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 - colchonero

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 03, 2020, 01:41:52 AM »
3m thick ice, did not melt in a month. Either it wasn't 3m thick, or it didn't melt  out. Especially not 2,5m in 15 days.

Forecast is very far from disastrous for ice. Ice condition is the main problem at many places, and just because of that we could see some bigger drops in closer future.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 29, 2020, 11:17:20 AM »
I don't get the (excitement about) DMI chart. If green line is the average, and I have seen it notably below during summer( posted here multiple times during recent years) somewhere around 0C line. Then for the green line to be average, there either must have been periods like this one, where we go above the line, or their chart is simply wrong, to put it easy.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 18, 2020, 05:21:09 PM »
UK 'Overestimates' Coronavirus Death Toll: Study

Britain ordered an urgent review Friday into how coronavirus deaths are counted after a study suggested health authorities are overestimating the toll by counting people who died long after recovering.

More than 45,000 deaths have been recorded in patients who tested positive for COVID-19 in Britain and many more died without being tested, making the country's outbreak the deadliest in Europe.

But an article for Oxford University's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine revealed a "statistical flaw" in the way data is gathered by the public health agency in England.

Authors Yoon K Loke and Carl Heneghan said that in compiling death data, Public Health England simply checks its list of lab-confirmed cases against a central register of deaths to see whether they are still alive.

"A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later," they wrote.

They suggested this could explain variations in England's daily toll, and why deaths there have not fallen in the same way they have in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which collect their own data.

Under this approach, "no one with COVID in England is allowed to ever recover from their illness", the article said—and the ultimate death toll will include every one of the 292,000 people who has had the virus.

... The Office for National Statistics says that 54,000 more people died in England and Wales this year to July 3 than the five-year average for that period.

Why no-one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England – a statistical anomaly, CEBM, 2020


54k already, and with more than 100k drop in urgent cancer treatment, I can't see how it will not get even (much) worse till the end of the year. Bad, bad news. This is deaths, not cases where we can speculate how many had it with no symptoms, are they protected even without antibodies. It doesn't even matter how many of those are covid deaths, and how many are caused just because of the pandemic chaos and government responses.

The major reason for this is because the governments, and especially the British one, couldn't find ANY middle ground, during this pandemic. At first it was like take it easy, just chilling, almost no measures, herd immunity etc... And when they saw it got out of the hand, than there was panic mode turned on, so that even very ill people with very VERY serious life threatening diseases, didn't dare to go out in public or visit hospital, out of the fear not to catch covid, cause their body is already weak. Disastrous decisions and tactic all the way from march, and that's why you'll get horrible excess mortality in Britain and maybe some other countries. Of course there will be no consequences, and the will learn nothing from it.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:36:34 PM »
This is bad, excess mortality could go way higher if it continues

An update on NHS cancer referrals for May:

Not much better unfortunately.

Urgent cancer referalls still 100k per month below normal.

By the end of June that would be about 1 delayed urgent cancer refferal per covid case.

When you look at the chart in the link ,  comparison with other years, it's even worse than just reading the text.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 02, 2020, 07:43:41 PM »
What a bad reporting on italy today by everyone. Because everybody is waiting on worldometers to post results. Today there are 192 new deaths in Italy, not 474. 282/474 are deaths from april that were delayed. But nobody is checking official results or italian newspapera. And instead of titles like death toll in Italy less than 200 for the firat time in ..., we have all over the news, huge surge in deaths in Italy, that makes people think "oh look as soon as they started reopening". They are doing the same thing with Spain. They report antibody positives with actual positives together in "new case" they just automatically transfer them to recovered section, but nobody is gonna read that. That's why Spanish curve on WM doesn't make any sense.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2020, 09:52:47 PM »
Total tests 579k.

Germany does half a million per week! Population 1/4 of the US.

This is 100% fake news. You can check that everywhere.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 15, 2020, 06:28:03 PM »
Oh boy Italy 3590 cases and 368 deaths (previous high wss 250). They have no beds in Lombardy :'(.

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: March 02, 2020, 12:34:02 PM »
RCP (polling data not website news) is just a place where you can see polls without having to google every single one personally and separetely. It's not like they have any influence on the numbers, they don't even do polls. You can calculate poll averages on your own, and the result would be the same. Math is math.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 29, 2020, 01:14:35 PM »
So (doesn't matter which country) can do almost nothing necessary to stop epidemic/pandemic that can affect Cid personally (or everyone here) or our families in the future, and everyone sees problem with that behaviour and "solutions" or lack of, but you can not call them out or it becomes racist? Hahahaha come on man. It's like if you call Trump  out on this, because you think he is irresponsible(and you have an opinion or fear that it will spread all over the place if we are not cautious), and someone calls you racist(or whatever)just because of that. That's not racism or hate toward some country or person. Iran's answer so far is no better, and it would be stupid and dishonest not to point out, that there can be a problem because of that especially if it could affect all of us.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: December 23, 2019, 03:34:24 PM »
It is going to get really really cold in Alaska. GFS has it at  20-30c below average on Climate Reanalyzer. :o

 This is the first time in years in winter, I see most CAB in "solid blue" in mid range forecast, for an extended period of time. I don't know though will it hold or not, but it is certainly nice to see, at least.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 12:37:10 AM »
Well it's funny when bbr of all the prople, starts talking (read attacking) about somebody else's false predictions, which are according to his words not just honest mistakes (btw nothing the guy said at that point looked like trash that doesn't make any sense, CAB numbers weren't weak, but July was hot and we are still practically tied with 2016.) but trolling. Man you are literally famous for that on this forum, with much more ridiculous "predictions". Every time you see something you "like", you post these 10 day forecasts of every single run that helps your "case".

It's not a denialist mistake to be wrong. Everybody is wrong sometimes with their predictions. It's just a mistake. What do we call people who voted for BOE option THIS YEAR, during this melting season. Or do you think that was more realistic than weatherdude's prediction. They were just wronglike him. That is it. No conspiracies or hidden meanings behind every false prediction. Some are more realistic, some are less.

Please guys stop attacking and bullying people every time there is somebody who has different prediction, compared to yours, even if they are wrong.  Cause you also are wrong a lot., like many people here, including me. Nobody could have predicted such a strong HP during the first half of the summer, especially after last few years (there was a talk last year or 2017 I remember very well, that because of the warming, cloudy cool summers are a new norm). And after all of that, nobody could have predicted such a slow August melt. It was proven dozens of times to all of us that Arctic is almost impossible to predict and full of surprises.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:41:40 PM »
"They're always from yesterday obviously and we are aware of it thanks".

No, that's not what I meant. That same data was POSTED yesterday. The data is for August 25th. So please check next time what somebody wanted to say, before trying to put someone down.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:21:20 PM »
That is data from yesterday.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 18, 2019, 10:37:25 PM »
A bit off topic, and I may sound like bbr, but I need to ask. Has anyone seen new EC run for the USA. What a run!!  There is a -28C negative anomaly, and -28C temp 850hPa, as far south as Huntsville AL. For people in Europe reading this, that's much further south than Athens or Gibraltar (38vs36vs34 latitude degrees).  And I'm confident by looking at how large the sub -28C field is, there is even colder air in the middle of it (Minnesota for example), but EC "range" (on meteociel at least) stretches only to -28C.

GFS 12z has greater than -20C anomaly over Hudson in the middle of Winter, and -40C temp850hPa on US-Canada border.

I'm sorry for many photos and a long post, but this really may be 1 in a decade night ( both models have some ridiculous numbers at the same time, especially EC because it's so far south)

I'm posting now, because obviously I don't think it will come true.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 18, 2018, 11:52:18 PM »
It's not being angry, it's about making important parts more visible, like when you write LATE for example. I can do that either by making it bold, or by using capital letters. But I'll make it bold in the future, so there isn't misunderstanding.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 18, 2018, 11:40:00 PM »
The "strong refreeze" narrative is a bunch of nonsense. There is more heat than ever in the high-latitude oceans (Bering and Barents). The refreeze has been led by the situation in Baffin, CAA, and Hudson Bay, and the early refreeze of these regions for reasons that portend a very LATE refreeze in the high Arctic are exactly why this trope is ridiculous. 2018 has seen a quick refreeze of certain peripheral regions due to conditions resulting from the worst-ever anomalies further to the north and this pattern will continue through winter, while numbers may even be higher than 2017 through May, I expect the bottom to fall out by the end of May or June again (mimicking closely what happened in spring 2015).

I know many here have tried to explain to you and it didn't work, but as of this morning there is NO SIGNIFICANT EARLY REFREEZE of Hudson Bay. Look at UH data (at least I think it's UH) that has been posted several times. First significant area uptick (20k+) when you look at NSIDC 5-day average that gerontocrat is posting, was today.  If you keep saying something is happening, that won't make it true. It might happen in the next couple of days (strong gains) but as of now it DIDN'T, despite your constant writing.

Because of that, even some of your points that are valid people won't take seriously, instead they'll think you are spreading misinformation again.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 27, 2018, 10:37:03 PM »
Ah, some Bannon's friend (Bannon was and possibly still is Trump's friend, u know it's all a show) has shot 8 people in a Synagogue. Wouldn't be surprised if they found out he's a republican.

No comment on this one really. >:( :( :'(

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 16, 2018, 02:46:44 AM »
I don't really get cci gfs 2m anomalies. It doesn't seem to match EC and GFS models on meteociel at all. Yeah sure there are some positive Temp 850hPa anomalies on meteociel as well, but nothing dramatic, and there are even some negative fields on the map.

But why should 2m anomalies match anomalies at 850 hPa level (which is approximately at an altitude of 1500m) ? Anomalies can be completely different for example when large anticyclones are at play and a strong inversion sets up at surface level.

With inversions you can have below normal 2m anomalies and above at 1500m the air can be well above normal.

In this case, they should. There is no strong wind, no additional moisture,  no inversion, not much precipitation, not much sunlight to warm lower altitudes so dramatically, no tight Isobars,  no big cyclones, no huge waves. Nothing that extraordinary, EXCEPT NO ICE.  Temperature will stay at or above 0C over open water, even if temp 850hPa drops to -20C, as long as there is no ice coverage.

Edit: In meteorology, there is always a reason, a cause, something is happening, and there is a consequence what will happen shortly after because of the things happening right now. Because of that we can make  forecasts for example for tomorrow. When something changes tomorrow you adjust your forecast for the upcoming days. You can't just say "oh they've decided not to match, just like that, for no reason"
I mean of course they don't have match exactly, but this is 15C+ difference over not insignificant period of time. And there is no event models are currently showing, that would cause that, except there is no ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 15, 2018, 03:40:34 PM »
I mean if that is the case, on the one hand, it is good news, cause lot of stored heat should go away under this "cold spell", but on the other hand it is really bad news, cause if the area would have been already ice covered it  could have used these weather conditions to thicken a little bit, cause we know how unstable polar vortex is lately, and it is only a matter of time before there is another "attack" from the south. But now even if the ice forms there at the end of this period(7-10days), and that is a big IF, it will be very thin, and very vulnerable if there is another warm air advection from lower latitudes end of Oct or even beginning of Nov.

The rest / Re: The Dems blow the election again
« on: May 24, 2018, 04:22:34 PM »
Neven are you TYT fan? Not trying to disrespect or whatever, I'm just curious cause they have similar talking points as far as I know.

Pages: [1]