Messages

1

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data

« on: Today at 04:38:55 PM »

First, you fill in the 1980s missing data days by averaging the previous day and the next day's data. Then the way is clear.

2

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?

« on: Today at 03:16:06 PM »

Clueless, maybe routes 5/6.

3

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: Today at 03:14:05 PM »

Eyeballing from "Monitor View":
A big decrease in Laptev and slight increases in Beaufort, Baffin, Barents/Kara may end up in a small change in sea ice extent on June 15. But my guess may be proven wrong tomorrow...

According to Wipneus June 15th saw a drop of around ~100k in UH AMSR2 extent and area, with about half of it in the Laptev.
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/uh_am2_arc_summary.txt?attredirects=0&d=1

4

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?

« on: Today at 11:54:58 AM »

Clueless, but went for Aug 15th-31st. At least I'm with the majority!

5

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: Today at 11:45:37 AM »

The big question mark hangs over the CAA. I tend to agree with Friv, no CAA crash=no record. Ever since the "garlic press" (2016?), the CAA has been filled with MYI that got stuck in the channels during refreeze, making it very difficult to melt, despite deep melt ponds and rather average weather. Should it break up at some early or middling point, a lot of it could be exported down to Baffin, never to return, and with barely a backfeed from the Western CAB/Beaufort due to the low ice cover there. But to melt most of it in situ with no movement will be very difficult, especially considering the non-torching weather, now already being the middle of June. I am keeping my eyes peeled open for this region.

Edit: ĺooking at AMSR2 regional area graph, 2012 saw a minimum of ~50k km2 in the CAA, 2016 reached ~100k, while 2017-2018 hit ~200k.

6

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: Today at 09:02:13 AM »

Good points b_l.

7

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: Today at 08:18:38 AM »

IIRC they pay suppliers within 60 days. But all this only has impact on cash flow, and does not affect profit/loss in any way.

8

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: Today at 07:33:16 AM »

IMHO the current never stops, but the wind has a greater effect on the ice in the short term.

9

Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential

« on: June 15, 2019, 10:41:49 PM »

Thanks for the update Tealight.
With most of the negative anomalies found in Hudson Bay and in the Kara-Barents-Fram complex, both regions prone to imminent melt, that gives the overall positive anomaly an added twist.

10

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs

« on: June 15, 2019, 01:39:56 PM »

It turns out that excessively heavy winter snow serves for excessive spring meltwater, not for excessive spring snowcover.

11

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season

« on: June 15, 2019, 12:46:00 PM »

In general: Surface Mass Balance includes precipitation (snow amd rain) added, minus sublimation and melt runoff.
But it does not include the flow of ice into the sea, mostly in the form of calving of icebergs.

12

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 15, 2019, 09:04:29 AM »

Despite the headline extent numbers being what they are, anyone who becomes complacent at this stage is not looking at the whole picture. Look at the ice that is supposed to survive the melting season, the one in the inner basin. Look at its current area.

13

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps

« on: June 15, 2019, 12:05:12 AM »

I think KK meant medical breakthroughs could modify the expected trajectory of human population, preventing the expected peaking, increasing pressure on the environment, and thus bringing about sharp sea level rise much sooner. Hope I understood correctly.
Population will off course peak due to the adverse results of climate change and the rest of the carrying capacity issues. The higher you fly, the faster you fall.

14

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o

« on: June 14, 2019, 07:27:36 PM »

Well said Glen.

15

Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others

« on: June 14, 2019, 03:34:16 PM »

SMOS is known in these parts for the Uni Bremen sea ice thinness product (with some caveats, mostly reliable during winter, but showing surface wetness in summer).

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/thin-ice-thickness/

16

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o

« on: June 14, 2019, 01:49:47 PM »

Would it be better to spend Trillions NOW to help some guy stay near the water in Sri Lanka 75 years from now or spend just Millions now to help his grandfather get sanitary drinking water, maybe some education and health care etc."

That's a very twisted way of putting it. Are you prepared to say goodbye to half of Florida? New York City? Boston? DC? The Bay Area? New Orleans? Houston? London? Shanghai? The whole of Bangladesh? And countless other places?
You said you care about your grandchildren's fate. Do you really think they will not be affected by all the above? Some guy in Sri Lanka indeed.
The other side of the equation is also wrong. It doesn't take some millions to get education and sanitary water to all the world's poor. But that's really beside the point.

17

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: June 14, 2019, 10:56:35 AM »

Well at least it stops Nares export for a few days.

18

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 14, 2019, 03:15:40 AM »

Long time lurker here and the little bit that I would have to offer in way of analysis is to humbly suggest to apply the brakes to the talk of the "catastrophe" (and other superlatives) for what is happening to the Laptev.

Yes, it visually looks bad with all the melt ponding on Worldview and SMOS. Yes, the forecast has been and continues to be rather bad in regards to temperatures, wind and insolation.  However I would encourage everyone to take a good look at Worldview and run it from June 13 to July 13th for 2012.  While some here would argue that for the Laptev the ice is in worse shape than 2012 due to the condition of the fast ice, there is counter argument that perhaps 2012 is worse because of the size of the Laptev bite.

Regardless of where you come down on this argument take a good look at the condition of the fast ice at this time of the year in 2012 and note how much ice was still around near the shore 1 month later.  The point being that it takes a lot of energy and a fair amount of time to melt ice here and a visual scan of the last 10 years indicates that while this year looks bad and the forecasts look bad, there is historical evidence that suggests this ice doesn't just go poof over night.

Good points, there is the absolute catastrophe that is ongoing in the Arctic, but also the relative catastrophe - how bad is this compared to the last few years, and especially 2012. And 2012 was worse at this date, with widespread melt ponds as Worldview and SMOS comparisons show. However, 2012 had much more MYI, while this year's ice has been much weakened by ongoing export, thus not necessarily requiring the same weather as 2012 to get to a new record, or to a significant 2nd-place finish. Considering that the ice from the Laptev to the pole itself is FYI according to Ascat animations, the hot weather and southerly winds in Siberia is especially worrying in my opinion, and a Laptev bite could develop relatively quickly.

19

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: June 14, 2019, 02:28:51 AM »

OK, you lost me there.  Let's start with the balance sheet.  Profits and losses are not calculated on balance sheets.  A balance sheet is just a check to see if all assets and liabilities are included which needs to happen for the balance to end up as zero if one is subtracted from the other.

Now, here's a copy of Tesla's P/L page from their Q1 2019 10-Q report to the SEC.  You're saying that the inventory in transit is included in these numbers?

      

2019   Number in Millions Revenues          Automotive sales      $3,508,741 Automotive leasing         215,120 Total automotive revenues         3,723,861 Energy generation and storage         324,661 Services and other         492,942 Total revenues         4,541,464 Cost of revenues          Automotive sales         2,856,209 Automotive leasing         117,092 Total automotive cost of revenues         2,973,301 Energy generation and storage         316,887 Services and other         685,533 Total cost of revenues         3,975,721 Gross profit         565,743

The way I understand P/L reports (having filed them for several years, back when) is that you report revenue received and monies expended on the date the transaction occurs.  When Tesla delivers that $500-odd million inventory the money received will be entered onto the company's books on that date.  Which will be in Q2.

Remember, Tesla does not operate like other car manufactuers.  Traditional car manufacturers "sell" their cars as they roll out the factory door.  They get charged to dealers and the car company records the sale even before the car gets loaded on the transfer trailer.  Tesla does not record the sale, credit revenue to their ledger, until the product it accepted by the owner. 

Have I got it wrong?

Tesla like (almost?) any corporation does not report its P/L on a cash basis, but on an accumulating basis. The cars in transit would not appear in automotive revenue, but neither would they appear in cost of automotive revenue, as they were not sold.
Instead they would appear in the cash flow report as cost of inventory. And they would appear on the balance sheet as inventory. So they did not affect the profit or loss. But they did reduce Tesla's cash position by $570M.

When they were sold in Q2, a revenue of $710M was recorded, a cost of revenue of $570M was recorded, and thus a profit of $140M was recorded. Cash position increased by $710M.

20

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season

« on: June 13, 2019, 09:03:19 PM »

An event indeed!

21

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 13, 2019, 09:01:12 PM »

When the meltwater drain through the ice, area might stage a mini-comeback for a short while, assuming that ice survives under 20+ degC winds blowing from the south.

22

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 13, 2019, 07:17:13 PM »

Hello and welcome, grixm. And yes, you are correct.

23

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o

« on: June 13, 2019, 06:57:19 PM »

The information and postings here are brilliant, thank you very much for them.

I’m not a scientist but am interested in the future , for my Grandchildren , so I have a few questions that if answered , might help me understand the issue better.

1.If there were a time I could have walked on the same piece of ice from here in Long Island all the way to Wisconsin, doesn’t that suggest that ice comes and goes naturally and man adjusts?

2.Hasn’t the ice been slowly declining since the end of the ice age, pretty much continuously?

3. Could a natural event like a volcanic eruption, bring enough cooling to regrow the lost ice and stop the long term patterns of continued loss?

4.If all the ice melted and the oceans rose , wouldn’t there still be a huge net gain of habitable land overall?

Not asking about the politics just wondering if the worry is real or would life just change a little and both people and animals would evolve and adapt as they always have.

Thank you in advance.

Welcome Larry. You ask good questions, which also happen to be denier talking points, so care should be taken with them.
Let's focus on point 4, sea level rise, along with rising temperatures. Think of all the hundreds of millions or maybe billions of people living in huge coastal cities and in doomed regions such as Florida and the Nile Delta; of all the power plants cooled by ocean waters; of all the sea ports; and coastal airports; and highways; and railroads. Think how many resources would be required to relocate all these people and infrastructure in less than a hundred years; while not having any ports for shipping said resources; now think how the federal budget, in eternal deficit, can barely spare enough resources to maintain the current road network and the many crumbling bridges across the USA. Think of all those living in  the tropics and in India and Iran and the Middle East, and in Phoenix and Las Vegas, that will need to relocate due to extreme heat. Humankind will probably survive the catastrophe, but human civilization will not. I assume you'd rather have your grandchildren live in the comfort of modern civilization, rather than as cavemen hunting wild animals; which have mostly gone extinct so that won't work either.

The problem is with the rate of change, and with the number of humans on the planet, and the level of civilization. What could work over a thousand years and with a hundred million humans living in tents and huts, cannot work over a hundred years and with 7.5 billion humans, expected to become 10 billion mid-century, living in skyscrapers and expecting their food to be shipped across half the globe.
The last 10,000 years have seen a very stable climate, due to luck or what not, and also the rise of human civilization. The coming century will probably take both of these away.

I hope this helps.

24

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Rammb Slider Thread

« on: June 13, 2019, 02:21:46 PM »

Thanks for the detailed explanation!

25

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 13, 2019, 10:22:32 AM »

I can't recall noticing the comparison feature before on Worldview. I wonder has it been there along time? It has three useful modes - Swipe/Opacity/Spy.

It is there since at least mid-2018. This is when i first used the site.

I never noticed it, but I find it easy to compare years by clicking the little arrows above and below the year.

26

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 13, 2019, 10:14:45 AM »

Look at it that way - does a 2m ice floe floating in 6C^o water melt away in 5 days or 50 days? I am certain 50 days is way too slow. OTOH 5 days sounds too fast, but ice doesn't normally float in 6C^o water, so my intuition is probably wrong.

27

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Rammb Slider Thread

« on: June 13, 2019, 04:00:42 AM »

Amazing animation.
So does the dark color represent wet surface or warmed surface?

28

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 13, 2019, 03:29:52 AM »

The recent area drops in the CAA are explained by the widespread appearance of melt ponds. This is a bit earlier than 2018 and 2017, but behind 2016 and 2012 and some other years. No actual ice area has been lost yet, same as other years at this time.
SMOS is also showing widespread surface water (do not confuse with actual thinness, this CAA ice is NOT less than 0.5m).
Max temps in Resolute, in the middle of the main NWP channel, are around 2-3C^o. Forecasts call for temperatures to remain just above zero in the next few days.

Click to animate.

29

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day

« on: June 13, 2019, 02:43:44 AM »

That's strange. Works for me.

The first post contained the mp4 as an image, therefore it didn't show.
The second post contained it as a direct link, which enabled the forum software to recognize it as an mp4.

30

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: June 13, 2019, 02:17:57 AM »

Well if it isn't Bob Wallace himself!
While I disagree with your specific point (finished goods if sold would have made Q1 profitable), I am happy to see you posting again here after a long hiatus.

31

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 12, 2019, 10:33:28 PM »

My point is this....those of us watching the weather forecast were pretty much prepared for the steep drop off in area in the Laptev / ESS / Chuchki regions because of high temperatures that had been advertised.

The rapid change in the CAA (even acknowledging that it is likely surface melt), was not foreshadowed in the melting thread.

Good point Rich, I will try to look into what happened in the CAA and will post in the melting season thread if I find anything useful.

32

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 12, 2019, 07:33:44 PM »

Thakn you friedmators. Here is the corrected link. I just pasted it instead of marking as a URL (which added http in front of the ftp).
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v3.0.xlsx

33

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 12, 2019, 06:18:25 PM »

Sambucco, and Rich, and anyone else interested in the NSIDC numbers, you can download the spreadsheet and look at the actual data.
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis/Sea_Ice_Index_Daily_Extent_G02135_v3.0.xlsx
The file contains a worksheet for the daily NH extent, and another for the 5-day averaged extent, which you can compare.
Note this is only for totals and only for extent. There's also a regional data file but it only contains 5-day averages of both extent and area data for each region.

34

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: June 12, 2019, 03:59:26 PM »

- “Decent shot” of a record Q2 “on every level”

Does that include profit? I'm skeptical of that given the previous guidance was for (significantly reduced?) losses. But maybe it just means turnover and production, order and delivery quantity numbers?

I doubt profit is included. Turnover is also dubious, as previous quarters only included the more expensive trims. I assume he only means production and delivery numbers.
I also note that Q418 was just above 90k, so the guidance of 90k-100k was essentially for a new delivery record.

35

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves

« on: June 12, 2019, 02:04:33 PM »

Thanks uniquorn. This is really amazing, and alarming - almost half the ice area that survived last season has been exported, mostly to the Atlantic Front, and some of it spread over the open water in the Beaufort. Hopefully it's a smaller fraction of last year's surviving volume. But still with most of the CAB covered by FYI, it's a setup for very sharp drops later in the season even with average weather.

36

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The fate of the last rescuing ice floe in summer 2019

« on: June 12, 2019, 01:56:51 PM »

Obviously, we will know in a few days if it blocks, or less than that when it shatters (and it will...).

37

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 12, 2019, 08:35:20 AM »

The ESS joining the Laptev, with "melt-pond blue" intensifying and spreading away from the coast in the past 3 days, and temperatures in Pevek hitting 18C^o and expected to remain this abnormally high in the next few days, with southerly winds blowing offshore, and clear skies.
Click to animate.

38

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: June 12, 2019, 07:50:21 AM »

- Production vs. profitability:  we could slow down and be more profitable, but we want to accelerate the adoption of sustainable transport.

Think about this: In Q1 Tesla gross profit was $565M while SGA was $704M. The car prices continue to get reduced. So they need to sell significantly more cars to have the same gross profit. Even if they do, they will still lose money. This has nothing to do with growth.

You could be right. Tesla has a positive gross margin (i.e. not selling a dollar for 90 cents, despite your jokes) but it hasn't proved yet that the rest of its expense structure can be fit inside that gross margin. Q2 results should be interesting.

How do you think they would make money by selling fewer cars? It is insane that Musk throws this out without bothering to explain it...

I think you have (deliberately or inadvertently) misunderstood the statement. I read it as saying they could be profitable if they stopped all development of future models and especially of autonomy, and other growth-oriented spending, and focused on being profitable with the products they have and only minor developments. Nobody said anything about selling fewer cars.
The fact that Musk says they could slow down and be more profitable does not mean that everybody automatically believes it. It also doesn't mean that it's automatically wrong. Time will tell.

39

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 12, 2019, 03:59:58 AM »

As you can see below, he says 2019 moved into number 1 on June 10. I know you two use JAXA extent and NSIDC area.  He is talking about NSIDC extent. I'm surprised it differs so much from JAXA.

Have you ever compared the relative difference between the JAXA and NSIDC numbers to see how much they disagree?  I'm talking about only extent. 

I understand the two satellites have different resolution and come with different numbers.  But, I would expect those numbers to be consistent across each year.   It is strange to me that NSIDC sees 2019 as the lowest, when JAXA stills sees 2016 with a decent sized lead. 

He is correct, 2019 took the lead from 2016 when using NSIDC extent numbers (both 5-day average and daily numbers). But the difference is quite small, 18k. With the latest JAXA extent numbers 2019 is still behind 2016 but by only 88k. I haven't done a statistical comparison, but this is certainly within the margin of error.

40

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: June 12, 2019, 02:33:07 AM »

Here is an animation and image posted by A-Team in the Test Space thread.

Here I am testing the effectiveness of a backwards-running mp4 of the Nares funnel (or spillway), the ice in the Lincoln Sea caught up in its extended surface current (driven by sea level differences) above the Nares Strait. The movie uses near-daily Sentinel-1 images furnished by DMI from 01 May to 11 June 2019.

It would be feasible to extend the mp4 back to 15 Sept 2018 though that would require down-scaling and/or faster frame rates to keep file size manageable. the firehose effect may have pauses deep in winter and not persist the whole time.

Although DMI's interest is the waters around Greenland, the images do go far enough offshore to capture the entire funnel 165 km to the north and east, but not enough past Ellesmere Island to really determine where the exported ice originates (from along the coast or up towards the pole?).

In any event, the ice being lost is some of the thickest and oldest ice left in the Arctic Ocean. This ice sector is seldom directly set in motion by the wind (per Osisaf ice motion vectors) but this season it as been strongly pressed down against the western CAA coast by the mega-TransPolar CW rotation.

The Terra visual counterparts have quite different properties from Sentinel radar and even from the nominally identical WorldView scenes. The last 4-5 days have seen a peculiar darkening of funnel ice in Sentinel and Ascat radar; it leads to a stained glass look at optical wavelengths after reprocessing for feature-following in Gimp (crop before equalizing).

The very large floe off Ellesmere entered the scene 48 days ago. It is losing ice on the margins but still is too big to fit down the strait. Be sure to set the movie view to 'loop'.

For year-round flows through the Nares and the overall freshened water budget history of the Arctic Ocean, see:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JPO-D-15-0093.1
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2007JCLI1748.1

41

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: June 11, 2019, 09:09:43 PM »

The state of the fast ice, while impressive, is not very different from previous years that had an open Kane Basin at this time of year - 2007, 2009, 2010, 2017.

Click to animate.

42

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019

« on: June 11, 2019, 04:07:59 PM »

Tim, bear in mind most of us are intelligent enough to see through false arguments and cherry picking and all that. The fact that someone posts something doesn't make it automatically accepted by the whole forum, especially if that someone is known to have a bias in a certain direction. Also bear in mind some people will always have the last word and will never admit to being wrong, having a back and forth argument is detrimental to the forum and increasing the influence of the very posts you want to prevent.
The best tactic is hit and run. Refute once, and let the readers make up their mind.
If you can't abide reading posts you think are wrong and/or misleading, it's an easy thing to add someone to your blocked list. Otherwise, deep breaths and calming exercises can do a lot of good. If you catch someone posting straight denier stuff, report to Neven and it's bye-bye and sigh of relief. This is how "Daniel B." went away.
I wish you'd stay. But if you'd rather be in a pure environment, maybe indeed this is not the place.

43

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 11, 2019, 08:13:27 AM »

Maybe I'm just being dense, but there's something I don't understand. Jim Hunt and weatherdude88 both post graphs for the CAB, based on Wipneus' UH AMSR2 data. How can they look so vastly different?

Because Jim Hunt counts the "Inner Basin" per Wipneus' definition including the CAB, Beaufort, Chukchi, ESS, and Laptev.
Weatherdude posted just the CAB.

44

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 11, 2019, 07:58:59 AM »

June 6-10.

It begins.

The ESS/Laptev "open water" is actually melt ponds lakes fooling the satellite.

45

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 11, 2019, 07:01:06 AM »

The Laptev fast ice is about to take a major hit. While extent and area numbers may not change, ice thickness should drop sharply. While temps have been above zero for the past few days, and the melt ponds are everywhere, today sees the coastal temps rise to ~25C^o, and southerly winds blowing onto the sea. I think something's gotta give soon.

Click to animate.

46

Arctic background / Re: Arctic Maps

« on: June 11, 2019, 04:03:39 AM »

Thank you Tor for continuing to update this important and interesting thread. Back-browsing here is a real pleasure.

47

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:56:17 AM »

High Arctic Seas area continues to stall while extent declines.

A discrepancy has developed between the various sensors/resolutions. While High Arctic NSIDC area numbers are middling, JAXA and UH numbers are low. Such discrepancies often resolve themselves, it will be interesting to see where this one goes.
Note: AMSR2 was launched in mid-May 2012, and AFAIK the period before August 2012 does not have complete data, so this could be part of the explanation for the discrepancy. Wipneus would know all the details of this.

48

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season

« on: June 11, 2019, 03:26:15 AM »

Central Arctic Basin area, the most important region for the upcoming sea ice minimum, is breaking away from the post 2012 pack. Just not in the direction most on here thought it would.

CAB area at this time of year is a proxy for the area north of the Barents and the Fram, as the rest of the CAB is still mostly 100% sea ice until the beginning of July. As this year the transpolar drift is back with a vengeance, it is no surprise that CAB area is staying on the high side. As the Chukchi + Beaufort deteriorate, it is expected that the CAB will be hit first by loss of ice from its Pacific side.

This is supported by the area numbers in the Barents and the Greenland Sea, both running high as well.

49

Arctic sea ice / Re: Fram Export

« on: June 11, 2019, 02:57:57 AM »

Wipneus posts such a graph in the PIOMAS thread as part of each volume data update - normally twice a month. Note that as the ice north of the export line becomes thinner, the export volume tends to be below the long-term average.

Here is a link to the latest graph.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg203472.html#msg203472

50

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism

« on: June 10, 2019, 07:08:46 PM »

There was a thread on good books specifically.