i could have used the term "volume" instead of "mass" but i started to dislike the "volume" term because it's mostly associated with "piomas" numbers that are obviously and outright wrong because their algorithm can't manage the new conditions of dispersed and fragmented ice for some reason.
I agree with you, but I am only saying that on a gut level. I stare at, and process, physical data every day and you develop a feel for these things. Sometimes things just don't look right.
That is about as unscientific as one could be, but I chalk it up to our subconscious working in the background. That's my excuse :-)
I have seem PIOMAS values viewed with skepticism before, but does anyone have a handle on exactly where the deficiencies lie and how one might adjust for them?
This is frustrating for me and it ties into a common theme being expressed on the forum right now; Many of our metrics are only telling a small part of the story, and to me, it seems much of it comes down to ice dynamics.
For example, changes in extent are of limited use unless compaction or dispersion are both known and understood. Similarly, the Atlantic side could be seen as not melting when in reality, the ice movement is steadily and rapidly replenishing any ice loss in that area. There are at least half a dozen other examples of this problem but I'm sure you know what I mean. In a nutshell, has the ice melted, refrozen or moved?
I check the graphs and satellite shots regularly, but I realize that I am mostly just trying to read tea leaves, or the entrails of goats. I eagerly await the monthly(?) PIOMAS values as I hope/expect them to tell me the "real" story, yet I am trusting that data less and less.
I recall Prof. David Barber talking about his 2009 trip to the arctic, expecting a large area in the central arctic to consist of solid ice, only to find it to be rotten and virtually no obstacle to the ice breaker. So what is it that we really know for sure? Have we improved much, in ten years?
It may just come down to sitting and waiting, because the weather variability overwhelms the trend signal. That is not easy for analytical types that want to know about something that is both historical as an event, and critical to our future.