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 - Tensor

Pages: [1] 2
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 28, 2017, 05:38:57 PM »
Thanks for all your work on this.  It's one of the tabs I leave open so I can look at it every day.  Your efforts were really appreciated by this member.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 07, 2017, 07:44:17 AM »
If we just discount a certain percentage from the current values, shouldn't we also discount a certain percentage from the 2012 values, for the blue on the sat images in 2012?   That 15% threshold was there in 2012 also, so if you going to take a certain percentage off of this years values, then you should take if off of the 2012 value for a valid comparison. 

Likewise, if you are going to claim compaction would put it lower than 2012 then you should account for compaction for 2012.  Either way, if you don't do the same for both years, you're doing an invalid comparison. 

 

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 26, 2017, 07:44:33 AM »
Small drop of only 60.9k km2. So, I didn´t guess it well...  8)

It's OK Juan, we did have a century drop, it just occurred over two days... ;)

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: October 31, 2016, 05:54:50 PM »
Gives some cause to lie in bed awake at night.  That's disturbing.

Yeah, it is worrying.  I just can't shake the feeling, with no backing what so ever, that while 2016 didn't crash to a new record, it has set up 2017 for that crash.  Much like 2006 and 2011 seemingly set up 2007 and 2012. 

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: October 31, 2016, 07:17:46 AM »
Nice work Sleepy.

Gives some insight to a partial reason for the low and slow ice expansion. 

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 11, 2016, 12:18:11 AM »
However the gap to 2012 is much smaller if you look at area instead of extent:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2016/09/the-2016-arctic-sea-ice-metric-minima/
As far as the postulated 5 year cycle...


 We are smack on 2011.

If we are, 2017 could be very interesting. 

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 31, 2016, 07:46:30 AM »
20160730 -88053
925mb temps still tracking 2011.

Would you please stop doing that?

I'm with you epiphyte. 

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 24, 2016, 09:31:20 PM »
But that perspective changed after the addition of today's data:

So, do we call a sharp upward movement an inselberg or monadnock? 

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: July 21, 2016, 11:27:40 PM »
todays midday image from Obuoy14: the reflection ot the AOFB shows water at the surface again.

Andreas, is that open water, a melt pond, or just sun on a ridge of ice, in the sun, just above the AOFB?

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 17, 2016, 09:48:32 PM »

But I see from comments that your vote has increased every month after starting at 2.75-3 in May.

Probably outside that 20 post limit.... ;)

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 15, 2016, 06:20:24 AM »
ok, very well, that makes sense, i took it more optical, some kind of steepening from the previous main
direction of the curve but i think what you elaborated can be well used as a definition for now. thanks, very much appreciated.
If the last three days would have occurred prior to our comments, I wouldn't have argued with your use of the word cliff.  Although I think Born's definition is a pretty good one.   

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 14, 2016, 01:06:20 AM »
 
that's interesting, i referred to exactly his point and i say 2 cliffs happened,

snip...

 meaning behind it.

You know, I don't see any of that, nor anything that can honestly be called a cliff in the data Epsen's been posting.  Since this is the IJIS thread, I'll be more than happy to apologize, as soon as you point out the double century drop in the IJIS or even a high century drop, in the last month to six weeks.

 
EDIT...BTW he did and it's all good, why should others chime in on behalf of someone who can easily elaborate himself ...?

Why shouldn't others chime in? Do you object to others chiming in, in an open forum?  After all, you were allowed to chime in here, in an IJIS extent thread, with area data which had no relevance to the data here.  Yet you object others chiming in asking where the evidence for a cliff is?  Sounds like an interesting ethical conundrum, no? 

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 13, 2016, 04:57:21 PM »
the point i cannot see is what your problem is if someone gets a feel that an acceleration lays ahead, if you don't share that opinion simply contradict with reason an all is good. that can be a lot of fun to see which reasons prevails and which another time, while the precondition that the motives are case oriented and not self-profiling oriented or in other words, to keep it "funny" both parties have to be good "loosers" :-)

I suppose you want us to send our posts to you first, so you can approve or disapprove them as to whether or not you see the point. As a matter of fact, it seems you were so busy telling him what was wrong with his post, you entirely missed the point of his post. That there have been posts claiming a cliff for over a month now, and those cliffs didn't happen.

Where's the cliff from a month ago? What are the reasons it didn't show up?  From two weeks ago?  Why is this cliff going to be different from that one, that again didn't show up? How does the first century drop of the month count as a cliff?  So far, it seems those cliffs were based on how individuals interpret the data.  One has been repeatedly asked to provide actual images, but continues to post models, models I might add with known limitations. To defend the cliff call, sorry catastrophe.

I see you think August is going to be different in terms of weather.  Why exactly do we trust you when it's known that forecasts are very inaccurate out past ten days and we have over two weeks to go before we get to August.

Sorry for the rant Neven.  I've been coming here to get sober analysis of the situation in he Arctic. That I have to peck through the "looks like" chickenshit from a flock of Chicken Littles who seem to cherry peck (yes I know what I said)which info to use, base on supporting thier own point of view, then accuse one of the most helpful contributors of trolling, is more than a bit disheartening.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 07, 2016, 08:06:48 PM »
I hear you loud and clear on that one seaicesailor, but how long before the next greenhorn comes along and gets all dramatic when they see one of these models?

Sometime later this year possibly, but more likely next year.  I've been here four years, and have seen them come and go. I've been here mostly as a lurker, simply because the long term people here know way more than I do.  But even I can seen the cherry picked data, and the incompatible comparisons.  Personally, I see this year as a run up to a crash next year.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 07, 2016, 05:38:24 AM »
Heheheh, I love how the graph for this year has several times gotten "this close" to 2012, then moves away to stay lower.  Although not sure how many more times it will be able to stay lower.   

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 04, 2016, 06:10:07 AM »
Thanks slow wing (and of course, wipneus) .  Those graphs make the June stall, in all three resolutions, quite apparent.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 24, 2016, 09:33:14 PM »
IJIS:

Will not be updated by me, due to a visit to an internet remote island during the weekend! 8)

OK, I picked a good weekend to be out of touch myself....

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 20, 2016, 07:07:37 AM »
No, it's updated.   There simply isn't an update for June 18.    The June 17 value is 9,870,723 km2and the value for June 19th is 9,731,186 km2.  The was a two day drop of 139,537 km2. An average drop of 69,768 km2 for each day (18th and 19th)

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 17, 2016, 11:28:05 PM »
Yes, Eureka has some impressive weather. But it is quite land-locked in the centre of Ellesmere with all of Axel Heiberg Island to the West. It warms easily for its latitude. Don't give it too much importance.

Ahhhhhh, OK, I was making a point about it setting records and I was under the impression that the warmth was over more than just Eureka and  Thanks for clearing that up for me. 

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 17, 2016, 10:00:36 PM »
  ?   Eureka is claiming just 13.9'C atm as today's highest temperature ..

I think there may be a transcription error.  They are currently showing 14C(which I suppose could be mistaken for 19).  Even so, 14C sets a new record high for the date.

A toasty 14.2 this evening, and still 14C at 11pm at night. Given the location and date, those temperatures are phenomenal.

Yesterday(16 Jun), we mentioned that Eureka set a new high temp with 14C (previous was 12C). Today(17 June) it has already hit 16C, breaking the previous record of 14C for the date.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 17, 2016, 05:08:13 AM »
  ?   Eureka is claiming just 13.9'C atm as today's highest temperature ..

I think there may be a transcription error.  They are currently showing 14C(which I suppose could be mistaken for 19).  Even so, 14C sets a new record high for the date.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Decaying Tropical Cyclones?
« on: June 07, 2016, 04:51:37 PM »
Speaking of decaying tropical cyclones, I live in mid-peninsula Florida, Pasco county and t.s. Colin is proving to be a bit of a bust! The storm is making landfall near the panhandle, but the weather so far has been little more than typical June weather. Not that I'm complaining, because at this time of year, Florida is an easy target.

Sarasota here.  We got nailed. We were in one of the trains of storms. Very heavy rain, winds to 40. 

23
As I did last year, I'm using the eyeball method, and rolling my 20 sided die.  The GAC critically hits itself, so I don't think we'll beat 2012, leaving me at 3.25-3.50   

24
Wow.   :-X

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 14, 2016, 05:54:45 PM »
My fault.  I thought the 10% above average meant 10% more melt.  I couldn't figure out how more melt ended with a lower loss.   I had the wording switched around.  My bad.  Thanks for the clarification. 

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 14, 2016, 04:53:39 PM »
A Couple of Big IFs

The below are possibilities based on my simplistic projections:

BIG IF #1

If SIE losses are consistently 10% above average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 90K Km2 below 2012.

BIG IF #2

If SIE losses are consistently average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 440K Km2 below 2015 and almost 225K Km2 below 2007.

OL, for consistent 10% losses should that be 900k below 2012?

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 14, 2016, 06:21:17 AM »
To hit 10MKM2 we must now average about -76KM2/day through 6/1. I think that is doable.

Well, by today IJIS, we're 41k ahead of what we need to average. Wow.   

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 13, 2016, 05:50:14 AM »
IJIS:

11,488,450 km2(May 12, 2016)

Loss of a half a million in six days.  11,986,358 on May 6th. 

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 12, 2016, 07:33:14 AM »

How can the record temp be set at 11.33 at night?  ???

Two things, at this time of year, the sun is up for 24 hours in Barrow (max height is at approximately 18:30.  Also, time of day doesn't matter as to when warm air is moving through. 

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 12, 2016, 06:42:15 AM »
IJIS:

11,573,104 km2(May 11, 2016)

It appears that extent is now half a million below the previous low year.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 07, 2016, 01:30:35 AM »


Hey, don't blame me; 'twas Sreekumar & Nirmalan who wrote the paper.They're obviously part of the dark-money Worldwide Elephant Hide Area Comparsion cabal. Bastards...

Ahhhhhhh, yes, the Elephanati.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 03, 2016, 04:52:40 AM »
Quote
are those coordinates accurate on the image?  If they are, it appears your image has the buoy around 105 W, not 149 W.  Or am I missing something?
You're right. What you see is what I got taking a screenshot of EOSDIS Worldview display coordinates, it looks like they have a grievous programming error in the mouse-over lat, lon coordinates as well as the snap box corners.

snip...

It is an unfortunate situation that we can't effortlessly marshall all the data in one sensible coord system. Every time something has to be re-projected, the data is degraded. Only a very few operations are harmless.

OK, thanks for the explanation.  I'm excited in a way, as I am no where near you guys when it comes to manipulating data, images, and explaining these things.   So, for me to catch something, and be of some small bit of help is kinda cool for me.  That it came at the expense of your work, makes it a little less cool.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 03, 2016, 01:43:28 AM »
Quote
The floe that ice mass balance buoy 2015F is sitting on has finally reached a thickness of 2 meters:
Pos: 81.85 N, 149.52 W
Air Temp: -11.17 C
Snow depth: 17 cm
Ice thickness: 200 cm
It would really be a lot better to plot the drift of these buoys on some other projection than Mercator, namely the common projection used by nullschool stereographic and and WorldView (Greenland-down polar). Then we could see what the past, present and predicted ambient conditions are by combining the various available features.

This buoy is actually sitting on the outer edge of the active Beaufort Gyre. Here I maneuvered the upper right corner of the snapshot feature until the lat,lon coordinates matched up very closely to those provided.

A-Team,
are those coordinates accurate on the image?  If they are, it appears your image has the buoy around 105 W, not 149 W.  Or am I missing something?

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 01, 2016, 08:07:17 AM »
Here is the run-up to the 30 Apr 16 event at 250 m resolution. These cracks open and close like lightening strikes on a scale of single days. The speed of propagation is hard to pin down given once a day imaging. The locator map is provided in #755.

I was fascinated by the movement, of the main mass, to the top right of the picture, after the crack happens, for some reason. That's a lot of Ice to be moving. 

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 24, 2016, 08:39:49 PM »
I  would now put 12.2 as the mid range expectation for May 1st.  That  is 350K below the previous record and requires slightly less melt than we have seen in the last week. Climate Reanalyzer suggests that  most of the border areas will  see massive positive temperature anomalies during the next week.  I  would also  put  the likelihood of a new record low well above 50% and the likelihood of an 'ice free' minimum at, at least, 20%.

My error, I wasn't talking about the end of the month for the half a million.  But from looking at the graph, it appears that by around the 26th, 27th, 28th, it may reach the half a million below the previous low year. After that, the previous years start to drop getting to the 350 k you mentioned for the end of the month.

As for your other two numerical comments, I agree your new record low has over a 50% chance, but I think 20% for an "Ice Free" minimum is too large.   :)

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 24, 2016, 06:33:10 AM »
First off, thank you again Espen for your continued work presenting the SIE.  It is truly appreciated from this reader.

While I don't think it's going to reach 12 million by the end of the month, I'm now wondering if it will get to a half a million km2 below the current lowest year. 

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 20, 2016, 06:42:04 AM »
Back to the Beaufort.

World View, Aqua Modis band 31 night, blue palette, squashed to about 230K-272K, Beaufort and environs.

This disturbs me, and am I wrong to assume it is unprecedented?  The Anticyclone has ripped up nearly 1,000,000 KM2 of ice and continues to expand the disruption.

Am I wrong to assume the the breakup shown is an indication of the lack of thickness and poor condition of the ice?

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 20, 2016, 06:38:56 AM »
IJIS:

12,928,117 km2(April 19, 2016)
Everyone else as speechless and terrified about this as I am?

Can it average a drop of 85k a day?  Getting below 12 million before the end of April would really really be terrifying. 

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 10, 2016, 11:05:37 PM »
I'm going to go way out on a ice bridge here, 2016: Earliest year to 13 million km2. :)

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 04, 2016, 08:41:13 PM »
Yes, we're getting a cold snap with northerly winds in the Bering Sea in a couple of days, so the max could end a bit higher still.

Once bitten, twice shy  ;)

Heheheheh, yeah Neven won't call it, he'll just start the melting season thread.   :P

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: February 21, 2016, 04:07:36 PM »
The winds, out of the south, Look to be pretty strong, in the last few frames.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: Records and oddities
« on: February 20, 2016, 04:29:12 AM »
Quote
Brian McNoldy: Much of U.S. is slightly warmer than average, but North Pole area is 45°F warmer than average for this date!!

https://twitter.com/bmcnoldy/status/700751482593742848

Everything is bigger in the US? (45 F = 7,2 C)

While the number is still bigger in the US, a difference of 45F is ~25C.    0F = -17.7C  45F = 7.2C   17.7+7.2 = 24.9

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015/2016 freezing season
« on: January 31, 2016, 05:48:46 PM »
Neven, isn't the smudge at the approximate location where Climate Re-analyzer showed the path warm air was moving into the CAB, earlier this month?  Now, it looks like there is a warm air blob sitting over the spot.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: January 31, 2016, 08:10:24 AM »
Wouldn't that require the deniers to actually accept, you know, facts, scientific methods, and reasoning? If so, not sure I see it happening.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015/2016 freezing season
« on: December 29, 2015, 04:23:01 AM »

The pattern the next three months is actually most key, and could turn things around, fairly quickly.

But I don't think that's how it will play out. 

So far as I have read, it doesn't sound like the Arctic is going to get any respite from the blowtorch El Niño has set loose in the Northern Hemisphere.

It's amazing to me, looking at Climate Reanalyzer, how the heat keeps getting pumped into the CAB.  It's heat coming at the CAB in waves. 

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015/2016 freezing season
« on: December 27, 2015, 04:52:52 AM »
I don't have an answer for you jdallen, but after reading your post, I looked at the predicted temperature anomaly on the GFS World Map (not the Arctic map) at Climate Reanalyzer.   At 108 hours out, the entire top of the map (say from 85 to 90 North was a bright red.  Wow.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: September 15, 2015, 04:16:44 PM »
Actually the gif loop looks like a 4-year cycle, 2012 seems what is to come in 2016. Just saying :--)

Someone, near the beginning of the melt season, mentioned the similarities (temps, weather, ice positioning, etc.  I wish I could remember) between 2011 and 2015 and how they expected 2015 would be low, but not a record.  They expected 2016 to set the new record, based on the 2015 melt basically prepping the pack for a record melt the next year. Again, while it's something I remembered reading here, I just can't remember the specifics, but the general idea stuck with me.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 24, 2015, 02:04:34 AM »
How about not feeding the troll(s)?

Actually, please feed the trolls, with all the information.  As a loyal lurker, I learn quite a bit when the trolls get rebutted. 

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 14, 2015, 08:20:15 AM »
IJIS:

5,618,256 km2(August 13, 2015)down 44,725 km2 from previous.

this can't be correct. watch the ice close on world view. a lot of ice is melting out in extremely high tempo and  fabsolutely in a big area of beaufort sea.

Unless you have some actual numbers to go with those pictures on world view, yes it is correct. 

Pages: [1] 2