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 - Neven

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Time for the prediction of volume for the September minimum. Please zoom the regional charts above to follow the analysis.
Of the seas traditionally participating in the minimum, the Laptev is nearly zero now. The ESS is record low. The Kara is very low. The Barents is on the low side. Chukchi is rather low as well. All are assumed to be zero in September - for some of these seas that is a very common achievement, for some a rather rare one.

We remain with the four unknowns:
* Greenland Sea - has been running high since spring. I expect it to crash at some point due to melting and lack of imports, especially now that most of the thick ice at the export region has disappeared. My bet is somewhere above 2019 but far below 2012. 125 km3.
* CAA - had a very slow start, but a fast decline. Temps have been running very high for a month. I expect a result above 2012/2011 but probably below 2019. 100 km3.
* Beaufort - the most anomalous. Has been running high and getting higher, due to extra imports and lower exports. I can't see it heading towards near-zero, and foresee a high volume, probably somewhere below 2013's 200 km3, but above 2018's 80 km3. 125 km3.
* CAB - naturally the most variable in magnitude. has been running high in winter and spring, only to crash in the last month back into the fold. From where we are now it is quite common to reach 4000-4200 km3. Following the high losses of 2007, 2012, 2016, we might get to 3600 km3, still above 2012's minimum of 3400 km3. And who knows? We might break loss records, and perhaps even reach a CAB record in September.

Summing everything, we get 350 km3 outside the CAB. With a reasonable/aggressive scenario of 3600 km3 in the CAB, we get a total of 3950 km3, a respectable 2nd, lower than 2019's 4050 km3, but still much higher than 2012's 3670 km3.
However, my money is still on a record low volume. I am betting the impact of the GAAC was partially missed by the model, and will be incorporated later when ice area crashes. In addition, early open water on the Siberian side might eat deeper into the CAB than usual. If a CAB record can be achieved, total volume will probably also reach a record low.

2
Sorry for the delay, some trouble with the download caused a corrupted file (uice, the ice velocity data).

Here are the updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Worth a click for size.

3
PIOMAS has upgraded the gridded thickness data to day 197 (15 /16 July). Volume on day 197 was 9.04 [1000km3], which means an annual fourth lowest place for that day.

Fasten seat belts, here is the animation of July so far. Might need a click.

4
The politics / Re: The American Progressive Movement
« on: May 14, 2020, 05:26:56 PM »
Don't worry Walrus. I have a problem with organized religion, not with religious people. There's a difference! The problem I see often within the progressive movement is atheism. Atheism is as intolerant as theism IMHO... That's why I believe that a true progressive should be agnostic... But that's just me... I can accept and respect other opinions...  ;)

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May 2020)
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:08:02 AM »
The Fram volume export got into trouble the second half of the month.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May 2020)
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:05:33 AM »
The volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Needs clicks for size and clarity.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May 2020)
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:03:30 AM »
PIOMAS has updated once again. Last date corresponds to day 121 of this year, which in the PIOMAS data is the first of May (ignoring the leap year). Volume (calculated from thickness) was 22.52 [1000km3], the sixth lowest for day 121.
The maximum seems to have been reached on day 105 (15th April) with a volume of 22.96 [1000km3].

Here is the monthly animation.

8
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 05:03:08 AM »
FT is now graphing daily death toll rather than cumulative cases.

More good maps and graphics at the site.

https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest

9
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 01, 2020, 08:23:24 PM »
Bernard, it is summer/fall down in the southern hemisphere, so unless there are other clear reason, it may be a hopeful sign that this thing is not as lethal in the summer. But I haven't dug into the data from and info about South Africa

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Lessons from COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2020, 09:02:49 AM »
Looking at the statistics, the lesson is if you are healthy you are unlikely to be affected.

Lesson for governments is to focus on wellness and preventative medicine emphasizing nutrition.

11
Some people have use for the updated regional data files:

daily:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/data/PIOMAS-regional.txt.gz
Modify message

12
Updated Fram volume graph.

13
Updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs.

14
PIOMAS has updated gridded thickness data to day 75, which would normally be the 15th of March. Because a PIOMAS has no leap years, it ends in some graphs at the 16th.
Any way volume calculated from this thickness was 22.10 [km3], 8th lowest for day 75.
Here is the animation of March sofar.

15
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 13, 2020, 05:55:18 AM »
Noh at blackagendareport counters media attacks on China:

"US corporate media, especially the Times, has turned a medical emergency into a racist campaign of ideological propaganda."

"none of the assertions are supported by the facts, and none of the interpretations bear scrutiny.  "

"western corporate media have chosen to go all out to criticize and demonize China"

"The NY Times suggests that Dr Li was a whistle blower, “sounding a warning.”  But Dr. Li was not a whistle blower, by any usual definition of the word.  He didn't notify the Chinese CDC or any public health organ.  He did not notify the hospital authorities.  He did not warn the public of wrongdoing, danger, or cover up. What he did do is share information with 7 school colleagues on 12/30 on a private messaging group.  (He also shared a photo of a confidential medical record). "

"The "whistle"--if we can call it that--had already been blown by others.  For example, doctor, Zhang Jixian, the director of respiratory and critical care medicine at Hubei Provincial Hospital, had officially notified the hospital on December 27th of an unusual cluster of viral cases, and the hospital had notified the city's' disease control center.  After further consultation on the 29th, the regional CDC was notified and had started full scale research and investigation. "

" the NY Times suggests that the authorities recognized and knew that the disease was dangerous, but covered it up anyway.  This is far from the truth at the time: there was little clear evidence that this was a dangerous or severe epidemic at the time of the outbreak. "

" The mere fact that the Chinese authorities were able to identify and take action on this so rapidly is indicates how competent, effective, and conscientious many of them were."

"Dr Li had no expertise in the subject matter, was not familiar with the situation, was not treating affected patients, and had no expertise to make any such claims: he was a ophthalmologist (not an epidemiologist, virologist, infectious disease specialist, internist, ICU specialist) ... There's no proof that he was privy to any specialized insider information that was being covered up; and the hospital was already taking all known precautions with patients at the time."

"Dr. Li was not ahead of the government. As we noted above regarding the timeline, the government (Wuhan disease authorities) had already been informed, and they delivered their own public warning the same day as Dr Li's sharing with his friends. There is little evidence to show that this was "forced" or "compelled" by the ophthalmologist’s message (as the NY Times has claimed)."

"the NY Times (and derivative media) has been savage and odious in exploiting every perceived mishap as a pretext to pile on and attack the Chinese people and the Chinese system"

"Were the responses perfect?  Most certainly not.  Were there gaps and lapses?  Absolutely, yes. Did the central and local government work hand-in-hand perfectly?  Most certainly not.   Was there discontent expressed on Weibo and other public fora?  Most certainly. "

https://www.blackagendareport.com/how-yellow-cake-tragedy-new-york-times-spreads-virus-hatred-again

sidd

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 04, 2020, 01:37:33 PM »
Thank you Wipneus.
Animation of the diffs, aug-dec. ctr
Thicker on the Atlantic side south of Svalbard/FJL but thinner Beaufort arch and PGAS area. The continuing export into the Barents leaves the CAB north of Svalbard looking weak.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 04, 2020, 10:09:31 AM »
Thickness map on 31st December 2019, compared with recent years and their diffs.
Clicks are needed for full size.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 04, 2020, 10:02:35 AM »
Updated Fram volume export.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 04, 2020, 09:59:48 AM »
Here are the updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Click for full size.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 04, 2020, 09:31:31 AM »
PIOMAS gridded thickness data was update. On the last day, 31st December, volume is calculated to be 14.52 [1000km3], which is fourth lowest behind 2016, 2012 and 2017.

Here is the December animation.

23
Some people have use for the updated regional data files:


daily:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/data/PIOMAS-regional.txt.gz

24
Updated Fram volume export graph.

25
The updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs.

26
PIOMAS gridded thickness data was updated. last day 15th December. Calculated volume on that day was 12.345 [1000km3]. That is still third lowest for that day after 2016 and 2012.

Here is the animation for the first half of December.

27
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 13, 2019, 02:50:23 PM »
Narrative

Honest Government Ad | Julian Assange
brought to you by thejuicemedia.


28
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December 2019 )
« on: December 04, 2019, 01:09:52 PM »
Thickness map compared with previous years and their diff's. Click to size.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December 2019 )
« on: December 04, 2019, 11:45:22 AM »
The Fram-volume export graph. Average export was low, compared with average November export.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December 2019 )
« on: December 04, 2019, 11:39:10 AM »
Updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Click for the better picture.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December 2019 )
« on: December 04, 2019, 11:29:36 AM »
PIOMAS has upgraded the gridded thickness data. Last date, 30th Nov, the calculated volume was 10.35[1000km3]. That is third lowest for the day (behind 2016 and 2012).

Here is the animation for November 2019.

33
Some people have use for the updated regional data files:

daily:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/data/PIOMAS-regional.txt.gz

34
Fram volume export. Big negative spike on the last day can be seen in the animation above.

35
Updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs.

36
PIOMAS has upgraded its gridded thickness data upto 15th November. Calculated volume at that date was 8.54 [1000km3], which is third lowest behind 2012 and 2016.

Here is the animation of the first half of November.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 04, 2019, 09:42:14 AM »
Thickness map, comparisons with previous years and their diff's. Click for full size.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 04, 2019, 09:35:13 AM »
Update Fram volume export graph. The export is increasing, not quite as fast as expected.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 04, 2019, 09:30:19 AM »
Update volume and volume-anomaly graphs. 2012, 2016 and 2019 are very close.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 04, 2019, 09:20:44 AM »
PIOMAS gridded thickness data has updated. Volume calculated from thickness was 6.52[1000km3] on 31st October, third lowest for the day. 2012 and 2016 had a lower volume.

Here is the animation.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 04, 2019, 01:21:16 AM »
AMSR2 ice concentration on 25 Oct with ice since added in the 9 days to 3rd November (in white).

43
Some people have use for the updated regional data files:


daily:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/data/PIOMAS-regional.txt.gz

44
Fram volume export is still summer-low.

45
Updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs.

46
PIOMAS has updated the gridded thickness data up to 15 October. Volume was 5.16 [1000km3], second lowest (after 2012) for the day.

Here is the animation for October thus far.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 04:09:17 PM »
Thanks Wipneus. Here's an animation of the piomas thickness difference collage, feb-sep, for 2019

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 10:51:53 AM »
Finally the thickness map comparisons. Here are thickness map, compared with previous years and their diff's on the 10th of September (approximate day of annual minimum).

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 10:38:20 AM »
Finally a linear trend. The 2019 data point lies near perfect on the trend line. That means that the zero ice extrapolation has not shifted either and stays at 2032. That, and the fact that is has not changed much for many years gives some confidence to this date.

So for comparison I have added the same graph that I posted in 2012: also a 2032 zero ice extrapolation. The 'prediction' for 2019 is spot-on.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 10:29:10 AM »
Same as the previous but now a Gompertz regression, preferred by some. The Gompertz function approaches but never reaches zero, but still the same postponement to later and later dates is clear.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16