or not ?

oren · « **Reply #2749 on:** July 13, 2016, 07:42:40 PM »

Hello magnamentis maybe I can help explain. First of all you get some reactions because of the noise that "bbr" was making for the last several weeks, now people are tired of all the alarms and react harshly even if you are not to blame.
About the cliff, maybe it is a question of definition. I think most people see "cliff" as a sharp sustained drop in extent beyond the normal for the period. So if 2016 was ahead of all years by a huge margin but now it is not, it means that 2016 dropped less than others and calling it a cliff is wrong by the common definition (as I understand it).
If you define cliff as a few century drops over a few days that just keep the chart right with the charts of the other years, you might confuse people that expect cliff as defined above.

News:

Author Topic: IJIS (Read 2762373 times)

magnamentis

Sleepy

magnamentis

magnamentis

Sleepy

Sleepy

Sleepy

Sleepy

magnamentis

Sleepy

seaicesailor

magnamentis

magnamentis

Sleepy

Sleepy

Sleepy

Sleepy

Sleepy

magnamentis

magnamentis

magnamentis