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 - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75
1
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: Today at 11:40:29 AM »
Great chart.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 24, 2019, 11:31:05 PM »
The landfast ice in the ESS is simply vanishing - the GIF shows ice one day, gone the next. Look closely at the two last frames, large areas of ice simply disappear, but at the same time, the entire field starts shifting to the right and tearing like tissue paper.

Edit: The image is approximately 200km on each side, or 40.000 kilometres squared as the dude likes to say,  even three or four times in each posting, although always with the same spelling mistake.


That is amazing. 

That's not drift. Most of that is insitu melting.

We have never seen the ESS collapse this fast.

We are going on 60 hours of wall to wall sunshine.
This. Some ice cliffs simply don't show up in the present headline extent number, but they do affect the ice itself. The effect will be felt in the coming weeks until September. This is why I find Gerontocrat's claim of unjustified hyperbole in the melting thread to be unsubstantiated. Bad for the ice doesn't mean inmediate extent and area drops - this can only happen in regions where all or some of the ice is already thin. But in the ESS (for example) ice is quite thick, and to melt it to near-zero area by September requires major melting in June-July that barely affects area, if at all.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 24, 2019, 11:20:20 PM »
Cavity creep, I doubt the fires have much effect on the overall situation in the Arctic. I'd guess the temporary reds are clouds or some other weather artifacts, but surely the red flowing from the Siberian coast is the terrible heat there, weather related, the same heat that causes the fires.

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 06:28:41 PM »
B_l, while I echo your sentiments regarding harmful big business, lying oil companies, limiting/banning advertising, decentralization of energy production, self sufficiency and more, I must  say that my limited experience in life has shown that solving two problems at once is vastly more difficult than separating them and solving each of them independently of the other. If we wait to solve climate change so that the solution will be according to good principles, the solution will come slower and less guaranteed. I'd much rather solve climate change and have rich oil companies maintain their wealth, than have none of both. I'd much rather have a centralized grid of 100% renewables than a decentralized renewable generation of 30% or 50%. And so on. We don't have time to be anything else other than completely pragmatic.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 23, 2019, 05:38:21 PM »
Nice chart. The orange line should be reduced by 600-700 leftovers from last Q, but it's still a good result so far, a relatively small drop from the initial deliveries one-time craze.
Shipments still seem to be back-ended.

6
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 23, 2019, 03:56:52 PM »
In Aluminium's animation I also noticed ice moving east instead of south at the Fram exit. I think there are some wind effects in the region negating the movement induced by the currents.

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 23, 2019, 07:25:05 AM »
There was a sticker problem in China that led to non-compliance of the cars until it was fixed, and in Europe there were logistical problems that resulted in the sacking of the local company hired to do the logistics.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 23, 2019, 06:15:39 AM »
The delivery report is delivered very few days after Q end.

Re shipping, last Q Europe and China each got zero ships in Jan, 4 ships in Feb and 4 ships in Mar. This Q each got zero ships in Apr, 2 in May and 3 in June. Wave still seems intact, but the real proof will be whether July sees any arriving ships.

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 23, 2019, 04:54:49 AM »
Quote
Morten Grove  (@mortenlund89) 6/22/19, 8:07 AM
In Zeebrugge a truckload Tesla cars leaves every 10 minutes at present time  :o
By the much-heightened final week activity, it appears the "wave" was not fully defused. This could lead again to many cars in transit at Q end.

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 22, 2019, 11:58:30 PM »
There's a simple solution to all this. 

Speed up the transition from petroleum to electricity for transportation.  No more oil fields to fight over, no more oil fields to protect, no more tankers, no more refineries.  Cleaner air, no more oil spills, cheaper transportation.

If we got serious we could greatly degrade the oil industry in a decade.
YES.

11
The forum / Re: Forum authentication broken
« on: June 22, 2019, 11:21:56 PM »
I use this URL to browse the forum from my phone with no trouble.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=unread
IIRC there was some issue with logging in in two different locations (home? login screen?) but only one of them actually worked correctly.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?
« on: June 22, 2019, 06:16:52 PM »
This fix is always done only by Neven.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 22, 2019, 06:13:23 PM »
That's the plot but CT is long dead, I've yet to find a replacement for it.
I know Wipneus has replicated the CT data and even the CT regions. The data is somewhere on his site. But I've never seen this anomaly plot.

14
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: June 22, 2019, 06:06:38 PM »
I remember Falco too. Rock me Amadeus!

15
The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: June 22, 2019, 10:58:47 AM »
The Like system saves many thank you and "+1" posts and gives posters some sort of feedback. I like it.
But the ranking system is a bit inappropriate. Royalty is not democratic, and the titles can be scary to newbies.
I would change ranks to "insulting" but actually honorable titles, "community servant", "tree hugger" and so on. But I think "lurker" for long-time members who post little, and "newbie" for those newly-registered, are informative and should stay.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 22, 2019, 12:24:45 AM »
Some temps around the Arctic. Siberia is super-crazy, while the CAA keeps cool.

Kotelny - New Siberian Islands
Tiksi - Laptev Shore
Pevek - ESS shore.
Resolute - middle of the CAA near the main channel.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: June 22, 2019, 12:07:57 AM »
Thank you very much Steven.
I think the beige pixels should carry a larger weight, I would put it at around 0.75. Beyond that, the other factors make sense and the graph is useful as a complement to the beige-only graph.
Is there any way for you to generate a permanent link for this one as well?

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 21, 2019, 10:38:40 PM »
grixm, you may be a noob but you are spot on.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 21, 2019, 06:18:38 PM »
Bear in mind that the AMSR2 regional charts published by Wipneus follow a different demarcation of the various regions (mainly the CAB and its surrounding inner seas). This map should be somewhere on the forum as well.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: June 21, 2019, 06:15:15 PM »
Thank you Tom, great gif.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 21, 2019, 05:59:08 PM »
Good points Tor, but I was referring specifically to Baffin Bay volume, I should have been clearer.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 21, 2019, 05:54:35 PM »
I've tried to keep quiet so as not to contribute to the noise, but please - the off-topic (though intelligent) discussions are cluttering this thread, please move them to the "meaningless season chatter" thread where they belong.
The on-topic discussions and rebuttals of Geron's boilerplate commentary should be held in the melting season thread.
(Neven - please punish me if I'm wrong. Please punish everyone else if I'm right)

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 21, 2019, 05:28:39 PM »
The models with the highest margins (S & X) are aging and their sales are slowing. The Model 3 hasn't seen production increases in the last 6 months and the prices have been dropping quite rapidly since the early adopter backlog orders have been filled, and thus margins have been dropping.

Also, there are tons of expenses Tesla has been putting off like Service and Supercharging infrastructure.
Putting the tiresome "bear cult" rhetoric aside, I tend to agree with these (slightly edited) concerns about Tesla's business. And the demand/actual orders curve going forward is unclear, despite optimistic guidance by Tesla. But new models will come out and start selling 18 months from now - the Model Y for near-certain, and the Semi with some low probability. These models could have a greater attraction for the general market, which will also be more mature by then thanks to all the various announcement by other car makers, and to shifting media and public perception of EVs. And Tesla's newer models (3, Y, Semi) will still enjoy a strong lead in powertrain, battery design and efficiency/range. So if Tesla survives until the end of 2020 in its current form, the road forward could be much clearer.
I am not taking into account autonomy/robotaxis since I see zero probability that it will pay off and start making money by then.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: June 21, 2019, 02:31:38 PM »
As floes can easily be hundreds of meters across, and some reach tens of kilometers across, the effect of wave-induced wetness should be negligible.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 21, 2019, 10:34:24 AM »
Baffin Bay Note the 2000 Average line. That I do NOT understand
The problem is with the PIOMAS data itself. While the volume in the 2000s was modeled as higher than the 2010s, the minimum NSIDC area was almost the same in both decades. In addition, the volume in the 2000s barely reduces for weeks around the minimum, while area continues shrinking. It seems that either PIOMAS did not calibrate itself properly by the NSIDC area data in Baffin Bay as it is supposed to do, or that PIOMAS modeled extremely thick ice in the bay, perhaps due to export from Nares or the CAA, and that ice was the only thing left in September according to the model. I really doubt the second explanation, as PIOMAS lacks the resolution to achieve that kind of result.
But in any case, that's what you get when you divide two small numbers. I think the PIOMAS/NSIDC thickness calculation is more indicative during winter than during summer, and more indicative in the CAB than in seas that are seasonally ice free.

26
The Central Arctic Basin (CAB) made a great leap forward in melting. The total of the Inner Basin as defined by Wipneus (CAB+Beaufort+Chukchi+ESS+Laptev+Kara) is showing a similar behavior, and is threatening to reach a record low.

The Inner Basin graph and trend look terrifying.  I presume the loss is so steep because while the Pacific side has opened up early, the main pack has rotated towards the Atlantic side and much ice has poured out through the Fram and adjacent openings?  Much may then depend on how much melting takes place on the Atlantic side this year.  At present the retreat of the ice front on the Atlantic side seems slow to me, but if the ice on the Atlantic side is destined to melt back to the Barents/Kara continental shelf like it did last year, then things look grim indeed.
The inner volume has actually been trending lower and crossing lines in the chart since the beginning of March (day 60). I think this is indeed the cumulative effect of the pack's rotation towards the Atlantic. The effect is even larger than appears in the data, because the CAB's volume is heavier than usual in the sector north of Svalbard and FJL. But in addition to export, the extra collapse in June came because of actual melt in the Inner Basin, due to high temps, mostly clear skies, and melt ponding.
And I agree that should the Atlantic front return to its usual location in September, crunching through all the exported ice, minimum volume numbers could be quite low.

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 21, 2019, 02:25:32 AM »
Oren - from your post

Quote
We believe we will deliver between 90,000 and 100,000 vehicles in Q2.

That would put Q2 deliveries (which are sales) higher than the profitable Q3 and Q4 2018 average.  I don't see any guidance on changes in OpEx.  Put those two factors together and one should expect a profitable Q2 2019.

Maybe one should expect, but one should be wrong... here's the very same question raised in the Q2 conference call. Elon Musk tells a nice story, but I think Zach Kirkhorn gives the real answer - lower prices, lower margins.
Quote
Pierre Ferragu -- New Street Research -- Analyst

And my follow-up was really on Q2 like with 90,000 to 100,000 units you are getting back to fairly nice volumes and I am surprised you don't -- you just still expect a loss. So maybe if you could take us through where we will see in Q2 pain points compared to Q4 and Q3 where you had a profit for similar volumes? How much of the loss in 2Q will be one-off cost, how much is the price points coming down in the mix and how much is related to pricing and other things?

Elon R. Musk -- Chief Executive Officer

Sure. So quite a bit -- we think if we didn't unwind or pulled the wave where we -- yeah, we made cars in the first half of the quarter almost exclusively for Asia and Europe and in the second half almost exclusively for North America. And then actually even that is subdivided depending upon whether it's West Coast or East Coast, then we could deliver more cars. But we think it is important to unwind this wave, because it ends up being sort of optimizing for one quarter, but really adding a lot of cost and difficulty and not just -- not being a good expense for customers and pretty aggressive Tesla team. So, if we have to fully optimize for profitability in Q2, I think we can do it, but then we would be unable to unwind this crazy wave of deliveries, and it also helps our working capital within the quarter to not have the wave.

And then, Zach, do you want to talk about some of the other items?

Zachary Kirkhorn -- Chief Financial Officer

Yeah. No, I think you summarized it well, Elon. Two other things that I would add. One is that, we did make pricing adjustments to our products in Q1, which puts pressure on margin. And so, that's part of what we will see in Q2. The teams are working extremely hard and making terrific progress on improving the cost efficiency of the business without sacrificing growth, and that in combination with the efficiencies from unwinding the wave is where we feel we will be comfortable returning to a place of profitability in Q3 once all of those pieces are in place.

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 20, 2019, 08:21:14 PM »
Bob, here's the outlook section from Tesla's Q1 shareholder letter.
https://ir.tesla.com/static-files/b2218d34-fbee-4f1f-ac95-050eb29dd42f

Quote
OUTLOOK
Although we are driving towards higher internal goals, we reaffirm our prior guidance of 360,000 to 400,000 vehicle deliveries in 2019,
representing an increase of approximately 45% to 65% compared to 2018. Please note that vehicle production will be significantly higher
than deliveries, as it takes several weeks to transport cars from California to distant customers, especially in other countries, where they
must also be processed by customs. Deliveries, production and customer orders, which are all materially different, are often conflated
when analyzing Tesla.
If our Gigafactory Shanghai is able to reach volume production early in Q4 this year, we may be able to produce as many as 500,000
vehicles globally in 2019. This is an aggressive schedule, but it is what we are targeting. However, based on what we know today, being
able to produce over 500,000 vehicles globally in the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020 does appear very likely.
We continue to target a 25% non-GAAP gross margin on Model S, Model X and Model 3, depending on variant mix and option take rates
as our product offerings change.
In response to the operational challenges we experienced with international expansion in Q1, we are in the process of balancing our
regional vehicle builds throughout the quarter. This provides an opportunity for additional cost efficiencies in our factory, supply chain,
logistics operations and delivery centers.
With the recently announced product improvements on Model S and Model X, as well as continued expansion of Model 3 globally, we
expect our order rate to continue to increase throughout the year as our production levels increase. We believe we will deliver between
90,000 and 100,000 vehicles in Q2
. Although it is possible to deliver a higher number of vehicles, we believe it is important to begin
unwinding the "wave" approach to vehicle deliveries, where overseas cars have been made in the first half of the quarter and North
American cars have been made in the second half. This puts extreme stress on Tesla, negatively affects our working capital needs and
adds to our cost structure.
Energy generation and storage revenue should increase significantly in 2019. This increase is driven mainly due to the storage business
as we increase production to address our backlog in Powerwall orders and deliver on our pipeline of orders for commercial storage and
an expected growth in retrofit solar deployments in the second half of 2019. The gross margin of our Energy generation and storage
business should grow as the energy storage margin continues to improve from its current level.
We expect our Services and Other business to grow as our fleet size and used car volumes increase. We have refocused on
operational efficiency of these businesses and are targeting gross margin improvements throughout this year.
Our 2019 capex, the vast majority of which will be to grow our capacity and develop new vehicles, is expected to be about $2.0 to $2.5
billion. We believe this amount should be sufficient to continue to develop our main projects, such as Gigafactory Shanghai, Model Y
and Tesla Semi, as well as for the further expansion of our Supercharger and service networks.
Operating cash flow less capex should be positive in every quarter including Q2. As the impact of higher deliveries and cost reduction
take full effect, we expect to return to profitability in Q3 and significantly reduce our loss in Q2.

29
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 20, 2019, 07:38:54 PM »

Here's Tesla P/L for the previous three quarters in millions of dollars -

2018 Q3    $311,516   
2018 Q4   $139,483
2019 Q1   -$702,135

For the three quarters this sums to -$242,169.  Q3 and Q4 2018 averaged $225,500.  If Tesla's Q2 2018 profit is just 7.4% better than their Q3/Q4 2018 average then Tesla posts a profitable four quarter year.

Again, there are no signs that Tesla has large expense increases this quarter and signs that Q2 2019 production is higher than ever.
Even should Tesla achieve its delivery guidance of 90k-100k vehicles in Q2, which is by no means guaranteed, it is not expected to turn a profit, at least according to the same guidance. If it does it will be a huge surprise.

30
Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: June 20, 2019, 04:59:07 PM »
On the second day out Sailing from Darwin Australia to Christmas Island (about 1400NM due West) the wind died entirely , no wind.
Wow, that sounds like a trip from hell.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 02:47:53 PM »
Friv, did you really begin your weather career at age 11?? I'm seriously impressed.
BTW, keep up the hyperbole, when it's coming from you it's totally believable. I find your analysis (and language) spot on.

32
Nares was so afraid that it blew a massive wind from the south to keep her away.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 20, 2019, 10:03:57 AM »
UH AMSR2 (smaller grid) gives a figure of -60k for extent, -93k for area.

34
The Central Arctic Basin (CAB) made a great leap forward in melting. The total of the Inner Basin as defined by Wipneus (CAB+Beaufort+Chukchi+ESS+Laptev+Kara) is showing a similar behavior, and is threatening to reach a record low.
The CAA, a typical holdout of thick ice, is far from a record low but keeping up the melting.
The Greenland Sea is being fed by all the missing volume in the Inner Basin, keeping up volume at a time of year when it should be dropping.

35
Some people have use for the updated regional data files:
Thank you so much for providing this data Wipneus.
Here are some regional charts, all showing the disturbing behavior of 2019.
First the major seas inside the Arctic Basin: Beaufort, Chukchi, ESS, Laptev. The Beaufort and Chukchi are both at a record low, despite the recent dispersion into the Beaufort. The ESS and Laptev both dropped sharply.

36
I also recommend to read this and browse the links in there:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/

Quote
Sea Ice Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS, Zhang and Rothrock, 2003) developed at APL/PSC.
...
Sea ice volume is an important climate indicator. It depends on both ice thickness and extent and therefore more directly tied to climate forcing than extent alone.  However,  Arctic sea ice volume cannot currently be observed continuously.  Observations from satellites, Navy submarines, moorings, and field measurements are all limited in space and time.  The assimilation of observations into numerical models currently provides one way of estimating sea ice volume changes on a continuous basis over several decades.   Comparisons of the model estimates of the ice thickness with observations help test our understanding of the processes represented in the model that are important for sea ice formation and melt.
...
Model and Assimilation Procedure
PIOMAS is a numerical model with components for sea ice and ocean and the capacity for assimilating some kinds of observations. For the ice volume simulations shown here, sea ice concentration information from the NSIDC near-real time product are assimilated into the model to improve ice thickness estimates and SST data from the NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis are assimilated in the ice-free areas.  NCEP/NCAR reanalysis SST data are based on the global daily high-resolution Reynolds SST analyses using satellite and in situ observations (Reynolds and Marsico, 1993; Reynolds et al., 2007). Atmospheric information to drive the model, specifically wind, surface air temperature, and cloud cover to compute solar and long wave radiation are specified from the NCEP/NCAR reanalysis. The pan-Arctic ocean model is forced with input from a global ocean model at its open boundaries located at 45 degrees North.

Model Validation and Uncertainty
PIOMAS has been extensively validated through comparisons with observations from US-Navy submarines, oceanographic moorings, and satellites. In addition model runs were performed in which model parameters and assimilation procedures were altered.  From these validation studies we arrive at conservative estimates of the uncertainty in the trend of  ± 1.0 103 km3/decade. The uncertainty of the  monthly averaged ice volume anomaly is estimated as ±0.75  103 km3. Total volume uncertainties are larger than those for the anomaly because model biases are removed when calculating the anomalies. The uncertainty for October total ice volume is estimated to be  ±1.35 103 km3 .  Comparison of winter  total volumes with other volume estimates need to account for the fact that the PIOMAS domain currently does not extend southward far enough to cover all areas that can have winter time ice cover.  Areas in the Sea of Okhotsk and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence are partially excluded from the domain.  Details on model validation can be found in Schweiger et al. 2011  and (here). Additional information on PIOMAS can be found (here)

A comprehensive library of sea ice thickness data for model validation has been compiled and is available (here)

37
VOLUME:- We are told (and logic supports this) that as volume declines PIOMAS volume calculations get more prone to error - the freeboard amount, grid element by grid element, that is translated into thickness  becomes very small. This is then multiplied by a factor of around 10(?) to get the thickness of each element. The sensors have their limits.
(Warning: Layman's unverified explanation) Note that PIOMAS is not based on freeboard measurements by satellite sensors. PIOMAS is based on calculations of energy transfer (temps, winds, insolation, bottom melt) and ice movement. It's a model, not a measurement, although it is calibrated by NSIDC ice concentration data - when area disappears, so does part of the volume. PIOMAS model results have been compared to other ice thickness sources, and performed relatively well.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 19, 2019, 03:47:42 PM »
I think it also belongs here. Nares has quite the influence this year, as it guts the thickest and oldest ice.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 19, 2019, 03:45:58 PM »
PIOMAS is calibrated to NSIDC sea ice concentration, which has coarse resolution (25x25km). Perhaps NSIDC shows this area with some ice?

40
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 19, 2019, 02:49:09 PM »
IIRC, what S&S found was that the methane plumes over the ESAS grew over time, rather than subside after a few days.

41
The volume and volume-anomaly graphs show how close 2019 is tracking 2012.
Well 2019 certainly took a dive.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:23:33 AM »
June 14-18.
CAB ice hurrying to the exits in Fram, Svalbard-FJL gap, and the Beaufort. While extent is currently growing in these regions, the rest of the season looks gloomy.

43
Arctic background / Re: Arctic Maps
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:13:43 AM »
The various routes of the Northwest Passage, with thanks to Jim Hunt.


44
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: June 19, 2019, 07:49:27 AM »
I recommend to read
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/thin-ice-thickness/
Quote
SMOS
The thickness of thin sea ice (SIT) is daily retrieved from observations of the L-band microwave sensor SMOS (Soil Moisture and Ocean Salinity). Horizontal and vertical polarized brightness temperatures in the incidence angle range of 40° to 50° are averaged. The ice thickness is then inferred from the polarization difference and the intensity using an empirical method (Huntemann et al., 2014).

Thin sea ice occurs during the freezing season. In the melting season, the thickness of sea ice is highly variable and the emission properties in the microwave change due to the wetness of the surface and occurrence of melt ponds in the Arctic. Therefore, thickness data are calculated only during the freezing season, that is from October to April in the Arctic and from March to September in the Antarctic. During the melting season, the procedure does not yield meaningful results.

As the resolution of SMOS at the used incidence angle range is about 40 km, only larger regions of thin ice will be retrieved correctly. The rim of thin ice shown in many cases not necessarily indicates thin ice, but can also be caused by the smearing effect (convolution) of the low resolution.

Each day of ice thickness data product are calculated twice to ensure that all swath files were available in the archived product. First processing is done directly on the next day with only about 7 hours delay. At this time it can happen that not all swath files are available and another processing of the same day is initiated 23 hours later. In more than 50% of the time the first processing does not include all swath but usually provides sufficient coverage for Arctic and Antarctic regions.

This service has been developed in the framework of the EU project SIDARUS. After completion of the SIDARUS project end 2013, the service is continued on a best effort base in the context of the Polar View and of the Arctic Regional Ocean Observing System (Arctic ROOS).

Other useful links which I haven't read in full yet:
https://icdc.cen.uni-hamburg.de/1/daten/cryosphere/l3c-smos-sit.html
Uni Hamburg SMOS page.

http://seaice.de/Kaleschke_2016.pdf
SMOS sea ice product: Operational application and validation in the
Barents Sea marginal ice zone

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/13/675/2019/tc-13-675-2019.html
Combined SMAP–SMOS thin sea ice thickness retrieval


45
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: June 19, 2019, 05:36:43 AM »
Check out this post by A-Team in the Test Space thread for some more information.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2558.msg206386.html#msg206386
Quote
Smos and Smos-Smap can't help but still report ice thinness but that is overlain -- and overwhelmed -- by other factors contributing dielectric. Note the color sequence in the palette is maintained south to north, with the periphery 'thinner'. This does not agree well with melt pond distribution (blueish in WorldView) because a number of other factors contribute to the overall artifact picture, such as ice surface roughness and floe vs open water distribution relative to instrument ground resolution.

Both are passive satellite instruments that do not use altimeters. In winter, they measure the change in stokes parameters as emitted blackbody radiation from the upper cms of ocean water passes through the anisotropic ice above. Like so many hand-me-down Arctic tools, Smos and Smap have been re-purposed from their originalmission design which required a near-polar orbit and so provided accidental coverage of the Arctic Ocean.

Smos and Smap in summer have been wrongly written off in journals. There is still information there if you 'let go' of ice thinness; inter-year comparisons must indicate something (but what?). A glance at the non-beige colors above the CAA (where the ice is entirely >0.5m) shows an interesting correlation with a dramatic shift in Ascat brightness. So it is an interpretive matter of what the colors are telling us.

The gif investigates an overlay of SMOS and high-resolution WV visible on a clear day. Again, it is not clear what visible features on the ice surface correlate with Smos and Smap map colors.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: June 19, 2019, 02:59:26 AM »
Steven thanks for your analysis of SMOS chart (and for the automated dropbox link for the "beige index"). I agree an aggregate SMOS index taking all the colors with some kind of weighting could be quite useful in summer. Just don't call it volume, as it doesn't represent thickness at this stage, but mostly surface wetness.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 19, 2019, 02:39:20 AM »
TeaPotty you should be ashamed of yourself. MH made a perfectly useful and informative post, and is certainly not a troll.

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 18, 2019, 09:39:22 PM »
Quote
I agree that 400 miles (645 km) is more of a psychological necessity then a physical one. But it also supplies a buffer for cold weather, air conditioning, and mountainous driving.
And towing.

49
Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: June 18, 2019, 09:26:07 PM »
In my layman's view, it's a bad place for calving because it increases the distance of the PIG to the Thwaites tributary glacier, and further decreases any hopes of buttressing between them. It's also somewhat expected, as once the buttressing was lost the east side of the PIG was supposed to speed up a little.

50
I think the lines are misplaced. The black line should have been horizontal, and the red line should not have started from the absolute peak.
That is, if the numbers for the earlier decades are reliable.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 75