Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and 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 - jjj18641

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 03, 2020, 04:28:49 AM »
Comparisons with previous years shows the uniqueness the Atlantic side retreat, and also the improbability of Beaufort survival coupled with a low ice year. The only year that comes close along the Barents CAB front is 2013, which had lots of ice elsewhere.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 31, 2020, 01:56:39 PM »
I suggest to wait the 10 days before making announcements. Forecasts have been problematic even 3 days out, 10 days is fantasyland. Halocline could be having a bad time but it's best to wait for facts and observations showing it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 27, 2020, 09:30:00 PM »
I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet, but today's the first somewhat clear view above Greenland in quite some time. It looks like export towards the Fram Strait has been almost completely severed off from the narrow triangle that forms on the Greenland's east shore.

The entire region just looks real unstable and fragile. With the upcoming strong winds projected to rip what's left into the Atlantic I think there's still some area to lose here.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 24, 2020, 10:20:24 AM »
Has the Atlantic front ever gone north of the eightyfifth parallel? It sur seems like it might this time round.

Thomas Lavergne on twitter posted a forecast animation of the sea ice based on the CMEMS data. Shows the ice reaching 85N.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 24, 2020, 10:16:40 AM »
Todays updates, with the categorised ice concentration now split into 8 groups spanning 12.5%

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 12:51:28 PM »
Updated version (improved colour scheme) of the comparison between the extent and concentration changes for the first 3 weeks of August.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 11:31:48 PM »
Thanks for the feedback all.

Thoughts on this version?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 10:28:54 PM »
Thoughts on this as a new colour scheme?

Honestly it's not so good on the eyes, I think. The contrast between cyan and green is unpleasant. And also dark gray ocean is not intuitive either, I associate gray with invalid or irrelevant data such as land in the case of ice, not the value 0.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 17, 2020, 10:10:16 AM »
To put it in other terms John, as the tide is not much different than years past, this doesn't sound like a sufficient explanation by itself.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 11, 2020, 03:08:18 PM »
Is it significant to see this much open water only 114 miles from 90N at this point in the season?

See image I posted at #4480,3017.msg279385.html#msg279385

Or alternatively look back on Worldview at the last month of the 2016 (Aug 15 to Sept 15) melt season and you'll see lots of holes near the pole. Not good.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 11, 2020, 01:54:24 PM »
Is it significant to see this much open water only 114 miles from 90N at this point in the season?

Not really.

However IMHO ever increasing areas of low concentration all the way from there to Greenland is highly significant.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 09, 2020, 09:25:42 AM »
The Sverdrup Channel between Axel Heiberg on the right and Ellef Ringness and Amund Ringness on the left, in the CAA/PGAS. A few days after initial breakup, some of the ice is quickly transported (check out the very large floe heading south), and a lot of the ice simply seems to disappear in situ. It seems this is what happens when the total accumulated melt reaches the typical thickness achieved during winter.
Top to bottom is around 350 km. Click to animate and enlarge.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 07, 2020, 10:25:16 AM »
That's a bit pedantic, Paul.

Okay it might be more consistent to stick with the one model, however scrollling through both ECMWF and GFS 2m anomalies over next few days both show very little +ve anomalies in the area BFTV has circled.  (If anything I would say GFS is more often the warmer at the 2m level over the Arctic basin).

But this is distracting from the main point of my post - not to confuse 850hPa with 2m temps.

850hPa temps are of course very useful for other reasons. So I cannot be sure exactly what BFTV's intention was. It could be said for example that the high 850hPa's are indicative of the presence of high pressure over the area of thickest ice.

Remember that over the ice the surface temperature will be pegged close to 0C due to the latent heat of fusion of ice, much like the 80N temps are. So you will not see strong +ve surface temperature values until the ice has melted, no matter how much heat is actually in the air.
As such, using 850hPa level (or 925hPa if available) in these situations works better for assessing ice thaw than surface level values.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 04, 2020, 11:09:53 PM »
I'm reluctant to say this since I cannot prove it, but I REALLY am starting to wonder if we're witnessing a somewhat paradigm shift in the Atlantic currents to cause the breakup above Greenland/Lincoln Sea. I realize it's been quite warm in that entire region, but I do not think surface melt alone is enough to facilitate so much action and change.

It's really surprising to see and certainly a hallmark of the post-2019 season. I really do cite the mega crack's formation last year as the first sign that things were changing. Again, I can't say where and how far the current may be spreading north of Greenland, but I'm beginning to suspect that the ice edge along the Fram Strait in some ways are merging with warmer waters in the north Atlantic. It's impossible for me to ignore a 15-30mi wide fetch of exposed water in a region which really has not encountered it (at least in the satellite era, tho I suspect far earlier).

Anyways, given what we have seen with Atlantification, I believe the melting above Greenland really is a sign of the broader changes taking place. The Gulf Stream is really cooking this year and at some level all of these systems are connected. I'll patiently keep watching this area because it's the most exciting to me.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 03, 2020, 06:59:16 PM »
If that windlessness continues through August, then maybe the remaining thin ice will be spared above 80-85N. What are the odds of that though?
Very low I would say. There's way to much energy in the system, so I expect at least one more big storm. Probably two...

It's been a crazy year so far - as I predicted. And this is only the second melting season I'm following closely...  :-\ Can you imagine what will happen next year after the global economy completely collapses because nobody will be able to pay back their loans to the banks?  :-\

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 12:21:24 PM »
Here's the difference between the concentration from the 31st of July and the 1st of August. Only the areas with change outside of -10% to +10% are coloured.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 31, 2020, 07:34:38 AM »
Seriously  tho.  Click this if you want to see what the STORM DID...


The second one is over the Southern Chukchi

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 31, 2020, 05:16:39 AM »

In general though, the current weather outlook should favour the sea ice but whether it will or not this year remains to be seen.

You said the same thing last night, and I asked you about it and you did not respond.

I’m not trying to be rude. I just want to understand what you see that I am missing.

What is it in the current weather pattern that you think favors the sea ice?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:43:01 AM »
I believe this is the ice through a gap in the clouds in the Chukchi-Beaufort area, the place where the low has centered over the past few days.  This is the first time the clouds have really cleared in this area

The ice looks like it has taken a tremendous beating...  I must confess I was rather shocked when I saw it.

First image closeup, second more zoomed out, third image is for geographical context.

The area of 'low concentration' on the Bremen AMSR2 map for July 29 (one of those surprising 'hey we can see the storm on AMSR2' images) kinda sorta lines up with this low concentration ice.  Uniquorn called the low concentration of this ice in Reply 4160.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 27, 2020, 08:54:24 AM »
Thankfully these crazy predictions of 2.5million are now gone. Looks like a stall will mean we finish in the pack. Though probably whether we come 2nd or 3rd will be the only question. Think 2019 and 2020 will be very close at the end despite everything. Hopefully August will be a boring month for the ice.

So you expect the endless torching over the CAA and Eastern CAB to not keep melting the ice??  Which is already showing up on modis when the clouds clear out filled with holes...

What do you think this 972MB vortex puking out rain all over the Beaufort, Chuckchi, and Western CAB in concert with 20-30KT winds over 36-48 hours is going to do to ice that is truly 50-60 percent Concentration with MILES of OPEN WATER between the DECIMATED CHUNKS of ice?

And when that system winds down we still have another 40 days of ice loss to go.

You literally call predictions for new record lows crazy while giving no evidence to back up your new prediction of 2nd or 3rd lowest. I assume you are talking about extent.

Well you did cite a few days of slower losses while winds are in the reverse dipole position.  Which hasn't stopped melting.  Just compaction.

I'm not trying to be a dick but people post here putting huge effort and time backing there opinions and thoughts with great depth and thoughtfulnes and you dismiss that as crazy while offering no empirical evidence. 

I guess you have historical precidence on your side.  It would be nice if you would back up why you think 2020 is probably going to end up tied with or below 2019.

You may be right.  But it's pretty cheap to call the incredible analysis that dozens of members here contribute as crazy and then not actually offer any substance to back youe position.  Please no hard feelings.  Have a good night/day


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 26, 2020, 10:33:42 AM »
Does anyone have access to say 5 or 10 day euro temp  anomalies.

Looking at the euro 850mb temp anomalies 0-240 hours at 24 hour intervals.

The pole to the GIS coast back to Svalbard.. then shade in the Atlantic side over to the Laptev region at 80N to the pole literally has 5-8C temp  anomalies for the 240 hour period averaged out.

With essentially major ridging  the entire run.

I know the vortex is the big ticket item.

But this is really bad as well.

This perfect storm of situations unorthodox yet DESTROYER OF ICE WORLDS is coming together to bring blue open water as far as JOHN SNOW can see.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 26, 2020, 08:44:15 AM »
Latest Five Day Forecast
Wind + Temp @ Surface
Large Gif!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 25, 2020, 07:05:14 PM »
We're 5 days ahead of 2019, 7 days ahead of '12, between 9-14 days ahead of '11-'18.
The thicker dashed blue line is the average of 2001-'05, we're >A Month ahead.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 23, 2020, 08:49:12 AM »
Lets not reinvent the wheel. We could use the terms increasing or decreasing CONCENTRATION since that is the term used on the maps provided by scientists who measure such things. CONCENTRATION maps show area/extent by color. Somebody used the wrong term and people lost their shit imagining what the new term means.  ;D

It still surprises me how much ice shows up on shorelines that clearly have none in the CONCENTRATION maps.

The thing about a CONCENTRATION map is you need a thickness map right be side it to be able to judge how soon it will actually melt. If you do not you may be puzzled why that 80% CONCENTRATIONregion does not seem to melt or a 90% CONCENTRATION region seems to disappear over night. The 80% CONCENTRATION[/size]region might be 10 m thick while the 90% CONCENTRATION[/font] region is 5 cm thick.The most recent Piomas (7/15/2020) shows the Beufort between 1.25 and 2 m thick.The 7/20/2020 Hycom shows ice mostly between 0.5 and 2.5 m thick. With half less than 0.8 m thick and half above.

 ;D ;D ;D :'( ;D ;D :-X

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 01:25:23 PM »
Don’t forget that 2020 is maybe exceptional because of COVID-effects

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 12:31:33 PM »
Love what FRIZ contributes here. But November melt is a concept I'm taking a hard PASS on.
Geez, you're not a very pleasant fella now are you? It's FRIV, not FRIZ. Please don't misspell him, we love the guy and it hurts our feelings when you do!  :'(

As for taking a hard pass on, perhaps it'll be interesting for you to read this piece piblished in 2016, and in particular those words in it, quote:

"Both the Arctic and Antarctic experienced record lows in sea ice extent in November, with scientists astonished to see Arctic ice actually retreating at a time when the region enters the cold darkness of winter".

I dare think it is clear that "arctic ice retreating at the time" means melt and nothing else. Have you anything to object, or will you agree you were wrong and apologize for posting factually incorrect information? Your reaction - or lack of - to this post will tell us much who you are and how to react to any of your future contributions, so i thank you in advance for it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 12:44:10 AM »
It is kind of funny to be so mesmerized by the plunging extent numbers, and yet they can be an indirect and sometimes counterintuitive representation of all that is going on.  The compaction of the icecap by the high helped send the extent numbers plunging, but that compaction probably helped preserve the ice.  So dropping extent can be, in a way, 'good'.  It was the increased solar radiation reaching the surface caused by the high that has done so much damage to the ice, and actual extent has little to do with that.

Paradoxically, one of the worst things that could happen is for a big and persistent low or similar weather system to arrive and scatter the ice.  Maybe that will occur, and let's hope it doesn't.  But if it does, it will either temporarily slow, or even reverse, the decline in extent numbers.  Thus an apparent hiatus in extent losses would be terrible news for the ice as it is sent out into the surrounding warm seas, and as warm, saline water is perhaps churned to the surface of the Arctic.  (And all this might be happening just as insolation is fading fast and bottom melt becomes paramount.)

I guess what is ironic to me is that, in the short term, extent losses can indicate almost the opposite of what they seem to imply.  In the longer term, of course, there is no argument, net loss of extent by September is an unequivocally bad thing. 

Sorry if all this is very obvious to all you experienced ice watchers out there ... had to get it off my chest.   Here's hoping the ice pack stays together...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 08, 2020, 07:19:22 AM »
Jaxa has almost another double century.

I expect a slowdown because the Beaufort and Chuchcki without some compaction will need more time to start melting out insitu.

Never the less 2020 is almost 300k km2 below the next closest year.

Pretty cool

MODIS shows a huge area of clear skies and it's expanding.

With brutal fog around the ridge where brutally warm low level heat is being injected.

The dark red is everywhere.  Remarkable!!

FWIW..I blocked Phoenix a little while back because he is disingenuous. And there is no time for that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 17, 2020, 11:14:58 AM »
Following up on the screenshots above here is worldview, Laptev, jun17, 2000-2020 (2001 not available). Light contrast on all images to help show the ice edge through clouds,
click to run

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 16, 2020, 10:42:46 AM »
Sibiria has always been hot in summer and cold in winter. Temps up to 45C are not uncommon

No. This is absolutely NOT TRUE. We have data for many Siberian towns. Some all time highs are for the biggest towns (plusYakutsk and Norilsk as these are far from the most populated centers but typical for Inner/Northern Siberia):

Novosibirsk 37 C
Omsk 40 C
Chelyabinsk 40 C
Krasnoyarsk 36 C
Tyumen 38 C
Irkutsk 37 C
Yakutsk 38 C
Norilsk 32 C

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 07, 2020, 08:23:35 AM »
Phoenix, this has to be said:

It would do you well with a bit more humility and a bit less confidence. You have latched onto your theory like it's the gospel. I have taken the time to patiently explain some of its shortcomings in the DHACSOO thread, to no avail it seems.

Specifically I have explained the DMI N 80 data is heavily weighted around the pole itself, and is not a true measure of temperatures north of 80. And that the added energy from AGW gets soaked up by the ice and is not showing in temperature readings, this does not mean AGW is irrelevant. And that the data shows Inner Basin volume during the melting season does matter, and the CAB is not the only thing we should care about, due to melt progress, ice mobility and other factors.
I am fine with people expecting crashes and with people expecting recoveries. However I am not fine with your excessive preaching that can intimidate others from posting, others who may dislike confrontation, dislike harsh criticism and feel less sure of their insights and contributions. Be warned I am losing my patience. And the numerous moderator reports I have received say my instincts are justified.

BTW, 2020 could be a recovery year, this wiill not mean your theory was sound.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 02, 2020, 12:41:30 PM »
No mystery here. The NSIDC algorithm can see wet ice or melt ponds as loss of area, thus local surface freezing or snow can increase concentration. Besides, there is a reason why they use 5-day averaging - the data is known to be noisy. In general, I would appreciate if posters don't feed into wd88's posts.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 31, 2020, 01:58:41 PM »

Can someone help me out with what I'm looking at here?

Ask this in stupid questions (it's not stupid at all though if you don't know Terra MODIS corrected reflectance satellite images, and the interface, NASA EOSDIS Worldview, Arctic view)

Another question is what Peter is trying to show apart from the obvious cloudiness over the Arctic. Ice surface wetness revealed by a more intense red?

Edit: there you go.
I am sorry for the poor network.  The red region means low albedo and wetter the surface. It is important for the melting momentum established.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 20, 2020, 12:36:12 AM »
The Arctic ice surface has refroze pretty well over the inner basin.

So it is pretty much impossible to see the Arctic ice surface go straight into melt in early/middle May because solar altitude isn't good enough.

And if you are wondering why the Arctic surface can see melt all the way to the pole until the end of the first week of August and between 70-80N all the way towards the end of August.

That is because:

Ice temperature (like through the ice) by then is at 0c.  Infact this heat wave certainly warmed up the ice over a large area show Even though the surface has Frozen backup that's probably only inches deep and I mean barely inches deep.

Of course over the Canadian basin the ice is still well below freezing at depth.  This is part of that pretty conditioning process.

The surface albedo is much lower by then

The ice thickness and compactness is wrecked compared to now

So while we have seen preconditioning the melt season really hasn't started yet

This means SOLAR ALTITUDE just isn't high enough until the first week of June to overcome albedo.

This means we well have to see background temps warm likely another 2-4C around the ice in May and snow cover to vanish at least a week earlier than the current earliest before we see ice volume sustainably go lower than it already has.

This means a total melt out isn't likely until 2035-2040 or later

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 08, 2020, 10:50:38 PM »
NYC deaths should be near zero in a week. We are already almost there.

May 8: Deaths in New York City ~500/day
This is blatantly fake news. Cuomo's update has New York STATE's total deaths today at just over 200. The New York Times is literally now just entirely fake news.

Today's ACTUAL state-wide #s:
Deaths 216

The day isn't over yet. Yesterday it was 521. The day before yesterday 499, then 125,291,512.

NYC deaths should be near zero in a week. We are already almost there.

Terrible prediction, like your ice age prediction.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 02, 2020, 09:37:33 AM »
April 26 - May 1.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 01, 2020, 11:06:36 PM »
Me neither, Neill. ;) Perhaps it rained, perhaps moisture, perhaps clouds. Let's see if we hear something from the Polarstern.
This photograph, i believe, was created from Polarstern's bridge ~3 days ago, 28th April:

Can you see the bear? Anyhow, from the accompanying note posted at, we can read that the bear is, quote, "standing behind Met City near a small lead, likely waiting for a seal". Earlier in the note, we also read that bear, quote, "... sat near a small crack in the ice for almost two hours, likely waiting for a seal to surface".  Seals, i understand, would need open water to come onto the ice, where polar bears could hunt them. So, it seems there are some areas of open water per the above - and it looks like at least some of such openings do not freeze up any much for ~2 hours. I don't think bears are that stupid to spend some hour+ hunting a piece of any significantly thick ice, are they?

Much more importantly, however, is shape of sea ice which above picture presents. As one can see, ice in this particular area is abundantly uneven. With Sun being low over horizon for the time being, this creates really long shadows, clearly visible on the picture. Yet surfaces which are _creating_ those shadows - are often nearly vertical, and thus they absorb lots of sunlight. I think those surfaces are wet, - now that air is much cleaner than in previous melt season, very long path it takes sun rays to go through the athmosphere (because Sun is so low yet) does not deplete energy of sunlight anywhere close as it did previous seasons. Like was mentioned couple pages ago, one can easily see from Finland shore all the way to Estonia now - visibility is _times_ better. Same story would mean times higher W/m2 hitting those "bumps" on sea ice, per above picture - and wet them up good deal even while overall 2m tempeatures may be at -10C or even lower.

And we clearly see the area was quite well lit as of 3 days ago, too.

If someone has any better explanation than above, then please share.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 29, 2020, 11:42:56 AM »
Maybe the excessive, unnecessary media and mass hysteria and fearmongering plays a role as well. But we'll never know, given that the majority determines what perceived reality is.

Here in Sweden, a shooting makes it in the news. A fatal car accident too. A deadly bus accident gets headlines. The tsunami and the sinking of the Estonia dominated the news for a long time.

This epidemic has many more deaths already now, in this country alone. It affects everyone's daily life.

How is news coverage "excessive"?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 29, 2020, 08:54:50 AM »
The difference I see is the comparison with respectively 2012 and 2019.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: April 29, 2020, 07:27:13 AM »
Does anyone know where the pillars JPG above is taken?

I can see the government backstopping insurance liability for meat packing plants but ultimately double shifts or efforts at running with reduced concentrations of workers on packing lines means the farmers will likely have increased slaughter/ butchery costs .
 The costs of USDA slaughter / butchery costs are already very high and that is the main reason Calif. imports almost all it’s pork. Calif. Per pig slaughter $75-$110 depending on size, butchery cut and wrap
$450-600 also depends on size ( lbs ) and which cuts you want. Feed $ 350-400  Veterinarians and healthcare, $50  transport $100   So for a 220 lb. hanging weight you have about $1020 in expenses or for 300 lbs you have about $1260.
 Commodity pork sells for less than $2 per lb.  My pigs are not commodity pork but when I need about $8-9 per lb. for what I sell it comes as a real marketing challenge . 
 Most people count their time as an hourly wage. I work about thirty hours a week and my wife works to deal with sales , phone , finances, paperwork ad nauseam.
 A farm has  expenses like taxes, fences , water, electric, trucks, trailers and new breeding stock
 Some years I don’t break even , most  years I make less than a thousand a month , my wife has a real job .
 So if slaughter / butchery or feed costs go up who is my customer base for $10 pork ?
Commodity pork is what people are willing to pay for and the factory farm model that supplies it would probably convince people they should find another form of protein if they knew the lives that those confinement pigs were forced to live.  Same for chickens. Cheap protein comes with a cost but I guess
Trump knows what no meat in the meat case means to MAGA. 
Freedom comes with a cost, my pigs have pasture and are well kept
I have a farm and it is worth suffering low wages
but what freedom do the low wage packing plant employees have ?
Only the freedom to quit or the choice to volunteer for herd immunity and an extra dollar or two in hourly wages.


Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 26, 2020, 01:24:01 AM »
That graph is incomplete

Yes gandul, the graph IS incomplete and it's not from the CDC.

The reason Hefaistos didn't provide a link to that chart is because it's source is ...

Dr Roy Spencer

With the pandemic sucking all the air out of the room, poor Roy has to peddle his lies and misinformation wherever he can. Sharing this sort of misinformation is not appropriate.

The actual chart looks very different ...

Actual CDC Weekly Pneumonia and Influenza Mortality Graph for Current Week

Based on National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) mortality surveillance data available on April 23, 2020, 11.4% of the deaths occurring during the week ending April 18, 2020 (week 16) were due to P&I. This percentage is above the epidemic threshold of 6.9% for week 16.


CDC does not know the exact number of people who have been sick and affected by influenza because influenza is not a reportable disease in most areas of the U.S. However, CDC has estimated the burden of flu since 2010 using a mathematical model that is based on data collected through the U.S. Influenza Surveillance System, a network that covers approximately 8.5% of the U.S. population (~27 million people).


The estimates of the cumulative burden of seasonal influenza are subject to several limitations.

First, the cumulative rate of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations reported during the season may be an under-estimate of the rate at the end of the season because of identification and reporting delays.

Second, rates of laboratory-confirmed influenza-associated hospitalizations were adjusted for the frequency of influenza testing and the sensitivity of influenza diagnostic assays. However, data on testing practices during the 2019-2020 season are not available in real-time. CDC used data on testing practices from the past influenza seasons as a proxy. Burden estimates will be updated at a later date when data on contemporary testing practices become available.

Third, estimates of influenza-associated illness and medical visits are based on data from prior seasons, which may not be accurate if the seriousness of illness or patterns of care-seeking have changed.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 25, 2020, 11:57:24 PM »

On 'some things' related to 'other things':

1. Deaths caused by C19 may be significantly over-reported in many countries,
Source? This is wild speculation. The reality is that the opposite is true. Deaths caused by c19 are significantly underestimated.

Literally your reasons for ignoring the dangers are opposite of the evidence shown everywhere.

as it is the killer that finishes an already sick (e.g. due to lifestyle diseases) person off, while the cause of death might be more correctly ascribed to some underlying disease the person had

Yes, I'm sure that your medical opinion about what counts as a Covid 19 death is much greater than practitioners assigning the cause of death. /s

Again. This is just your opinion and it flies in the face of common sense and evidence

2. Deaths in nursing homes is underreported in most countries.

Also deaths at home are being counted as something else and if there aren't enough test many are going with unknown pneumonia as a cause of death.

Staying at home keeps people from e.g. getting killed in traffic, or at work.
If we calculate YLL due to C19 we have to include these aspects as well.

If you ever worked at a hospital you would know that Death takes vacations, holidays, and long weekends. Fatalities rise and drop with human activity. Shutdowns should have caused a precipitous drop in the normal fatality rate. When calculating excess death the calculation should be made after adjusting for a shutdown, not from the historical average.

Calculating excess death from the historical average will undercount excess deaths.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 25, 2020, 11:29:27 PM »
That graph is incomplete

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 25, 2020, 01:43:26 AM »
I'm watching the Austrian news tonight. For over 10 minutes they explained everything wrt how schools will re-open. It's absolutely insane what they are going to do to kids, to the point of abuse. All because of fear and control freaks who want to prevent being held accountable for anything. There is still so much irrational fear...

The children will, indeed, be subject to harm and abuse if schools reopen too soon.  They will lose parents and grandparents.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 01:01:07 PM »
I'm not saying 'it's only/just the flu'. I'm saying that, epidemiologically speaking, it is much more similar to the flu than we were led to believe. Of course, there are differences, and there are still a lot of things we don't know, but they could go either way.

That reminds me of people claiming there is a lot we don't know about climate, and that it could go either way, so we should not disrupt society to fight a threat that may be less severe than the consequences of the disruption.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 12:01:22 PM »
The real 'false narrative' is 'it's only the flu'

First, the flu is huge. Even if it were 'just' as lethal as the flu (it is almost certainly an order of magnitude more lethal and more contagious), that's a huge added death and misery toll on the population. Note that we're still in the middle of this thing (Osterholm says we're in the first inning out of nine), and the death toll in the US is already more than the death toll of flu for 7 of the last 9 entire seasons.

This fall, if we get a second wave of covid19 (even if that wave does turn out to be not much worse than the flu) on top of even a normal flu season, it is still likely to overwhelm healthcare systems around the world.

So can we just stop with the 'it's just the flu'

It is both false, understates the seriousness of the flu (hundred of thousands of deaths every year), and downplays the crisis that even just doubling those numbers would do/ is doing to healthsystems

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 11:49:01 AM »
My problem is with narratives, especially now that data is pointing more and more to the needed context: a much lower IFR than initially projected, threat mostly if not exclusively for risk groups. Individually the disease is nastier than the flu, there is a higher chance of hospitals being overrun (although it happens with flu a lot as well, and that's because the medical system is underfunded), but from an epidemiological perspective, SARS-CoV-2 isn't radically different. It isn't what we've been led to believe, and are still being led to believe. The media and politicans, as always, are doing us a great disservice, which is why one always needs to be sceptical.
My problem is that I believe your facts are wrong. An IFR of ~1% is much higher than the flu, maybe ~20 times higher, and this after requiring much higher rates of hospitalization and of ICU, and much longer hospital stays. And the virus is much more contagious to boot, including a lot of asymptomatic/pre-symptomatic transmission. Thus lacking lockdowns and social distancing measures IFR could increase to 2-4% by overrunning the healthcare system in a much worse way than any flu ever did. The threat is not limited to risk groups and it does not only kill those who would have died in the next 3 or 12 months. Yes many of the dead are old people and about a third are those in care homes, but not all are old, and even those could have lasted another 3-5 years with good management.
All you need is to look at total mortality data to see the vast difference from the flu - and this after the effect of historic and draconian lockdowns and with only a few percent of the population having had the infection by now.
Yes, some politicians are taking advantage of the situation. My local psychopath has done the same. But don't cloud your scientific judgment by the political narrative. Scientifically this is very different from the flu, and there's simply no way around this fact.

By the way, it is very hard to protect people at care homes. They are treated by a large number of people who are not locked down in the care home, are also visited by their families, and many of them need regular hospital/clinic visits (dialysis for example) and are thus exposed. Even in countries with strong testing and tracing and early and comprehensive lockdowns, care homes have been infected widely.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: April 23, 2020, 01:31:26 AM »
Video of a small expedition to Humboldt Glacier last summer headed by cryo-scientist Eric Rignot.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 22, 2020, 11:33:56 PM »
It's so easy to not see zombies when there is no visible destruction. No floods. No fires. No storm wind. No helicopters flying over. In fact, all there is silence. Eerie silence. The only way you know something is going on is by watching the news or if your family is touched.

Zombies. Bleh. Zombies you can see. Zombies bring you closer to your loved ones, not farther apart. The whole story arc sucks. If successful, the good guys are condemned and the bad guys take all the glory. If failure, death wins, like every 100 years before this. I told you so's won't mean s#!t. All the technology in the world won't mean a thing.

The world keeps going, a little emptier and with much unique information lost. In this case the best information, one who has been curated after decades of trial and error. The ones the built the world.

Everyone will get it, probably many times during a shortened life. If you have preexisting conditions you will find out the hard way. The same for your loved ones.

We need contact tracing. We need testing. We need to bring down the number of new cases FAST. The window of opportunity is closing. That is exactly what many want.

Pages: [1]