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] 2 3
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.

2
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.

3
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 18, 2020, 05:21:09 PM »
UK 'Overestimates' Coronavirus Death Toll: Study
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-uk-overestimates-coronavirus-death-toll.amp
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/17/matt-hancock-calls-urgent-inquiry-phe-covid-19-death-figures

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
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/why-no-one-can-ever-recover-from-covid-19-in-england-a-statistical-anomaly/

-------------------------------------


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.

4
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.


https://mobile.twitter.com/Brixton_Ben26/status/1283657984850235398


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

5
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 30, 2020, 10:18:19 AM »
Sweden: Sweden by now has about 10%+ infected. This is a very far cry from her immunity. Sweden, with the help of good weather just like all other European countries pushed down R to between 0,8-1,2. This is NOT herd immunity. Why doesn't this "statistician" say that China also reached herd immunity since they almost elimiated the disease. What a pile of bull....

Serbia: No, Serbia does NOT have 6.4% immune. Not at all. Spain and Italy and Belgium has that many. With many times the dead than the Serbs even with undercounting in Serbia. Serbs are not special, their mortality is also 1% just like everyweher else. They have less than 1% immune.

I don't buy that. 1. Switzerland is for days now blaming people that came from vacation in Serbia to have brought covid back. 2. Serbia has completely open borders for everybody with no requirements for almost 2 months now. .They had no restrictions (as vox munidi wrote it'  because of the elections). So there were full stadiums(football league and Djokovic's tournament ), probably political rallies, election lines, and also parties everywhere. No masks no distancing, nothing. So those 6,4% are more than expected. Actually if it wasn't that high,I would highly doubt those who say covid is easily transmissable. That's not like Sweden, where they have no restrictions, but no huge gatherings, at every corner, where it turns out, is the best placefor covid to transmit (as shown for Atalanta-Valencia, Liverpool-Atletico games)

It's way more likely that they decided to hide the data on the deaths, because of the elections, and they have 630 deaths. Let's say that number is now 700 That seems to be around 0.2 IFR. As I said, because of the 24/7 curfew for elderly, maybe weaker mutation, and also worldometers now has only 1% of currently infected, in a critical condition. That number was way higher in  March, it's because of more testing but probably also because of the better treatment now than back then, all over the world.

 So that one I can believe(like the Ischgl one), and is probably in line with other Balkan states like Bosnia, North Macedonia cause they have same number of deaths officially, but are way smaller. Croatia has tourism, and had elections so they probably did the same thing, but 0.06% was shocking from my point of view. Thanks vox mundi :)!

6
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 30, 2020, 01:39:20 AM »
Serbia has allegedly 6,4% antibodies. Since they are completely open for 2 months now, with parties, football games, no distancing etc. I assume it is fair to say that seems more than plausible. They have almost 7mio people so some 440k-445k had it. Probably even more now that summer and sports kicked in.

But fhen I checked the number of deaths and it is very surprising. 274 so far.  What??
I would take 0.3% IFR as plausible, even 0,2% (let's say weaker mutation), even 0,1%, but 0.06% is fascinating. Can someone confirm is this possible. I mean beside the obvious "they don't count and report deaths the right way", that one I get on my own. I mean can someone comment with some reasoning.

Edit: They had 24/7 curfew for 65+ for  2 months, but I don''t know if that alone explains it

7
The politics / Re: Your 2020 US Presidential Election Map
« on: June 23, 2020, 08:17:05 PM »
Any prediction that has Florida not tied, not leaning not even probable but safe Democrat, in line with CA and NY is laughable.

It is also laughable, (not to choose any stronger words) to say that Democrats have 258 el votes safe while GOP has less than 100. You can be whatever professor with zillion degrees, you are not living in the real world. I can bet my house anytime Florida won't be anywhere near NY and CA, and GOP will have way more than 90 something el votes safe. Easy money. Their prediction looks more like something I would expect to see in Belarus,Serbia,Hungary,Russia etc.

8
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 05, 2020, 10:29:16 PM »
Does anyone have access to excess mortality data in Solvenia and the Czech Republic? The very low IFR is probably a result of high false positives, but could also be a result of an undercounting of COVID-19 deaths. The age distribution cannot explain it IMHO, even Israel with its very young population (median <31) has seen IFR of more than 1% (238/16314 official). No serology data is yet available to validate the case count, but testing and contact tracing has been quite thorough and there's no way true infection count is 5-20 times more than official count.

Ok we'll see. I just read,they are planning to do 100 000 serological during the next few weeks. I'd bet when results come in, there will be at least 2% of population with antibodies, which would be 180 000 people. At least, and I think it is going to be more. It's just my opinion and where I would place my money on.

That doesn't mean Italy numbers are wrong or New York, it's iust there are different mutations, not every one is as deadly, and also time of exposure. If every fifth person around you all the time has it, and are sick,(coughing a lot let's say), spreading billions of viruses of maybe deadlier mutation, it's not the same as if you get it from some asymptomatic guy, you hang out with for half an hour with lighter mutation.


P.S. Text about Roche tests of 99.8% accuracy is from yesterday, that's why I said it's brand new.

Just wanted to reply now that we have results. No opinion, not making any conclusion, not disputing anything, just glad that I got this one correct, cause I often miss sea ice prediction by a bin  :D :D

https://worldisraelnews.com/study-only-2-5-of-israelis-infected-with-corona-country-far-from-herd-immunity/

The results of the nationwide test to determine how many Israelis have been exposed to the coronavirus showed the exposure rate in the county is 2.5 percent (or about 200,000 Israelis).

9
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 06, 2020, 10:04:07 PM »
@Colchonero (nice nickname). I added 'correct me if I am wrong' and I have admitted being wrong in the past or being convinced that other points of view may be valid. Perhaps there are new antibody tests with higher accuracy (Roche?), are those the ones used in Czech Republic/Slovenia?

If I extrapolate those numbers to my neck of the woods, it's like almost herd immunity would be reached in Madrid. Noting the level of contagions (low but not negligible at all) with the society so constrained still,  I sincerely doubt those numbers are correct.
12000 death counted by excess over normal.
12000/0.2%= 6 million, or about 100% population of Madrid.
Nah, no way.

Of course, I am also like that, my opinion changes based in numbers. I supported quarantines and still think it was good measure for limited time during this first wave for varius reasons. Deadlier than the flu, no immunity, health system collapse because of fast transmission etc. And I feared when they said 3% end up dead. Then I got a little less scared when I found out about numbers for my age group., but obviously still scared for elderly. And now with these studies, I am more optimistic, but still cautious. But what I am saying is, if these results continue, I will not support shutting countries down over and over again and fearmongering by some epidemiologists that it will last for years and years before normal life continues (virus will exist maybe, but so will gatherings, flights, tourism etc.). Because for me that is theoretical thinking that will have no value in the real world.

About Madrid, add northern Italy, NYC, don't get me wrong I not only agree, I have no doubt that IFR there is higher than in many places, because of density, population age, conatant exposure, close contacts with many, strong mutation and maybe even more reasons that I am not aware of.

I don't think they overestimated anything, or linked more deaths to covid than others. I think their numbers in this wave are very real. And I believe Cuomo when he says 25% of New York had it, even if deaths don't match Sweden at all, and they also claim cery large immunity. Precisely for the reasons I've mentioned above. I just wanted to say, don't  immediately rule out studies that show different results.

10
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 06, 2020, 08:26:50 PM »
Please tell me where is that everywhere except New York and Lombardy, and I can give you at least 10 places where studies show much lower IFR. And again I'm saying IFR is not the same everywhere, because of many things, but to say somebody is definitely wrong is not fair. And it is NOT a coincidence that it is always lower number studies, that are being investigated and called wrong on this forum. It's not just the studies, it is every time Neven and others poat any article that has different conclusion from the mind that has already been made up by many here.

I'm certain if Israel Croatia, Serbia, Greece or anybody else has similar conclusions from their antibody studies, it will be perceived as obviosly wrong. Either false positives, or not a good sample, or not reporting well, whatever, like always.If they conclude it is 1% I am not going to say it's wrong it may end like that, I just think it will be lower in many places.

11
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 06, 2020, 05:37:21 PM »
Does anyone have access to excess mortality data in Solvenia and the Czech Republic? The very low IFR is probably a result of high false positives, but could also be a result of an undercounting of COVID-19 deaths. The age distribution cannot explain it IMHO, even Israel with its very young population (median <31) has seen IFR of more than 1% (238/16314 official). No serology data is yet available to validate the case count, but testing and contact tracing has been quite thorough and there's no way true infection count is 5-20 times more than official count.

Ok we'll see. I just read,they are planning to do 100 000 serological during the next few weeks. I'd bet when results come in, there will be at least 2% of population with antibodies, which would be 180 000 people. At least, and I think it is going to be more. It's just my opinion and where I would place my money on.

That doesn't mean Italy numbers are wrong or New York, it's iust there are different mutations, not every one is as deadly, and also time of exposure. If every fifth person around you all the time has it, and are sick,(coughing a lot let's say), spreading billions of viruses of maybe deadlier mutation, it's not the same as if you get it from some asymptomatic guy, you hang out with for half an hour with lighter mutation.


P.S. Text about Roche tests of 99.8% accuracy is from yesterday, that's why I said it's brand new.


12
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 06, 2020, 02:57:22 PM »
Sorry guys I forgot to post sources

Slovenia
https://english.sta.si/2760455/antibody-study-shows-one-in-thirty-slovenians-exposed-to-coronavirus

Czech Republic national study link is from Reuters and Guardian (the also took from Reuters)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/uk.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUKKBN22I0P2

(Reuters) - Immunity to the novel coronavirus is building up very slowly in the Czech Republic, with no more than 4-5% of the population likely to be covered, the health ministry said on Wednesday, after mass testing for antibodies that started last month

And gandul I am not sure about test, because Roche recently made test that had 99.8 accuracy.

Swiss biotech company Roche Holdings said it has devised a test that is 100% accurate at detecting coronavirus antibodies and 99.8% accurate at ruling them out.


Link https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roche-coronavirus-antibody-test-fda-approval-accuracy/

All 3 news are almost breaking (brand new) so there still aren't many texts in newspapers like NYT or CNN website etc.

13
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 06, 2020, 01:28:43 PM »
Slovenia, Czech Republic did random antibody tests all over the country.

Slovenia 2-4% had antibodies,=42-84k people
98 dead.  0.2% death rate
Median age of population 44.5

Czech Republic 4-6% had antibodies = 426-639k people
258 dead 0.05% death rate
Median age of population 42


I think there are 3 things we can now be sure of. 1. The older population, the higher the death rate,
2. We are nowhere near herd immunity, and just few % had it.

3. Death rate much higher where many have it, and you are consistently exposed multiple times with billions of viruses.

14
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.

15
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 09:00:50 PM »

Well if this is a good "poll", IFR is lower than 0.85% obviously, we just don't know by how much,

No, IFR is obviously above 1%. Don't forget that

1 ) the death count relates to infected 10-20 days ago. If now you have 1,8 M infected in NY City then there were much lass 2-3 weeks ago!
2) more people will day even from that cohort from the beginning of April

No, what you aresaying about death count is true, but calculation isn't. Deaths are lagging new cases for let's saytwo weeks. But in order to get antibodies it takes to be cured and then few weeks, which together is way more than death lag.

So if this was a new cases survey, then you would be 100%right, but since it ia the antibodies that have been looked for, it goes in a different direction. Time since you get virus-time you die=let's say 15 days. vs Time since you get virus-time you are negative=takes a bit longer in average than to die+ time you develop antibodies= way more than 15 days from the beginning of infection.

16
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 08:55:05 PM »
This still doesn't address the specificity question of the test. What's the test cross-reactivity with other coronaviruses. Maybe a report with methodologies and controls to test for other circulating coronavirus would be useful.

That's true :), and the reason  why my  first sentence was if it is a good poll  8)

17
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 23, 2020, 07:57:14 PM »
You have it all over the news and twitter.Cuomo has said it today.

Well if this is a good "poll", IFR is lower than 0.85% obviously, we just don't know by how much,because "dead are dead" (and NY counts probables too, so there are not as much uncovered deaths as elsewhere), and for many it takes fair amount of time to develop antibodies, few weeks. So the recent asymptomatics, or recently cured without knowing it, are not counted here. How many people got it in the last few weeks, but haven't yet developed antibodies, we don't know.

18
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 06, 2020, 06:53:02 PM »
Most of Europe either plateaued or on decline.

Italy today 3599, 80 people less in intensive care than yesterday (drop for 3rd day in a row)

Spain 4273, yes it's monday and data is lagging, but that's 2000 less than last monday.

This is interesting and important

Spain’s Madrid Records an 80 per cent Drop in Patients at its A&E: from 1,955 to 390 in a week

Not to confuse, it's 390 new patients.

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2020/04/06/spains-madrid-records-an-80-drop-in-patients-at-its-ae-from-1955-to-390-in-a-week/

19
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 30, 2020, 10:11:53 PM »
Is it too early to call daily peak globally (at least for this season)? I think so. There has to be at least a couple more days of a downward trend. But at least after weeks of fear, quarantines and horrible news, we are starting to see some good news, or more like a light at the end of the tunnel.

20
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.

21
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2020, 07:26:23 PM »
Oh God, Italy now reporting over 5000 new cases today.

5322/427. and only a bit over 400 recoveries. Yesterday recovery/death ratio was over 2/1 today it's less than 1/1. Number of people in critical condition also went up over 200.

22
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 18, 2020, 07:00:24 PM »
Italy 4207 new cases and 475 new deaths, new daily highs :o :'(

23
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 15, 2020, 09:15:06 PM »
Over 12 000 new cases today worldwide.

24
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 :'(.

25
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 15, 2020, 01:39:09 PM »
Switzerland 842 new cases, until now daily new cases range was between 200-300. :o

26
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 14, 2020, 07:27:46 PM »
Italy 3497/175  new cases/deaths :o
That's 1000 more than previous daily high.

27
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 13, 2020, 06:51:17 PM »
250 new deaths in Italy today :o :-X

28
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 12, 2020, 07:12:24 PM »
Apparently those Italy numbers from yesterday had some numbers from the day before included, that were late to report or didn't report on that day. And it  was 2313 new cases 196 new deaths combined.
Today it is 2651/189 with no additional data from earlier. So definetely a new record of new cases (and probably a decent jump) and most probably also record of new deaths in a day.

Total cases now over 15k total deaths over 1k :'(

29
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 06:32:42 PM »
Italy numbers are in: 2313 new cases (highest so far outsideChina I think) and 196 new deaths (record high)

30
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: March 03, 2020, 03:37:40 PM »
Oh boy, polling and models are all over the place. Predicitons too. Everything changes like every hour.Some have Bernie something like 900v300, others like Nate Silver have now solid Biden plurality forecasted after 50 states. It's impossible to track anything right now, any analysis or twitter. Too many unknowns; impact of drop outs and endorsments, who will be viable where, and by how much, it's just to many things right now, that are uncertain, cause there wasn't enough time after SC for any average or conclusion to be made. It's everybody's game. No result would shock me, I don't think anyone knows what will happen. 14 states, 3 dropouts, 1 big win, states with almost no connection like Minnesota and Alabama, viability, impact on Warren and Bloomberg %, bow much of Pete and Klobuchar voters will go to Biden, and all of this in just 2 days.

The least predictable Super Tuesday in a long time. Not just who will win which state, but also by how much, who will be viable, how many delegates will candidates carry from each state. And it's not like, will somebody carry 15 or 18, the spectrum is huge.

31
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.

32
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.

33
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 25, 2020, 07:01:20 PM »
South Korea 977
Italy 322

34
Consequences / Re: Chinese coronavirus
« on: February 24, 2020, 10:16:52 AM »
AP reports 50 deaths in Iran?!?

35
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.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 14, 2019, 07:13:12 PM »
GFS and GEM wind forecast  for today. Look at Chukchi. This shouldn't even be a forecast, it is for today and the time "forecasted" is just 1h after the publication of those runs. And yet there couldn't be more of a difference in wind, direction-wise. Canadians (I know it's them that are wrong, because I looked at all other models, and they are in line with GFS), really have to fix their "wind bug". It is similar to JMA (Japanese model) forecasting 1080-1085hPa over Greenland every other run, when we have high pressure over that region.

GFS


GEM



Edit: I looked into it right now, it happens only on their NH map, when you click on North America or Europe, it works fine. I mean on N hemi it is forecasting northern winds in the Pacific near Alaska-Canada border, but on just North American map, it has southern winds which is obviously correct, since it is really basic meteorology knowledge, that if there is a cyclone, there will be southern or SW winds on its warmer front side and northern winds o its backside. Because cyclones spin counterclockwise on NH, that means if the cyclone is located west of certain location it will get southern winds, and "warmer" air, and if it is located east, that location will get northern colder winds.

GEM NH


GEM NA


37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 14, 2019, 01:29:53 PM »
I hope the current forecast holds, so we can get decent ice formation. In the first couple of days, we have very cold Hudson Bay region, with favorable winds from the northwest, then Chukchi should get going (finally!) with cold weather + wind from the north, and most importantly it looks like the cold could stay there and in the basin as a whole, for a while at least. Kara could close too, but we'll see.

We'll see if SST in Chukchi is still too high to freeze, even with favorable conditions, I hope not.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 07, 2019, 01:14:22 PM »
First of all, I said the real  hot zone is the Russian side (which includes ESS and Laptev obviously) because there IS sea ice and snow cover in Siberia, anomaly there is not due the lack of those. The no ice argument was meant mainly for Baffin and Chukchi (I'm not speaking  just of today). There is real warm air advection from the Pacific going on right now. And when I said Arctic as a whole looks faitly average, I didn't mean just CAB but also CAA and Atlantic (Kara, Greenland and Barents seas) That whole side is below average.

P. S. 2m anomalies can't go down THAT much, if there is no ice, it's the opposite to summer months, when DMI shows always 0-1C even if we have 5C temp 850hPa which on the land with that much insolation would result in 20C on a sunny day. Real warm air advections can be followed on a temp850hPa map, but that  also can be tricky due to inversions in winter. It depends how and where the high pressure system is located.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 07, 2019, 11:14:00 AM »
I kbow DMI has pole "bias" but I wouldn't disagree a lot with them this time. As we know the pole is centered more towards Atlantic side, so 80N seems to be average. The rest of the Arcric is also fairly average (or even colder where there is ice, hot zones in Chuckchi and Baffin are there because there is no ice yet. We can clearly "see" that ice border on this photo (Nares and eastern CAA in blue Baffin Bay in red). Real " hot zone" is the Russian side. Very much above average there, despite of ice, and btw also over Siberian land.   Very cold CAA. Cold center of the CAB,  aroubd the pole and Svalbard, cold Greenland sea and Atlantic side as a whole (Kara, Barents) except that usual hotspot near Svalbard

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 03, 2019, 06:09:22 PM »
Can someone post or give a link to NSIDC daily extent numbers? (not 5 day average)

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 03, 2019, 03:25:27 PM »
Well if there is a slow refreeze and no ice, where would that snow fall on? And what thickness would that "protected" ice have?

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:08:53 PM »
Is that a record increase? :o

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 18, 2019, 02:05:36 PM »
If Jaxa is correct, the most substantial gain today (yesterday) was on the Russian side. Coastal ice is expanding in all 3 seas (Kara, Laptev, ESS). The main pack looks to be just miles away from the Russian coast, at the Kara-Laptev border behind SZ, and there looks to be some ice in the middle of the ocean in ESS. I don't if it will become some kind of ESS arm or will it disappear on radar. I just know I wouldn't rely much on gfs temp anomalies on climatereanalyzer because the model can't include the ice that will probably form in the next days. This is a 10 days out anomaly forecast and you can clearly see an almost perfect ice pack border shape from today, surrounded by red color.



And  if you take the slideshow, red "origin" doesn't move at all, it just expands towards the pole (which is probably real like a normal "heat" wave) and then "destroys" shape of the pack.  I mean anomaly itself is probably correct, it's just the progression (or the lack of) of it that is questionable, since model can't calculate new ice that is forming.

44
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".

@aperson
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.

45
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.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 27, 2019, 12:21:20 PM »
That is data from yesterday.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 26, 2019, 10:04:25 PM »
And that bomb cyclonic event has suddenly disappeared in 12z model runs today.

48
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: April 18, 2019, 08:58:43 AM »
I think it's more like it doesn't matter what Bernie says because their entire viewing audience will vote Trump regardless.

Any poll showing this? Or is this one of your 'political analysis' '.

Because last FoxNews poll i saw they had Trump losing against Bernie.

It is a poll done by Fox News,like CNN or ABC or whatever. That does not mean they poll their audience only. And bbr was talking about Fox News audience, not whole America.

49
Daily Kos independent visitor Poll
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/3/5/1839795/-Test-2-W-Poll

23210 votes - Who is your preferred candidate for President?

Bernie Sanders  70%
Andrew Yang 12%
Tulsi Gabbard 6%

Harris 3%
Warren 2%
Joe Biden 1%


Well there's a realistic poll ;D 8)

50
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3