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 - blumenkraft

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 05:13:35 PM »
The conclusion is based on a (almost certainly) false assumption--that it is only cases and not deaths that are under reported. It also seems to be restricted to Germany, which as many have already noted seems to be having a unique experience (or at least unique data) with this virus compared to other regions.

Your over the top rhetoric really leads everyone to conclude that your confirmation bias is on overdrive and you have lost all ability in this case to evaluate data dispassionately.

I will endeavor to feed this trollish behavior no further going forward.

So long

The forum / Re: Who would like to take over the ASIF?
« on: Today at 05:10:00 PM »
First, thank you Neven for this forum, my almost-only source of non-local news and where I've learned huge amounts of information over the years. Your guidance and moderation were great and your knowledge immense. With that said I did feel your emotional absence in the past few months, which was a bummer. So I understand your decision to bring in fresh troops.
I volunteer to help in moderation**. I am highly pressed for time as I often work 16 hours per day. But my work is in front of a computer or cellphone and leaves me time to read the ASIF in many spare moments. I used to read each and every post, now I lack the time for that, but I often "know" which posts are problematic or OT and which users should be booted or reprimanded.
I think the best thing would some kind of moderator group. I think highly of you blumenkraft and your many contributions, but I also sense a bit of impulsiveness and readiness to find a heated argument even where none need exist. Being sole moderator would not do you good and could harm the ASIF - every valued member we lose diminishes the forum, even if it's people who disagree with you (and even if they disagree with me!). And people take offense easily and have long memories.
Those we should lose are those who troll incessantly or who attack other people constantly. I am sure a majority would immediately agree on such rare actions.
Running the whole operation as chief - go for it blumenkraft, and good for us.
Moderation - I suggest a group of chief and 4 other moderators (if such are found), each with authority to edit on his/her own, but majority can overrule each single moderator, and majority required for banning users.

** My main qualification - I cover all 24 hours in a day...

The forum / Re: Who would like to take over the ASIF?
« on: Today at 02:53:20 PM »
I support blumenkraft.  Even though we have differed on several threads, he has been cordial and professional in his responses.  I cannot say that for some other posters.  Most of his forum rules look good.  A few I would reject are:  No. 2.  Fake news is subjective, and might be helpful to discuss among the posters.  One man's ...  No.7.  Yes, it would be nice if everyone searched the answer to their question first.  However, many come here to get answers to their questions, so I think we should just bear this burden and help them with appropriate links.  I heartily endorse respectfulness and would encourage the deleting of foul language in posts.  It has no place in a well-meaning debate, and only serve to denigrate the target and embarrass the poster.

Arctic sea ice / River ice
« on: Today at 02:10:19 PM »
River ice was mentioned several times and probably has some importance for the Arctic. Also it's beautiful.

For a start, the Abakan (the Yenisei basin).

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 12:39:24 PM »

New evidence has emerged from China indicating that the large majority of coronavirus infections do not result in symptoms.

Chinese authorities began publishing daily figures on 1 April on the number of new coronavirus cases that are asymptomatic, with the first day’s figures suggesting that around four in five coronavirus infections caused no illness.

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Ice Sheet
« on: Today at 10:17:17 AM »
Tracking Southern Hemisphere black carbon to Antarctic snow
  by Chinese Academy of Sciences

"Black carbon, or BC, commonly known as soot, is a particle originated from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning that warms the atmosphere. When deposited in snow and ice, BC increases surface radiation absorption and can cause melt," explains Mr. Marquetto. "Some scientists say that BC is second only to CO2 in its warming effects on the climate, and studies have shown that BC concentrations have risen since the industrial revolution in several places in the world, including Greenland, the Himalayas, the Alps and even Antarctica."

But studying BC in Antarctica is logistically challenging, and only in the last decade the topic has gained more attention. "Antarctica is a vast continent, and there are regions with no BC data yet. As climatic and atmospheric models rely on field data, studying BC concentrations in Antarctic snow is essential to improve these models," adds Mr. Marquetto.

Mr. Marquetto was part of a team of Brazilian researchers led by Dr. Jefferson Cardia Simões (Polar and Climatic Center) who carried out a traverse in West Antarctica in the 2014/2015 austral summer. They travelled more than 1400 km, collecting several shallow snow cores and samples along the way to investigate the snow chemistry (and consequently the atmospheric chemistry) in the last 50 years or so. One of these shallow cores was analyzed for BC in cooperation with Dr. Susan Kaspari (Central Washington University, U.S.).

"As for sectorial sources, we know biomass burning represents around 80% of all BC emitted to the atmosphere in the Southern Hemisphere, which means that the fires happening in Australia, New Zealand and South America ultimately leave a mark in Antarctic snow."

See also:

A POTUS has a little bit of power to make things a little better and a lot of power to make things a lot worse.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: Today at 01:57:50 AM »
  The consensus definition of Arctic Ocean BOE is when Extent is below 1 million km2.

   The observed linear trend for decline in Volume is much steeper than the linear trend for decline of Extent.  Ultimately, zero Volume means zero Extent, so the two trends have to meet as Volume approaches zero.

   So instead of using the linear trend for observed Extent, I used the linear trend for Extent as estimated from Volume and Thickness, i.e. E = V/T.  The standard deviation of errors from using that method of estimating Extent from 1979 through 2019 was 0.543 km2.  (Linear trend Volume and linear trend Thickness were used to estimate Extent.  The estimate was compared to the observed Extent for each year to measure the annual estimate error.)
    The Volume and Thickness trends were extrapolated into the future and used to estimate future Extent.  The standard deviation for errors using that method and assumption of a normal distribution were used to estimate the probability for how likely Extent in that year would be below 1.0 million km2.  Individual year probabilities for <1 million km2 were used to calculate the cumulative chance for first BOE. 

     Extrapolating linear trends far into the future ignores potential negative suppressive and positive reinforcing feedbacks.  The resulting percentages are fairly consistent with estimates based on trends and correlations described by Notz and Stroeve 2018 and Stroeve and Notz 2018 (,2348.msg239574.html#msg239574) but are earlier than inferred from statements in the 2019 IPCC special report on the cryosphere.

    The bottom line is that according to these trends, the first BOE is likely to have occurred by 2029 and very likely by 2031.  Also note that Arctic sea ice variability is so high that is been said (2016 study cited Daisy Dunne in Carbon Brief article,,2348.msg239698.html#msg239698) that any such estimate needs to include a +/- 20 year window to account for that variability!  So perhaps a better estimate would be "The next extremely warm melt season combined with Arctic storm activity." 

     The significance of all these numbers is that a critically important component of the Earth's climate system that has been relatively stable for thousands of years is expected to transition to a radically different state very soon.  While scientists are still trying to understand the impact of such a change on climate and on weather, as Jennifer Francis put it “How can it not affect the weather? It’s such a huge loss in the Earth’s system.”

                                       Extent     Number of    Single year   Cum.
          Thickness   Vol.      = V/T     StdDev from  chance Ext.   chance
 Year       (m)     (M km3)  (M km2)    1.0 km2     <1M km2    1st BOE
2020        1.05      3.92    3.72           5.0              0.0%       0.0%
2021        1.03      3.60    3.50           4.6              0.0%       0.0%
2022        1.00      3.28    3.27           4.2              0.1%       0.1%
2023        0.97      2.95    3.03           3.7              0.2%       0.3%
2024        0.95      2.63    2.78           3.3              0.6%       0.9%
2025        0.92      2.31    2.51           2.8              1.6%       2.5%
2026        0.89      1.99    2.22           2.3              4.1%       6.5%
2027        0.87      1.66    1.92           1.7              9.6%     15.5%
2028        0.84      1.34    1.60           1.1            19.8%     32.3%
2029        0.81      1.02    1.25           0.5            36.0%     56.6%
2030        0.79      0.70    0.89          -0.2            56.4%     81.1%
2031        0.76      0.37    0.49          -0.9            76.4%     95.5%
2032        0.73      0.05    0.07          -1.7            90.6%     99.6%

The linked reference compares the skill to match observed data for different CMIP archives and of CESM1-LE, and it finds the CMIP6 shows more skill than CMIP5 and that CESM1-LE (as an example of a high-end ESM) also shows more skill than CMIP5.  This may support the concept that the relatively high climate sensitivity values projected by CMIP6 and of current high-end ESM projections should be taken seriously:

Fasullo, J. T.: Evaluating Simulated Climate Patterns from the CMIP Archives Using Satellite and Reanalysis Datasets, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,, in review, 2020.

Abstract. An objective approach is presented for scoring coupled climate simulations through an evaluation against satellite and reanalysis datasets during the satellite era (i.e. since 1979). Here, the approach is described and applied to available Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) archives and the Community Earth System Model Version 1 Large Ensemble archives, with the goal of benchmarking model performance and its evolution across CMIP generations. The approach adopted is designed to minimize the sensitivity of scores to internal variability, external forcings, and model tuning. Toward this end, models are scored based on pattern correlations of their simulated mean state, seasonal contrasts, and ENSO teleconnections. A broad range of feedback-relevant fields is considered and summarized on various timescales (climatology, seasonal, interannual) and physical realms (energy budget, water cycle, dynamics). Fields are also generally chosen for which observational uncertainty is small compared to model structural differences and error.
Highest mean variable scores across models are reported for well-observed fields such as sea level pressure, precipitable water, and outgoing longwave radiation while the lowest scores are reported for 500 hPa vertical velocity, net surface energy flux, and precipitation minus evaporation. The fidelity of CMIP models is found to vary widely both within and across CMIP generations. Systematic increases in model fidelity across CMIP generations are identified with the greatest improvements in dynamic and energetic fields. Examples include 500 hPa eddy geopotential height and relative humidity, and shortwave cloud forcing. Improvements for ENSO scores are substantially greater than for the annual mean or seasonal contrasts.
Analysis output data generated by this approach is made freely available online for a broad range of model ensembles, including the CMIP archives and various single-model large ensembles. These multi-model archives allow for an exploration of relationships between metrics across a range of simulations while the single-model large ensemble archives enable an estimation of the influence of internal variability on reported scores. The entire output archive, updated regularly, can be accessed at: chosen for which observational uncertainty is small compared to model structural error. 20 Highest mean variable scores across models are reported for well-observed fields such as sea level pressure, precipitable water, and outgoing longwave radiation while the lowest scores are reported for 500 hPa vertical velocity, net surface energy flux, and precipitation minus evaporation. The fidelity of CMIP models is found to vary widely both within and across CMIP generations. CMATv1 scores report systematic increases in model fidelity across CMIP generations with the greatest improvements in dynamic and energetic fields. Examples include 500 hPa eddy geopotential height and relative humidity, 25 and shortwave cloud forcing. Improvements for ENSO scores are substantially greater than for the annual mean or seasonal contrasts. Analysis output data is made freely available online for a broad range of model ensembles, including the CMIP archives and various single-model large ensembles. These multi-model archives allow for an exploration of relationships between metrics 30 across a range of simulations while the single-model large ensemble archives enable an estimation of the influence of internal variability on CMATV1 scores. The entire CMATv1 archive, updated regularly, can be accessed at:

Caption: "Figure 10: Evolution of the distribution of aggregate and selected variable scores across the CMIP archives and the CESM1- LE."

I thought that it would be good to remind readers that CMIP6 generally demonstrate higher skill levels than do earlier CMIP projections.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 08, 2020, 05:27:26 PM »
I put Paul Beckwith in the same league as Peter Wadhams, Wieslaw Maslowski, and Jay Zwally.

I don't!

By way of example, I discuss Wieslaw Maslowski's work here:

Would it surprise you to discover that David Rose has misrepresented the “new study” that Al Gore referred to in 2007 as well, by some strange coincidence at around this time last year? I refer you to our article on that topic from September 15th 2013, and reiterate for the benefit of those who seem unable to understand either English or Mathematics that a “projection” is not the same thing as a “prediction”, and that Professor Wieslaw Maslowski’s statement that “if this trend persists the Arctic Ocean will become ice-free by around 2013” is not at all the same thing as David Rose’s (mis)interpretation that “The Arctic will be ice-free in summer by 2013”.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: April 08, 2020, 12:39:41 PM »
drift update and ship movement summary

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 08, 2020, 10:14:47 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :  18,993,484 km2 as at 7 April 2020

- On this day extent is 7th lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent gain to date 2.40 million km2, 0.66 million km2 (22 %) less than the last 10 years' average gain of 3.06 million km2,
- Extent is 1.32 million km2 greater than 2017,
- Extent is 0.48 million km2 greater than 2018,
- Extent is 1.30 million km2 greater than 2019,
- Extent is 0.43 million km2 less than the 2010's average,

- 50% of the average ice GAIN of the season done, 211 days to the average maximum date of 4 November.

The Perils of Projections

Average sea ice extent gain would produce a maximum of 25.20 million km2, 1.44 million km2 above the record low maximum of 23.76 million km2 in 2016.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: April 08, 2020, 09:53:51 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 5,746,534 km2(April 7, 2020)

Extent gain in the last few days much more below than above average.

- 2019 is 17th lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent gain from minimum to date 2.99 million km2, 0.04 million (1.4%) LESS than the 10 year average of 3.03 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1,327 k more than 2017 on this day,
- Extent is   472 k more than 2018 on this day,
- Extent is   899 k more than 2019 on this day,
- Extent is 92 k more than the 1980's average on this day,

and Extent on this day is more than in 9 of the years before 2002,

- 23.4% of the average ice gain of the season done, with on average 166 days to the average date of maximum of 20 September.

The Perils of Projections

Average freeze from this date would produce a maximum of 18.9 million km2, 0.63 million MORE than the record low on 12th Sep 2017 of 18.06 million km2.

Please note that consensus climate scientists are not promising that decision makers will be given adequate warning before an abrupt change in climate might occur this century; as discussed in the linked article.

Title: "We climate scientists won’t know exactly how the crisis will unfold until it’s too late"

Extract: "When we hold on to things for too long, change can come about abruptly and even catastrophically. While this will ring true for many from personal experience, similar things can happen at large scales as well. Indeed, the history of Earth’s climate and ecosystems is punctuated by frequent large-scale disruptive events.

When the air warmed and the last ice age was coming to an end, the continent-size glaciers – or ice sheets – stayed around for much longer than the climate would allow. Then parts of them collapsed in spectacular fashion. One such collapse – we still don’t know of which ice sheet – caused at least four metres of sea level rise per century and possibly also the following abrupt transition to a much warmer climate, only to be followed by an equally abrupt flip-flop between warm and cold conditions, before the onset of the stable climate we have enjoyed until recently."

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 07, 2020, 06:19:04 PM »
The nature article says you are a conspiracy theorist who is misusing it.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 07, 2020, 06:12:13 PM »

(deleted nonsense)

Sigh.  If you've been reading this thread, you'd know that virtually identical strains have been isolated from bats and pangolins in China.  What, some dastardly lab scientist purposely infected wildlife?

The coronavirus did not escape from a lab. Here's how we know.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 07, 2020, 05:45:23 PM »
Baffin Bay continues to lose an impressive amount of sea ice area.

Volume also declines in March.
Sea Ice thickness appears to increase in March,

i.e. the thin stuff is going first.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: April 07, 2020, 03:24:52 PM »
The Arctic Ocean May Not Be a Reliable Carbon Sink

The rapid changes happening in the Arctic Ocean, including increasing freshwater input, could dramatically affect its ability to store carbon.

Historically, scientists have believed that the Arctic Ocean will be an important carbon sink in the coming years—ice melt will increase the surface area that’s exposed to the air, facilitating carbon uptake from the atmosphere, and cold Arctic waters can store more carbon dioxide (CO2) than warmer waters.

Or at least that’s what was supposed to happen. But scientists have begun to suspect that this might not be the case, and new research suggests that the Arctic Ocean is, in fact, not as reliable a carbon sink as we thought. Using data from three research cruises (in 1994, 2005, and 2015), scientists were able to chart how the physical properties of the Arctic Ocean (including total alkalinity, temperature, and dissolved inorganic carbon) changed over time.

They found that over the course of the past 20 years, although the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has gone up, the amount of dissolved inorganic carbon in Arctic waters has unexpectedly decreased.

That’s because reduced sea ice isn’t the only major change that’s happening in the Arctic Ocean.

“There’s actually been a huge increase of fresh water into the Arctic Ocean,” said Ryan Woosley, a marine physical chemist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and lead author of the study. “The Arctic is kind of unique compared to the other oceans because there’s a huge amount of river input compared to the size of the ocean…and fresh water has a very low alkalinity or buffering capacity, so this has reduced the ability of the Arctic Ocean to take up CO2.”


Freshening of the western Arctic negates anthropogenic carbon uptake potential (OA)

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: April 07, 2020, 02:28:42 PM »
We missed the crossover into atlantification waters somewhere behind the salinity legend.
Nobody is looking posting.
100m and 75m salinity starts rising mid february, PS was travelling NW at the time.
50m salinity joins them later in feb, Will have to check 20m sometime.
Not all sensors are active

Mosaic Obuoys

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 07, 2020, 12:32:22 PM »
Update Cork2 :
No news : the movements already reported continue and the slow movement of the pivot continues

Note: The fact that, as we have seen, the outflow is mostly on the MIS side, that this outflow is at an annual minimum for the next few months and that the ice mélange will solidify completely for the cold weather may lead us to hope that the SWZD release will be slower than expected and that it will peak and end in the fall/winter.

> an animation with high-resolution Sentinel1 images with a 12-day interval to accentuate the movements.
> a zoomed version of this animation with notations

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 07, 2020, 12:14:53 PM »
Persistent east winds have caused open water to appear in the eastern Hudson Bay. This is early in the season for break up.

I presume if winds turn west or northwest again this would close in ?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Tides
« on: April 07, 2020, 09:07:08 AM »
I am trying to understand how tides are supposed to give changes in how much ice that moves thru Fram Strait over time, but it is hard for me to understand it. I have no problem seeing that the tides moves the ice back and forth, but in my head the back and forth movement ends in zero movement caused by the tide. How can it be anything else than a back and forth movement ending in zero movement?

Here is video I made, showing how tides move ice back and forth. Sorry for the repost of it, but I think it gives a nice example of how the tides moves ice back and forth. It is made here:!?project=norgeskart&layers=1011&zoom=7&lat=8519505.88&lon=777966.88
There is a current moving south in this area.
In the clip starting at 2:18 the wind is acting as well.
I know this is not the Fram Strait.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 06, 2020, 10:46:31 PM »
And after the lock-down...
Apparently Beijing is back in lock-down.

No end in sight...
Source: Tom Tom traffic

Or its a national holiday!

Apr 6   Monday   Qing Ming Jie holiday   National holiday

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: April 06, 2020, 09:07:26 PM »
With the actual values of CO2, CH4, N2O and SF6 for December 2019 (see the posts in the individual threads) there is an annual increase (Dec 2019 vs. Dec 2018) of 3.16 ppm CO2 eq (20 y) or 2.99 ppm CO2 eq (100 y).
This increase is mainly driven (2.69 ppm) by CO2 itself.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: April 06, 2020, 07:03:34 PM »
What could possibly go wrong?

Nuclear regulators ease some power reactor regs in response to COVID-19
March 31, 2020

In order to avoid "worker fatigue," the NRC has a number of rules about the maximum length of plant employee shifts, as well as requirements for breaks workers must take between long shifts. For example, shift may not exceed 16 hours in a 24-hour period, 26 hours in a 48-hour period and 72 hours in a 7-day period.

But in light of the "unprecedented time for our country" created by the COVID-19 pandemic and in order to ensure that the regulations "do not unduly limit licensee flexibility in using personnel resources to most effectively manage the impacts" of the pandemic, the NRC is allowing plants who believe they cannot meet the work hour limits to apply for a 60-day exemption, according to the letter.

But the cuts in workforce present do create "limitations," True said, that could, depending on the specific circumstances at an individual plant, "impact the ability to conduct or complete certain testing or inspection."

An example, discussed at a public meeting held by the NRC on Thursday, would be inspections of the tubes in the steam generator for cracks and other defects, which takes place during outages.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 06, 2020, 05:39:05 PM »
Novice question relating to the impact of the current on cork it possible that the flow across a broad face at depth creates a vacuum on the ocean facing side and introducing a weak countering force?  Something akin to the effect of lift on a wing?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2020)
« on: April 06, 2020, 02:13:46 PM »
I am starting to separate the 7 High Arctic Seas from the 7 Peripheral Seas. At the moment just a little fishing expedition.

Here is a first little look at volume. Note that the monthly averages data goes back to 1979, which is a help for later comparisons with NSIDC Area & extent data.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: April 06, 2020, 01:58:45 PM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 06, 2020, 12:41:53 PM »
Here's the latest update on near real time CryoSat-2/SMOS "measured" Arctic sea ice volume:

I’ve applied a crude correction to the still problematic NRT data so that it at least coincides with the reanalysed data on March 14th. Whilst we await the reanalysed numbers for the rest of March and early April it looks as though Arctic sea ice volume reached at least a temporary peak on March 20th 2020.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 06, 2020, 09:26:09 AM »
The small iceberg B greeted Cork2 and left for the open sea.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 06, 2020, 05:50:06 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

April 5th, 2020:
     13,388,020 km2, a drop of -71,284 km2.
     2020 is now 3rd lowest on record.
     In the graph are the today's 20 lowest years.
     Highlighted the 4 years with September lowest min (2012, 2019, 2016, 2007) & 2020.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 06, 2020, 03:33:11 AM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 06, 2020, 02:29:03 AM »

  3) It just occurred to me that the name Antarctic is northern hegemonistic bias!  Why is an entire continent and the biggest reservoir of fresh water and ice on the planet named only in relation to, and as the opposite of, another region?  It should have its own name.  Antarctic liberation!

Arktos is the ancient Greek name for bear.  So the Arctic region was named after the polar bear.

There are no bears on the southernmost continent.  Penguins, being small cute and harmless, are pretty much the exact opposite of polar bears, so Antarctic seems reasonable to me.

Looking at thickness change colours and incorporating some bathy (scale appears to be wrong). ctffr

The UN's WMO (World Meteorological Organization) "Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019", confirms that climate change is currently accelerating and that mankind is nowhere near to being on track to stall within the 'well below' 2C target.

Title: "Flagship UN study shows accelerating climate change on land, sea and in the atmosphere"

Extract: "Writing in the foreword to the report, UN chief António Guterres warned that the world is currently “way off track meeting either the 1.5°C or 2°C targets that the Paris Agreement calls for”, referring to the commitment made by the international community in 2015, to keep global average temperatures well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels."

See also:

Title: "WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2019"

Extract: "Multi-agency report highlights increasing signs and impacts of climate change in atmosphere, land and oceans"

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 05, 2020, 05:57:30 PM »
Bee in My Bonnet - Small rant follows.

As the melting season progresses there will be much talk and comparisons with 2012.  Wrong year!

If you look at the attached first graph you will see that 2016 was the year that mattered most (apart from a brief spurt in 2012 at the end of the melt season).

If you look at the second graph of 365 day trailing averages, you will see that the 2016 continuous long melt and slow freeze resulted (in March 2017) in the record low average. i.e. Looking at the entire year, 2016 had the lowest amount of sea ice by far - an average of 400,000 km2 for every day of the year less than the 2012 record low (in Jan 2013).

2012 was a shooting star - phut, & it was gone. 2016 was the steady burn that really matters.

The same result shows for extent & volume - see graphs 3 & 4.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 05, 2020, 02:42:47 PM »
"A" can't induce a speed of "Cork2" greater than his, the wind is negligible, considering the masses involved.What intrigues me is the current and especially for B which is already practically detached from the SIS ....

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 05, 2020, 02:26:36 PM »
The Ob River wakes up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 05, 2020, 02:08:06 PM »
Welcome back ASIF!  :)

[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

April 4rd, 2020:
     13,459,304 km2, a drop of -66,153 km2.
     2020 is 4th lowest on record.
     In the graph are the today's 20 lowest years.
     Highlighted the 4 years with September lowest min (2012, 2019, 2016, 2007) & 2020.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:19:27 AM »
PS doesn't appear to have frozen back in to the 'floe'. Bow radar is still rotating.
Note the temporary ridge in the middle of the refrozen lead.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 05, 2020, 10:49:24 AM »
Some stuff has happened since the forum went down yesterday.

Small calving in the north near Evans Knoll (click to play gif).

Discharge/movement near the cork. Also it looks like the small berg in front of the cork has somewhat separated and is no longer connected to the cork, just the ice sheet (barely).

And a new rift on the Southern Ice Shelf, in between the two others.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Tides
« on: April 04, 2020, 09:19:51 PM »
One person here reminded me of the backfire effect.

The Misconception: When your beliefs are challenged with facts, you alter your opinions and incorporate the new information into your thinking.

The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: April 04, 2020, 08:02:43 PM »
Could be also introduced due to mining industry?
Thought about that as well, but when you go around with that link you gave me, you can clearly see a lot of circles in that area. Some filled with ice and snow, others without. And I think you can see which ones are new by the brown circle around them. The way I understand it, these sinkholes are created by explosions of methane gas, and so that brown circle is dirt it seems that's been ejected from the hole.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: April 04, 2020, 07:01:07 PM »
mistrust of government

Or is the underlying problem rather missing leadership of governments?
The world is a crazy place, and to make sence of it all, people start making up their own view of the world. It's a little like cloud watching. Or God...

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2020)
« on: April 04, 2020, 05:01:18 PM »
Thickness map, compared with previous years and their differences on day 91 (here labeled 31st of March).

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2020)
« on: April 04, 2020, 04:47:44 PM »
Updated Fram volume export graph.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2020)
« on: April 04, 2020, 04:45:12 PM »
The updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2020)
« on: April 04, 2020, 04:14:03 PM »
PIOMAS gridded thickness data was updated. Last day was day 91, about 31st of March, the volume calculated from this thickness was 22.73 [km3. Compared with other years on day 91 (most often the first of April) 2020 is the 7th lowest.

Here is the March animation. Ice is thickening impressively against the Canadian Archipelago and North Greenland.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 04, 2020, 04:15:29 AM »
On a non-BCG topic, here's an interesting tweet sequence on the first emergency authorization use antibody test, explaining its pros and cons, especially in the current situation of an expected low prevalence of COVID-19 in the population:

Matthew Fox
It's hard for many to grasp the relationship between sensitivity and specificty and what a person with a + test cares about: how likley is it a true +. For low prevalence events, even good tests have poor positive predictive value, even if the test is marketed as “accurate”.

The FDA has approved the first antibody test for COVID-19, from Cellex. It theoretically tells you if you've had it & are, as far as we know, immune for some time.

Sensitivity is 93.8%, specificity 95.6%. Sounds great, right?

Well, sort of. (1/6)

If only a small % have actually had COVID-19 (our best guess now) a "positive" antibody test isn't that likely to mean you're immune.

If only 4.5% of U.S. has had COVID-19, + test only means ~50% chance you really had it. With lots of uninfected, lots of false +s. (2/6)

[see graph below]

If 10% were truly infected, a positive Cellex antibody test has a 70% chance of being right. If 30% were infected, a positive test is right 90% of the time. This happens bc when more people were sick, true positives overwhelm false positives. But that's not our situation. (3/6)

So this is test may not be that useful for saying "Zach, you are immune; Jen, you aren't." It might be wrong as often as it's right. Mistakenly telling someone they're immune & clear to return to can see the problem if we do that on a large scale. (4/6)

There are simple equations to correct for this on a population level. So this test is still *very* useful for helping us figure out what % of people have been sick in different areas. And it's the best we've got; deploy it! But realize what it will & won't reliably tell us. (5/6)

Running the test 2x & only telling someone they're immune if they get 2 +s *might* help reduce false +s, depending on the error source. If it's anything systemic - say it's detecting antibodies from a similar virus that don't grant immunity to COVID-19 - no good. @KevinMalogna

Sorry, not "approved," but "granted an emergency use authorization to." I apologize for imprecise language in the interest of cutting characters.

This is starting to make the rounds so while you're here, stay at home and wash your hands so we can save a few hundred thousand lives and my favorite bar and get sports back and stuff. And give whatever you can ($$$, time) to those with less. That'd be rad. Thanks.

Bonus tweet 1: A positive test would be more likely to mean you're truly immune if you're in a high-risk group - healthcare worker, had COVID symptoms, family member had COVID - bc prevalence of infection in these subgroups is higher. So test may be more useful for these folks!

Bonus tweet 2: We might be able to reduce false +s/increase the chance a + test is right by using this test as a screener and another slightly different antibody test to confirm, if they wouldn't both show false + for the same systemic reason like antibodies to a similar virus.

The rest / Re: Masks
« on: April 03, 2020, 08:44:37 PM »
I have a home-made mask made by a co-worker a month ago.  She commented about 2 weeks ago that when she got her design from the internet, most sites gave directions in Chinese, but that then (2 weeks ago) there were many in English.  (These may all refer to YouTube directions.)

My mask has two cotton cloth layers with a bump for the nose, with the option of placing a removable third layer in between.  I have a piece of (compressed) 1 cm thick quilt batting as the 3rd layer.  Also, I bent a paperclip to fit my nose and stitched it onto the mask, so now when I breathe, much less air shoots up around my nose, fogging my glasses.  Some temporary-plastic-name-badge elastic holds the mask to my face (via my ears).

I've worn this mask to buy groceries three times in 2½ weeks, once to the pharmacy (wife's meds) and once to take trash and recyclables to the transfer station (which I do once every 6 to 8 weeks).  Today was the first time I saw somebody else wearing a mask (one staff person in the co-op).

After hand-washing the mask after each outing (4 of them to date), I've outside-clothesline dried the mask [good UV :) and bad pollen :(], and twice have done a final rinse in salty water.  (Actually, before I do a final wringing-it-out, I salt the outside surface, fold it over, then wring it out.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22