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 - SATire

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
Laurent, that strategy depends on your personal plans.

If you can build that machine - build it and sell it. Do not tell how it works to get rich in a short time.
If you want to sue anybody else who wants to build it - make a patent and sue everybody and become richer on the longer run.
If you can build it together with investors money - write the patent to prevent, that all success goes to the investors (the owner of the company is the one, who gave most money and a patent has some "future-value").
If you know someone else who would build it and want some money - write a patent and sell some licences to producers (not only one - because that may kill the idea if the buyer changes his mind).

But in most cases I would follow Jim Pettit's suggestion - if you do not want to / can not sue everybody else: Make it public domain if you can not build it allone. If it needs a lot of poeple, their work is valuable, too. Think of GNU-license (copy-left) - that guarantees, that the idea will stay in the world.

For an EU wide patent, the cost is something like €500,000.  For a UK one, the cost is roughly £300.  I might do that as it might focus me and get people interested.
No - an EU-patent is about 30.000 € - it can be cheaper if you write it without the lawyer, but normaly the lawyer makes some sense here. There are 2 reasons for a patent: 1st for a start up - a patent would be considered as your "property" - so you have some value to balance the money from vc, so you may take a larger fractio nof the company. 2nd reason is, that a patent is a entrance card to the court - e.g. if you want to sue SIEMENS. No chance at all for you. So - if you do not want to get investors - make it public or build it secret, since a patent explaines everybody how to do it...

And to repeat: No chance to patent a perpetuum mobile in EU. They know it will not work so there is no benefit so there is nothing to protect. That is simple logic. Try it in USA - everything is possible there.

You will not get a patent on a perpetuum mobile. As long as your machine tries to work arround thermodynamics, the patent will not be granted anyway and it doesn't matter how much money you would put into it.

If you need venture capital to develop the idea, e.g. you need 1 mio € to build some prototypes, you would have to promise the investors 10 mio € because they know that you have only a 10% chance for success. So - for me you gave not enough information to give you that money.

But if you see a chance to explain your idea and you could attract some investors to give the necessary money for reasonable costs, I could find some poeple to build a prototype and a fab here.

The ASMR-2 pixel scale is about 9x9 km.
Werther - the new U-Hamburg concentration maps from the ASMR-2 sensor is a bit larger than 3x3 km2 and the pixel value is proportional to SIA. So we have a very easy tool to check the Navy-concentration maps or U-Bremen/CT-maps (by very simple histogram mean function e.g. in gimp/PS/...). As mentioned above - directly measured SIA in the CAB is significantly higher (~80%) than the values given by CICE/hycom or U-Bremen/CT (~50-60 %) in some areas and possibly in agreement with ocasional observations at some spots through the clouds in MODIS (80-90%). That is realy confusing - probably something is wrong with SIA determination/prediction out there. Would be nice if someone would like to check that simple thing - otherwise I stay feeling a bit lonely.

Nightvid Cole, there is really some loss of sea ice area in the CAB on the Russian side - as you can see also in the high res maps from Hamburg: -
But SIA in that upper area in the CAB (in direction of Laptev and Kara seas) is in the range of 80% - so the values of ~50% concentration from CT or hycom/CICE look very exaggerated to me. Also by Modis you see some SIA-lowering - but by far not close to 50% water.
Observations seem very uncertain in CAB these days if you find a lot of maps with large areas of 50%  water and if you measure on your own it results in 10-20% water area (80-90% ice concentration) at the same positions. What is the reason for this discrepancy? Alarmists at Bremen or just bad maps? Worst case numbers from Navy? Or bad pictures from all satellites? 

The SIA-loss on the left side of the CAB (towards Canada) still looks quite similar to water vapour artifacts - so we should wait some more days to see if those losses are real.

SIA is now quite clearly dropped in CAB in the map from yesterday - at least at Russian side there are a lot dark shades of grey which look different from the "water vapour smear". SIA loss determined from that map using e.g. gimp is quite impressive. The dark areas in Beaufort are not that clearly real.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 11, 2013, 10:29:08 AM »
I think I'd amend "you want" to "we all want" - in the sense that an individual or small group are not going to be able to influence collapse at the macroscopic level.
Two things we learned '68 while overcoming Nazi-behaviour in Germany: "Think global & act local" and "you can not force someone to happiness" (after Nietzsche). So everybody is free to find his/her own way of life.
Since we are democracies we have to wait for the slower communities e.g. to sign Kyoto ff. later. I think Germany will slow down a bit in the next years to wait for some more countries to agree to the treaty - we have some time since we easily can prepare for a sea-level rise of 4-5 m, flooding and drought.
On the other hand if there is the risk to excess the collapse-threshold of several societies, e.g. even pacifist green poeple would probably not hesitate to destroy others capability to harm the childrens life by excessively emitting CO2. Reasonable societies will have to prevent unreasonable ones from destroying the basis of all of us.
Maybe if China is really going to lead the world as some suppose to, they could act even more straight-forward in future.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 10, 2013, 04:10:18 PM »
Indeed Laurent. I know some poeple over at GLS (Gemeinschaftsbank für Leihen und Schenken - translated to "community bank for loans and gifts". Where money makes sense.

We can also buy our daily products at dm or organic food in super markets and pure renewable electricity from our local grid - everything is doable today and a collapse can easily avoided, if you want.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA
« on: June 10, 2013, 04:02:12 PM »
As I know the Japanese way to do things, I would guess they are triple and quadruple checking ASMR2 and after everything is fine and some days stood fine, they may follow the road Wipneus suggested above :-)
Maybe CT joined them 2 days ago?

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 09, 2013, 11:54:13 PM »
I wonder what the timescale of the step by step would be for the disasters that will occur with the gradual decline of civilisation; enough for to plan ahead against it or just too quick for one to devise a plan for survival in a post collapse world?
fishmahboi, I would not consider the transition as "gradual decline of civilisation". The only thing we need to do is to consume less and to reduce the amount of resources in such a way, that the resources will be enough for all poeple in the world. But civilization and social life can still be similar or even better in future - I think that is the direction to work for. To consume less und to live better together with your friend next to you and the friends abroad. Collapse would only happen if we stay with selective exponential growth on the cost of others or the future.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 09, 2013, 07:10:31 PM »
Thank you for that hint, Laurent. Maybe collapse is step-by-step and allready happening: After the bubble collapsed the finance bubble is collapsing for some years. Maybe after that we will face collapsing of redundant lawyers and marketing experts? Somehow we have to concentrate our work on things poeple really need. If ressources are tight we do not want to feed other poeple in the same way as we did when ressources where "unlimitted". And if we are able to reduce our consumption to a reasonable one, e.g. to share a car and a TV between 10 families, then we should be safe to sustain a similar living standard for all 9 billion poeple on the planet - that could be a stable civilization system.

I see some problems for areas like Berlin, London, New York city, Phoenix and especially Los Angeles and the Bay Area - how can one feed that much poeple living in a desert like area producing mostly virtual things? E.g. after a earthquake if poeple have drunken all the water in their swimming pools - what could they do?
If you live in places like that you should not do survival training but find some good friends e.g. in Missouri where you could move to when you realize the first signs of collapse. Because what would you do with millions of strange survival trained poeple in the desert? Poeple from Berlin e.g. could easily move to northern Mc.Pom - lots of space there. Similar maybe in northern California/Oregon? And if you are a lawyer or banker or so - maybe you try to get some additional skills enabling you to impress a farmer in case of collapse?

Regarding SIA and U-Bremen concentration loss in CAB: In our new concentration maps from U-Hamburg and made usefull by Wipneus we can see that in higher resolution and measure SIA on our own with simple tools like gimp.
But we can also see some smear-like structures which are due to water vapour (as mentioned by scientist Lars in Neven's blog - New map on the block). I think we have to wait until that "smear-features" fade away, since they are the reason for a measured SIA-loss, which is not there in reality. The good thing is, that the "smear" is clearly visible and we are warned by this feature. The bad thing is, that our own SIA measurements can not work around that issue and are not better than CT or U-Bremen measurements, therefore.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 08, 2013, 07:25:32 PM »
I've been assuming that without some form of central control lawlessness would spread rapidly and those that possessed things of value (food sources?) would spend an inordinate amount of time and energy defending what they have.
I do remember Canadians that were traveling through Europe in the early 50's saying that German farms looked as though nothing had happened while French farmers were still plowing around broken tanks. It's not impossible that German culture is somehow more resilient than most.
TerryM, I would like to comment on your two points.
First, rural structures are much older than modern urban organizations. In small villages structures are quite independent from any central government and the set-up of the state - kingdom, dictatorship, democracy or anarchy does not matter that much for rural life. The villages in Europe are often more than 1000 years old and they are by no means the peaceful hippies from a Mad Max or Robin Hood movie. Farmers can not move away so they defend their property, their livelihood. We have not much private guns in Germany - but in every village we have a well organized gun club with names like Landwehr (militia). You will not steal anything from farmers - a rocker gang would kindly ask them for work to get some food. So in Europe we have a stable basis independent from states or government. I am not sure about USA - but I would guess you may find similar structures in e.g. Pennsylvania and in Midwest.

Secondly - different cultures. I think the circumstances were different not the culture - farmers have to defend everywhere. Let me tell an example from the small village where my father grew up: In the spring '45, when Germanies organizations actually were allready collapsed, a bomber on his flight back crashed near the village. Immediatly the poeple from the village went there, killed the soldiers, despoiled interesting things and buried the plane beneath the soil in less than one day - to avoid that foreign troops would be attracted by it. I am sure in France also a lot of tanks "disappeared" during occupation - but after liberation there was no need anymore to hide the German tanks. No - Germany has not a different culture, farmers will conserve their soil thoroughly everywhere.

It is still the same these days - e.g. since 30 years government has tried to to set up an ultimate disposal place for nuclear waste in the rural area Gorleben. They have used a lot of police and pressure. That is futile - the farmers prevented that and will protect their soil also in future. You can not force farmers - instead you may kindly ask and pay a high price.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse scenarios & mitigating strategies
« on: June 07, 2013, 10:16:52 PM »
I am not sure if I am rigth here with this comment - it is surely not an American view but a very German one, since it is a view from our history. We have some experience with "collapse scenarios & mitigration statregies". I am not going to talk about situation after WW1 - my families memories to that are mainly spanish flue and a winter of rutabaga/swede - not really a collapse. But after WW2 we experienced quite some collapse&mitigration in east end west - both memories are passed on in my family and have been topic e.g. of the yearly christmess/birthdays gatherings.

Collapse-experience was two-sided (not east-west): In rural environment it was different from urban life. Not very much changed in rural environment during the collapse - some poeple were missed and some others took their place. Urban life was much more critical: If you were lucky you had some friend in rural areas to get some food from. If not, you had to learn to evaluate "value" by new means: If you have no roof over your head and nothing to eat after some time you consider to swap "valuable things" like a watch or jewelry or cars to get some food from rural poeple. It is a matter of priorities.

After a while things became normal - it was nice in rural environment to share a car and a TV between 10 families and in the cities poeple get used to that kind of sharing, too. And after basic things like food and housing were organized, poeple were able to use their time for other things again. E.g. to organize with other poeple and to build complicated things again.

From my families experience what was missing most obviously were things like butter, coffee, cigarettes and chocolade after the basics were available. And they managed to get that.

To transfer that to a situtation of future collapse - hypothesizing no war but a reduction of ressources in wealthy countries to an equally share for all persons on this planet and as worst case a die off of 75% of poeple (uh! How that?). Even with 25% of the poeple I know personally and 25% poeple of the poeple they know - we would be able to set up a factory to produce e.g. tools and machines and to trade them for food or a roof. We would also be able to establish some trade route to US to deliver some tools and machines in exchange for cotton, taback and some life-style accessoires e.g. from that famous "fruit company".

So - I thing civilization will not die. The main challenge may be to share a car and a TV with 10 families. In that case our ressources are adequate also to feed 9 billion poeple with similar living standard. Because things like cars and TV are eating most of our ressources now anyway. That is not doom - it is only a bit different.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 07, 2013, 05:05:11 PM »
Bob - we discussed that allready in the "China is leading"-thead. Germany could try much harder as it does.  Scandinavia showed us allready the way, so it can be done if one has the will. The will is missing in most countries and alibis are used instead. One alibi is asking for the next and discussions are never ending in some regions of the world... So when are we going to find an agreement and to start some effort? Just stop selling coal - that could help, too.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:24:06 PM »
Someone asked for a solution? Stop burning coal (and oil and gas as next steps) and use renewables - the feasibility is allready proven by some countries. But start that transition right now, because it is less easy if you have to do it fast.
It may cost 1k$/person/year - that sounds really cheap when you guys talk about 75% die... why should they die instead of trying a bit harder?

Wouter, the wind was blowing in the "wrong" direction

the Hudson is irrelevant for CAB melt, at least
probably - but maybe Hudson ice feeds the lows swirling around Greenland and thus may disturb the arctic dipole? I am only guessing because I am really not sure about the impact of such details. But any useful relationships are of interest to get to an deeper understanding of the changes we observe.

Anyway- I would love to ignore my guessing and I am looking forward to what friv would write.

Thank you frivolousz21 for explaining the weather impacts on sea-ice dynamics so well that even I am able to follow your points.

One point is still unclear to me: In 2013 there was earlier melt of siberian snow and Laptev lost some ice much earlier than 2012 - could there be a risk that Laptev ice loss could balance partly the slow loss in Barents? I understood this would be unlikely in arctic dipole condition because clouds would just sit there reducing heating of the water - is it that simple or do I miss something important? Like warm and wet siberian air going to be sucked into the CAB by the low pressure?

And is it OK for estimations of September state to ignore late melt in regions like Hudson/Kara/Bering in 2012/2013 since those areas will melt anyway or can those areas somehow prevent melt of FYI in the CAB?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June)
« on: June 05, 2013, 08:37:05 PM »
Chris, you know that we have concentration available since some days allready.

By viewing MODIS-jpg in gimp I can confirm, that clouds over ice lower albedo by 5-10% compared to ice without clouds. Same amount of albedo change ist visible between fast ice and brocken ice e.g. by the storm. (Details can not be seen in jpg because of dithering). So clouds seem to increase albedo only over water or land - not over ice.

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 04, 2013, 12:30:09 PM »
We've got some significant political problems that we're having to work through.
So we do have in Germany with U-turn-Merkel since 2009 - I hope we both can do better in future. If both of us will not do it, it will not be done.

We all have enough renewable resources - we only have to use them. (Norway: hydro; Sweden: hydro and wood farms; Denmark: Wind; Germany: Wind & Solar; UK: Wind & tides; USA: plenty of all like China)

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 04, 2013, 12:26:38 AM »
I was wondering why you steadily insist new lignin power plants are ok for a "CO2-free leading nation" and why you refuse considering to look at Scandinavia or least Germanys former year 2000 energy reversal plans or at Chinas great efforts.  We are just on a swing to follow lazy USA (so - not you are attacked by me being lazy, but the Country refusing any effort or treaty for more than a decade allready).

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 03, 2013, 11:08:25 PM »
Bob, it is so inefficient, because the energy for water vaporization is lost and 50% of mass transport is for nothing, too. And it includes a lot of dirt heated for nothing and sulfur needed to be removed from exhaust gas. 1.200 Mt CO2 per TWh, 28.100.000 T CO2/year only in Niederaußem.
I think the list of worst power stations should be enough. Or do you want to follow us for an other reason? An excuse to stay lazy?

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 03, 2013, 07:54:22 PM »
Many of Germany's reactors are Soviet-built and in what used to be Soviet-controlled East Germany.  And the coal in East Germany is soft coal.
Sorry, the Soviet-built reactors in GDR were shut down 1990. And what you call soft coal is exactly the brown coal I am talking about (lignite). Most of the brown coal power plants are in the west - between Cologne and Netherlands and belong to the most poluting plants in the world:

I can understand that poeple think tar sand is ok if one calls new brown coal plants the leading way. But instead I think you just missunderstood my wording "brown coal". Here a picture of the stuff I am talking about:

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 03, 2013, 01:38:52 PM »
It does not mean anything, what I believe. What I know is that brown coal is one of the worst energy source CO2 wise - that is the reason why I say: Germany is not leading the world towards a CO2-free energy by installing new brown coal power plants. We have still one of the highest per capita CO2 emission in Europe due to that shit (while of course doing much better than USA). If you ask for a leader - look at Scandinavian countries: They allways try harder than anybody else.

When you talk about Germanys decision to get out of nuclear power plants - are you talking about the nation wide (including electric industry) excepted nuclear exit from 2000 or Merkels double-U-turn from 2010 (exit from exit) and 2011 (Fukushima driven exit from exit from exit without consent)? The 2000 plan was the same that boosted renewables. That 2000 "energy reversal" could be a possible blue print for USA and others - the 2011 double U-turn would not, of course.

And since renewables grow faster than planned, there is no real need for brown coal. Also economically brown coal would make no sense, if emission certificates would still have some price.

Tschernobyl did trigger something in Germany - especially helped the "green party" to grow. But reason for the exit is not existing ultimate disposal of waste. And when green party finaly became part of the government in 1998 - it was clear that the 2000 energy reversal was their primary goal next to Agenda 2010 (foster and challenge poeple for sustainable growth). These two roots make Germany looking strong today - but new things are missing badly.

So please: Look at Scandinavia or Germanys 2000 energy reversal and try harder for sustainable wealth.

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 02, 2013, 08:53:27 PM »
Those things are decided by some administrations and company RWE but not final - there are still some demonstrations and occupy-things going on.  There is some hope but the CO2-argument is not worth so much anymore :-( And with certificates beeing so cheap, they probably will not shut down paid-off plants.

But please do not expect a new plan before election in September - it may change this way or the other.

Some information:

The problem is not the installed power but that the power plants burn brown coal (lignite) and not stone coal (anthracite). Brown coal burning must shut down. But it is hard these days to get poeple on the streets to reduce CO2 when nobody else reduces, too. They feel got fooled.

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 02, 2013, 06:53:26 PM »
Bob Wallace - I was talking about "brown" coal - that means burning of 50% water. That is about as efficient in respect to CO2 as tar sand. And those new plants really make no sense at all - it is only possible because CO2-emission certificates are very cheap these days in Europe (due to the success of the renewables!).

I only want you to consider that my homeland is not "leading the world" in any way, a lot of mistakes are done here, too. A joined effort is, what we need. And we should also learn from the mistakes of our international partners. That is at least a point taken really serious in China.

Policy and solutions / Re: China to lead the way?
« on: June 02, 2013, 03:11:22 PM »
One wealthy western nation that could be considered a leader is Germany which has plans to have 50% of energy production be from alternatives by 2050.
Germany is currently ahead of its plan but still well behind wealthy countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden. China seems to be on a good road to follow Europe on the long run (wind, water and solar), that gives a lot of hope here for a new leader in future.

But there is some wind of change in Germany - plans to build more power plants burning brown coal are growing and poeple want to save money. Due to paving the way for solar electricity in Germany is now nearly as expensive as in Denmark. We would now need some action in USA to stay on track. Otherwise poeple would consider all the costly efforts as in vain and as economically unfair, if e.g. USA stays on the cheap-energy drug regardless. The AGW problem can only be addressed globaly and all wealthy nations that are able must be in the boat and must try hard together. So - we trust on you to join the band soon.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA
« on: June 02, 2013, 01:38:32 PM »
Any thoughts on this slow decline of extent being due to Ekman pumping?

Is Ekman pumping likely to have greater dispersive effect if the pack is more broken up than usual for the time of year?
I don't think so - SIA in a very big circle (2.7 Mio. sq km) in the Basin only droped 40-50k since 20th may due to the storm. So if there is ice diverging out of the Basin it is not very much. I think, the SIA-loss due to the storm is either still to become visible for the satellites or can be neglected at all. We will see that in a week or so.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: May 30, 2013, 02:09:56 PM »
Right now rooftop solar is being installed in Germany and Australia for $2/watt.  No subsidies, no government money.
In Germany PV is not paid by government money but by other poeples electricity bill (guaranteed price for solar electricity in the grid). Germans poeple paid the price (and further will for 15 more years), that PV is now brought to the tipping point and is produced in China cost effectively. Now the poeple really would appreciate US-poeple to do something similar to rescue our planet. Any plans allready? And I do not mean plans like "saving some money by buying PV" - I am talking about some effort like several hundered $/year/person nation wide for some decades. It could really help if US would join the Europeans soon. Otherwise poeple will get even more upset here about the increasing unfairness.

Science / Re: Study: Global warming is slowing down...
« on: May 21, 2013, 08:29:54 PM »
Denialists are cheering - in german Newspapers everyone is talking about this new study, that suggests, that worst case scenarios for this century are off the table, due to the rate of global mean warming has been lower over the past decade than previously.

What do you think?
I think Germans are just tired paying the bill allone. The majority seems to be shifting away from ecology and towards reasonable behaviour. They payed a lot in the past 10 years and nearly all in vain. Now ecological thinking poeple are shy to ask poeple to pay even more and "normal" poeple are angry because they feel like being fooled again by "alarmists tricks". I think that could change once e.g. USA has matched per capita expenses in future.
I want to say actually, that not every angry person writing in that forum is a denialist - they are not that stupid in Germany. Some just have learned their lessons from "Waldsterben" and the ozone hole: if it is not done in world wide effort, it just can not be done. So Germans should quit trying now.

And they are also discussing an article on "pain in the neck" James Hansen (translated from Spiegel - not my words)...

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: May 16, 2013, 12:01:30 PM »
I don't think we are discussing the same thing. My method, extrapolating using linear fit gives a relatively small statistical error.
You are right. I thought you would do something similar to your exponential fit with a quite large symetric error bar you show on arktischepinguin - I meant that kind of fit. Sorry for confusing. For linear fitting relative errors are ok.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: May 15, 2013, 09:38:53 AM »
I know about the CHI2 test, and I don't know if it is too small. But it is not directly applicable yet: I'm using an un-weighted OLS fit for the prediction and std error and at a later step calculate the deviations in proportion to the absolute value.
Wipneus - the Chi^2 in your fit is way to small, so there is plenty of room to reduce your statistical error. If Chi^2 is typical (=number of degrees of freedom = number of data - number of fitting parameters), then about 68% of data is within 1 std dev. and ~32% are out, but not to far. So it is possible to reduce the statistical error by thinking of a systematic error (error=sqrt(err_stst^2 + err_sys^2)/1.41), in which you are not interested for your prediction. Therefore, you will obtain a prediction with smaller statistical error.
If you use least square fit - the sum of least squares is the Chi^2, if you have data with errors. If you don't you can then compute the statistical error from that sum of least squares.

The errors are not proportional to the value - only for linear fit. You have to take that errors of the fitting parameters from the covariance matrix - you use that matrix allready for the least square fitting in the very last iteration. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: May 14, 2013, 03:19:19 PM »

I think it is clear that what we are trying to predict is what the PIOMAS system will say the volume will be.
Yes, indeed. So because Chi^2 is so large - just call the large part systematic error of PIOMAS (which also would have the asymetrical part) and use the smaller statistical error for prediction - the systematic error of PIOMAS probably will not change much the next month. You may also get the statistical errors easily from the residuals (if you know how the units of your fitting programm like Gaussian, FWHM or what)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: May 14, 2013, 02:40:47 PM »
A much smaller error than before, or did I miss something?
Wipneus - the proper error depends a bit on what you are looking for. If the error of the predicted value is of your interest, then you have to go with the errors of the data - that is PIOMAS errors. They use to give absolute errors, but perhaps they are getting wrong with that as volume approaches zero. Relative errors are not good in the vicinity of zero - but errors should be asymetrical of course, since volume is a positive number. So - you should do fiting with that asymetric errors, if you could get them, to calculate the errors of the fitting parameters from which you can determine errors for the predicted value.

If the "right" function is of interest, you know that there is no chance to distinguish which functions must be refused, if the errors of the data are large. Likelyhood will be very similar for a lot of different functions (linear, exponential, Gompertz are all about the same for next year). Maybe you just try them all and do averaging the value predicted by different functions? Anyway they will all be much closer together than the error of the data. So guessing is maybe the best trick to forecast the weather of next summer ;-)

On more test on errors: If the Chi^2 is about number of data - number of fitting parameters, then the errors are probably proper guessed. If Chi^2 is much smaller (as in your case now) the errors of the data are guessed to large for some reasons. It would be OK to adjust them, because a large portion of the error are probably systematic errors inside PIOMAS and not statistical errors, which you are looking for.


I have removed my vote because the 4-in-one-bin was cut to a quarter.


After a lot of trials, I came up with "Bifurcated Intra-annual Cryosphere Oscillation Trend". I am actually quite proud of this one.  ;)
Great definition, Shared Humanity.

I am sorry that I did not recognice anything yesterday. After a lot of work and a nasty discussion with denialists I wrote with brain on auto-pilot. Not very kind from me and not helpful for anybody.

NCEP/NCAR shows that current (7/5/13) temperatures are mainly 3 to 5degC warmer than average (1981 to 2010 climatology) over the Siberian sector of the Arctic. For the time of year it's excellent melting weather.
Chris, it is like this allready since 2nd May (see above) and now Alaska seems to join Siberia. Therefore, I agree that melting will be early this year. It will melt from right to left (viewed from GB) and then it will melt all the MYI in Beaufort...

Shared Humanity,

from your last post I understand, that with "rebound" you point to the rate at which sea ice gets covered with ice in winter, which increases when minimum area decreases. I totally agree with that observation and it is very natural. I would disagree to call this effect rebound - I would call it rebound only if  booth the red line and the blue line in your graph would turn upwards.

The difference between March extent and September extent will get maximal just after September extent hits zero - that is simple to understand. What will be different after that point is, that the sea ice will have lost its ability to cool the northern hemisphere. All old ice will be molten after that date and the only effect of sea ice will be to provide some damping to the system: Providing some latent heat from summer to release it in winter and to provide some cooling in the summer stored from winter. But averaged over the year cooling/heating by sea ice latent heat will be zero after we reached ice-free Arctis in September. That will change a lot, because the additional heat, still increasing every year with increasing CO2 content in atmosphere, will have to go some where else. Most probably to the ocean and a bit to water vapour in the atmosphere.

Is there any chance that we could see a rebound in the Beaufort at the end of the melt season?
I guess you are not questioning that after the end of the melt season it will start to freeze in the Beaufort sea, are you? ;-)
After we have seen last week, that the Arctic Basin will start melting from the Siberian side early this year, we can now see, that Alaska also is going to get quite warm now. Early start of melt in the Beaufort will result in open waters allready in June, when the sun is high - in July the multi years ice in Beaufort sea will melt, too.
I think the only chance for "rebound" in the Beaufort could be, that the last piece of myi surviving September will move from Ellesmere into Beaufort  - for the very last time.   

So, when does the opening in the Laptev go from being a lead to being counted as melt?
"The sea-ice extent is calculated as the areal sum of sea ice covering the ocean where sea-ice concentration (SIC) exceeds a threshold (15% for AMSR-E)"

So everything above 15% sea ice coverage is counted 100% as extent - while in area only that measured percentage is counted.

If you look at a picture like
everything coloured is counted as extent while area is computed as the sum of area times sea ice concentration (%/100)

Arctic sea ice / Re: North Pole Web Cam 2013
« on: May 05, 2013, 11:16:17 AM »
And the link to his blog is even more interesting - 

Is it just me or are his recent findings very concerning?

you are right, that reads very concerning. But some comfort could come from the fact, that horizon changed much only on the ridge/lead side - that may not be the typical situation around the North Pole. And the early sublimation of snow is not that astonishing, if you condsider the warm Siberian air, wich is pulled just over the Pole towards Fram. It is not lower than -10°C there for allready some days - so just the usual AGW with some artic amplification again...

Wow, 140,000 km^2 plunge in CT area May 3rd. Meanwhile, IARC-JAXA continues to somewhat defy this continual drop in area and I wonder why?

E.g. the big area loss in Hudson bay the last days is not counted as lower extent - those are still leads. Same in Laptev sea and around Franz-Joseph-islands. 

Last snow-save "green area" (below zero °C) in Eurasia is now only at Bering and the Kara region (link same as in 2nd May post). Looks like all really cold places (below -10°C) are all left on the american side - so melting above 70° will probably start from right to left (viewed from GBritain) this year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: May 03, 2013, 08:49:54 PM »
that is quite shocking. Regions 5 and 6 are fading out - in 2011-12 region 6 can be explained by transport. You are making visible how the ice dies: From top (Bering) to bottom (Fram) - the regions 5&6 are progressing continuously to Fram-export :-(

Again we see 4 empty bins at that top of this poll, and a bimodal distribution at the bottom because the bottom bin is 4 x larger than the others.

That is the main reason why I took that 4-in-one-bin again like in April. My estimate is still 2.0 +- 2, so the 0-1 bin gives max. chance for me.

It looks like Siberia is getting quite warm - above zero up to Laptev sea allready
(today 6 GMT at ). The Siberian snow is on fast leave and Laptev sea ice may start to melt in now, too.

Next to Barents and Baffin that would be the 3rd front in Siberia threatening the Basin.

Hi Anne,
the 0-1 million km2 bin is prefered over the 1-1.25 million bin, because the larger bin is more likely. It is not out of distribution if you consider them as a "4 bins at the price for one".

Instead the peak at 1.75-2 million mk2 is very large and statistically significant out of any distribution. Maybe some poeple got psychologoly trapped by the disclosure of the histogram on 7th April - maybe poeple just went with the majority since then... Such things are called systematic bias.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Volume Predictions.
« on: April 24, 2013, 11:52:31 PM »
just 2 comments on the predictions:

First, if PIOMAS simulated volume is declining a bit further this year (e.g. like the exponential, the gompertz or even linear - the difference doesn't matter significantly at all now), that would be no surprise since that is just the trend of the last years.

Second comment: Since e.g. the trend for Sept. volume is allready quite close to zero (allready this year within 95% confidence margins), everything but a record low in observables like area or extent would be a surprise. Volume just can not be close to zero without area/extent also.

The most probable reason for missing a record low area or extent therefore could be that PIOMAS simulation is just not right - the real ice volume could be very well different from the volume modelled by PIOMAS. To be clear - "volume prediction" here is a prediction of a sea ice volume predicted by a model, which is not proven yet. That is double uncertainty of course - loosing any ground to real observables. Please do not get me wrong, I "like" PIOMAS predictions because of plausibility in the past - but it is not an observable, nature is different of course.

So - if PIOMAS would be right - the trend of PIOMAS volume represents a soon crash of extent and area. Just because zero volume results in zero area and zero extent and if math is worth something, the decline of the latter must be way steeper than the former considering a definite thickness of ice to be recognised. 

If you instead prefer to rely on observables - area and extent from satellites should be used and thickness determined by measurements must be applied. In that case the negative feedback has been allready observed seen since 2007 - the autumn zero will be reached soon and spring zero is very unlikely any time soon. And of course the formulars inside PIOMAS would need to be adjusted to match reality in that case. Nature will tell us in 10 years what is right - therefore the last chance to predict something useful is now and the future of nature will jugde. I go with the crash of area and extent because I bet on the PIOMAS trend.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11