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]
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 23, 2020, 12:32:28 AM »
As of May 22nd, New York City has posted the following COVID-19 attributed deaths (from

18333 confirmed deaths
4753 probable deaths

The 2019 Census estimate for New York City's population is (from,bronxcountybronxboroughnewyork,kingscountybrooklynboroughnewyork,newyorkcountymanhattanboroughnewyork,queenscountyqueensboroughnewyork,richmondcountystatenislandboroughnewyork/PST045219):


If we assumed that everyone in NYC had been infected and there is no undercounting, this gives an IFR of:

Confirmed Only: 18333 / 8336817 = 0.22%
Confirmed + Probable: (18333 + 4753) / 8336817 = 0.27%

That is the absolute floor for what the IFR could be. Claiming that the IFR is 0.2% or below is complete rubbish when we already have observations demonstrating that it is higher.

What you are doing is simply unscientific. It's just maths.

Who has died/is dying in New York? What's the demographics in New York? What is the general population health, compared to other places? What are the environmental stress factors, compared to other places? Are you 100% sure the numbers are correct? Did everybody really die from COVID-19, or did some of them die with COVID-19? How many people died because of medical mistakes? Does the whole population get the disease, or do some people simply not get it, without their immune system being triggered?

You don't have the data or context to make conclusive statements like this one: "That is the absolute floor for what the IFR could be." I know the media does it, I know social media amplifies this narrative beyond imagination, but that doesn't make it reality. It makes it 'reality' based on assumptions.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 07, 2020, 12:02:43 AM »
I suggest we put a cap on how much one person can own, as nothing can be solved conclusively without this prerequisite.

But that's off-topic.

I've always said the lockdowns were justified. I'm not so sure anymore. I am sure that further lockdowns will be counterproductive.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2020, 01:56:58 PM »
Confirmed cases in North America, showing the impact on NY (27 March)

Link >>

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 03, 2019, 07:37:51 PM »
Can someone post or give a link to NSIDC daily extent numbers? (not 5 day average)
Go to.....

page-down once or twice to the spreadsheet options.

choose optiom 1 - All daily (single day and five-day trailing average) extent values in one file, updated daily (Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v3.0.xlsx)

The file has one day and 5 day for Arctic & Antarctic

Any spreadsheet programme (including rubbish like Google Sheets and good freebies like LibreOffice) will open it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:15:41 AM »
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.

Hi colchonero, I agree with you. Regardless, I don't think you understand the context for this specific poster. They post denialist rhetoric on other forums like americanwx and then disappear whenever SIE or SIA goes back to low values. They seem to have registered here to do the same.

I agree with making falsifiable predictions and verifying them, in fact I have one coming up in just a few days that may bust that I will be posting about! It is not his prediction I have a problem with, it is his hubris: "Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent."

And note that this is not the first time this specific user has done this on this forum or elsewhere. Without this surrounding context I would have not been so judgmental.

Pages: [1]