Using your smartphone? Consider switching to Theme Exodus!
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.
They do say it... under most likely scenario.The CDC's estimate is 0.4% for symptomatic cases, so the answer does not lie in the "dark cases". Looking at the CDC's table 1, no source is listed for the CFR, except the dubious "Source: Preliminary COVID-19 estimates, CDC".
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html
Symptomatic CFR 0.004
Asymptomatic cases: 35%
0.004 * (1-0.35) = 0.0026
The CDC estimate seems not to fit the data very well. Not just NYC, but lots of other places.
If CFR is 2-3% in lots of places, then 10 symptomatic cases are out there for every 1 that is 'identified'. Meanwhile positive test are down below 1 in 10 in many places. So just where are all these 'dark' COVID positive cases hiding?
And regarding that thread - many posters on this forum began their residence as lay persons, myself included. To most intents and purposes I am still a lay person, but I make it my business to learn anything I can, enhancing my own understanding and hopefully enabling some more personal contribution. Despite great difficulties in my first year on the forum, and lots of things being total gibberish to me, I recall trying to follow the discussion and even to post some useful(?) questions in that thread at the time. Make it your business to understand the detailed and difficult stuff, and your contribution to the forum will grow accordingly. Skip the hard stuff, and your contribution will be limited to lots of words with no supporting evidence.Also, read the Slow Transition thread from start to finish, very relevant.
You took the words right out of my mouth Oren!
I have perused the Slow Transition thread. It doesn't seem like a discussion that is designed for the lay person.
Let's separate my suggestion into two elements. The first element is the suggestion that we should strive for proactive measures which give a better sense of what the season portends. The second element is the specific suggestion that the measure be (CAB + CAA + Beaufort).We have discussed it on the forum in the past. My position was and still is that as far as area data goes, the most relevant data is an aggregation of all the seas connected to the Inner Basin with import-export ties, plus the CAA because of its peculiar geography and ice retention. This is because the ice in these seas can move to the CAB, or be received from the CAB, thus making them one interconnected system. The same applies to energy and enthalpy in these regions. Seas that should be excluded are seas that mostly see export from the Inner Basin due to prevailing currents and winds and due to high local melt: Baffin, Barents and Greenland Sea. These seas may retain ice at minimum but that ice is not the ice that is there now, rather it's ice that will be exported to them in August or September.
As far as the second suggestion, I would consider it to simply be a straw man. If the best minds think ESS or Greenland Sea s/b included, I think that's a step in the right direction and would be very pleased with that 5 sea indicator of intra season progress relative to the end game.
As far as the first element, what are your thoughts there ? Do you think this is a direction to pursue? How do you feel about the 5 sea comparison which I infer that you might like better? You are the moderator here, I'm happy to defer to your judgement.
I'm a little surprised, but I didn't find (by searching with google) any other echo of the calving than this oneWrong search, at least judging by Steff Lhermitte. Short gif at link.
Wrong search or it's like this?
Has anyone seen the Laptev sea today on Worldview? The inner half is so dark, but it almost looks like a camera glitch because the contrast line is so straight and sharp, like that of a giant shadow. But it shows up on all the true color feeds. Is it real?I am sure it's real. Temps not far from the Laptev have been soaring in the past few days.
Next question. Why does ice adjacent to Siberia begin melting earlier than ice in the CAA which is at the same latitude? Insolation s/b the same +/- some cloud anomaly. Water temp s/b < 0 before the ice begins melting.I wish you would attempt to quantify your hypotheses.
I see proximity to heat from land as the trigger to begin melting, preconditioning, etc. Perhaps you see it differently?
I have seen similar animations of sea ice export over past decades before I found my way to ASIF and acknowledge that ice export is a significant alternative means of transport. Instead of bringing heat to the ice, export transports ice to the heat. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of massive export events leading to eventual BOE.The point of these videos was not to highlight export but to show the prevailing movement of ice from Siberia towards the CAA, thus explaining why the remaining ice ends up bunched against Greenland, Ellesmere and the CAA in September, with no need for the DHACSOO mechanism of distance from heat advecting continents and shallow open ocean as an explanation. A mechanism which I believe is not a good explanation and will not protect the ice from further warming and more mobility.
In terms of attempting to prove whether the hypothesis is accurate, I don't have a vision of a classical research paradigm where i'm a principal investigator doing all the work and then presenting my findings for someone else to read.This could happen if more people felt DHACSOO is a viable explanation and predictor. I am not sure that is the case. If you can't put in the time to quantify your own theory, I expect others, with less conviction than you, will not invest much effort either.
I'm thinking more in terms of a classroom setting where everyone puts themselves in the role of investigator and putting out an idea for them to consider as we all watch the experiment unfold together.
I suppose the hypothesis has two separate elements. One element pertains to the outcome (slower rate of progression than the previous linear assumption) and the other relates to the root cause (distance from NA / Asia and non-linear bathymetry). The outcome has the potential to smash the entire hypothesis if the ice moves much further into the Arctic this decade.Others have indeed, already, offered their own ideas as to why the melting stops where it does, and why a collapse to BOE is not imminent. But the root cause - and not the end result - is the interesting part. Otherwise we just wait until one year the end result is different. OTOH, a good root cause can be used for prediction, and can be checked against unfolding events.
If the coming years do not show much further progression of ice loss, then we can be right about the outcome and still wrong about the root cause. In that case, it would be important to evaluate alternative hypotheses which propose to demonstrate that other factors are more important than distance from land based WAA and the transition to deep bathymetry.
I hope others will take these ideas as an invitation to offer their own ideas as to why the melting stops where it does at seasons end. It's an interesting topic.
I care more about the outcome than the root cause. If the ice holds up longer significantly longer than people think based upon completely different factors, I will be very happy. During the interim between now and when the future reveals itself, I'll suggest that there may be merit in promoting possibilities that give people reason to hope that sea ice disaster will be averted. The presence or absence of hope could potentially be a factor in the outcome.
Oren , you were alluding to the RATE of sea ice area decline. Would this be absolute or % decline ?Not sure what post you are referring to, but I agree absolute area decline is the more important measure.
I think absolute decline is more important and is a measure of the energy input into the CAB
2020 vs. 2019Surprisingly, the CAA looks much worse in 2020. (Hopefully these are just artifacts).
Windmills continue to increase powerWind turbines, not windmills.
Temperature reached +10.1°С in Sterlegov (75.41 N 88.90 E). Previous record of May was +6.8°С in 2011.Average daily temps normally cross zero in this location in mid-June. This year it happened one whole month early, and is sticking around.
Phoenix, I will not tolerate more such posts with no content and inflaming language that stirs up this thread for no good reason..
Slater's model has picked up the current preconditioning and thinks it is favourable for strong melting way into July.
It predicts 7.34 m km² for July 13th, currently nosediving ...
LOL. The ice apocalypse is a cottage industry. I'll take the over.
PS - There's a dedicated thread for Slater and another dedicated 2020 prediction thread.
The max I gave in the above post was max area in mid-Sep, not total area of the sea, as determined by max over the whole AMSR2 record (in km2). Note the Wipneus map, previously used by Chris Reynolds, was taken from the now-defunct Cryosphere Today (CT) website.Average AMSR2 area contribution in mid-Sep (sorted, unrounded, km2):Some people might get confused because
CAB: 3,300,562 (max 3,606,190)
- the CAB area in the NSIDC analysis is 3.224 million km2,
- the area of the CAB used by Wipneus is larger (the surrounding seas smaller).
And this is where I get confused - I thought the CAB area used by Wipneus was around 3.45 million km2, not the 3.60 million you quote. Do you think you could post the sea areas as used by Wipneus. I think you've done it before (or someone else has).
ps: The Barents, Kara Seas & CAA boundaries are the same, it is the Laptev, ESS, Chukhi & Beaufort Sea areas are lower in the Wipneus analysis, as NSIDC (Stroeve et al) moved the boundaries north by a series of straight lines along 80 North.
So, 2012 is one good "hindsight" about how much melt work a season can do.Indeed F. Tnioli, and very well explained, good post.
the areas of the Arctic likely to retain ice at the minimum (CAB, CAA and Beaufort).Get your numbers straight. The areas most likely to retain ice at minimum are the CAB, the CAA and the Greenland Sea. Of the 8 years in the AMSR2 record, 5 had near-zero ice area in the Beaufort in early Sept, the rest had 150k-200k. The ESS had 3 years with 150k-250k, 3 years with 50k, and only 2 at near-zero. The Laptev is also sometimes a contributor, and even the Kara and Barents with some small amounts.
