"Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask

[RoxTheGeologist]

1)Propane has lower energy per g CO2 emitted, and has to be refined which adds to its gCO2 per Mj.
Methane has the disadvantage that it is a powerful short lived GHG, so any upstream leaks of methane add to the gCO2/Mj.

2)I'm not sure it would be a easy solution: switching over all burners to propane as they would have to be re-certified for NOx emissions. The infrastructure requirements and cost for switching between the two would, probably, hugely out weigh any potential emissions reductions (if there are any).

3)Propane is not as readily available, and passing any legislation that requires the switch would be extraordinarily difficult and take years to implement. As someone involved in advocating low carbon fuel usage, my experience has been that changing the status quo pits you against very able and well funded lobbyist from the entrenched industries.

[seaicesailor]

Living in a place where snow appears once every two years or so...
Anybody knows what effect continuous insolation may have on snow for high-pressure cold (well below freezing) dry clear-sky days? Possible sublimation? Some really significant change of texture or not?
Just wondering what happens to snow under current High (apart from being blown around)
Thx!

[Andreas T]

have a look at the stuff in front of the camera lens on Obuoy14. It doesn't look like melting, maximum temperatures have been below  -15 degC but it is getting less.
compare current image with

.....

It hasn't finished deicing itself yet, but does nonetheless reveal some sunbeams and a clear blue sky today:

[seaicesailor]

have a look at the stuff in front of the camera lens on Obuoy14. It doesn't look like melting, maximum temperatures have been below  -15 degC but it is getting less.
compare current image with

.....

It hasn't finished deicing itself yet, but does nonetheless reveal some sunbeams and a clear blue sky today:

Thanks Andreas. But I ask myself if in that case the sun heating the camera and the metal holding it doesn't have to do with it

[Andreas T]

it is the very slow disappearance of the frost or blown snow in front of the camera which could be sublimation I think, but I don't claim any expertise on this. What has caught my eye is that relative humidity at Obuoy14 is going up and down with temperature whereas it goes down when temperature goes up at Obuoy13 (the more usual way) could that have something to do with more of this stuff near the humidity sensor?

[seaicesailor]

it is the very slow disappearance of the frost or blown snow in front of the camera which could be sublimation I think, but I don't claim any expertise on this. What has caught my eye is that relative humidity at Obuoy14 is going up and down with temperature whereas it goes down when temperature goes up at Obuoy13 (the more usual way) could that have something to do with more of this stuff near the humidity sensor?

This small paper estimates that of the total snowfall in the Arctic Ocean, a 40% is removed by sublimation,(!) a 10% by wind blowing sublimation, a 40% by melting and 10% other causes. Being a model the exact numbers are not so relevant as the fact that sublimation is on the same order as melting. That may explain the humidity correlation in #14 too.

So I may speculate with some confidence that much snow is being gone right now given the strong High, the sustained sun radiation, and winds currently in most of the Pacific side of the Arctic.

http://goo.gl/u193G9

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Guys!

Looking for a bit of info on the amount of energy required to melt ice compared to what it takes to 'warm' the same volume of water.

It's important for me as I want to get some notion of the amount of energy/heating that might be at the disposal of the basin should we see areas melt vout earlier than they have in past years.

If low ice in Barentsz/Kara can lie behind the energy needed to warp the Weather over the N.Hemisphere then I'd be keen to understand just how much more of a shove a big, early, melt would impart to the system?

[pikaia]

To melt 1Kg of ice requires 80 Calories. To raise the temperature of 1Kg of water by 1 degree requires 1 Calorie.

[Gray-Wolf]

To melt 1Kg of ice requires 80 Calories. To raise the temperature of 1Kg of water by 1 degree requires 1 Calorie.

WOW!!!!

Just wow! Thanks for that Pikaia!

[Buddy]

To melt 1Kg of ice requires 80 Calories. To raise the temperature of 1Kg of water by 1 degree requires 1 Calorie.

So the less ice there is....the faster the oceans will warm up.   The oceans will warm faster now that all that energy previously used to melt more ice.....can now be leveraged to warm oceans instead and its much easier to warm oceans than it is to melt ice.  I had noted on another topic stream....that my concern is that climate scientists had underestimated (or "undercalculated" the melting of the Arctic ice sheet.

And...if they have underestimated the melting of the Arctic ice sheet....that would lead to more rapid warming than modeled because (a) oceans would warm more quickly (b) feedbacks like permafrost melting would take place sooner......and all those physical actions "downstream" from the melting of ice sheets would lead to a logarithmic escalation of atmospheric temperatures (until we get further along the process moving towards an equilibrium).

Maybe those of you with a physics background can tell me where I have missed the boat (or perhaps even missed the dock as well

[DoomInTheUK]

That's 1g of water by 1 deg C = 1 calorie, not 1Kg.

[pikaia]

It depends which Calorie you are talking about.Calorie with an upper case "C" is the bigger one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie

[TerryM]

I believe the ratio of 1 to 80 remains regardless of what units are used for mass or energy.

I also believe the salt in sea water alters this ratio, although not by a significant amount.

One of my pet projects is wondering where the energy no longer being used to melt that last million kg of ice goes, and how that energy gets dissipated.

Terry

[johnm33]

One of my pet projects is wondering where the energy no longer being used to melt that last million kg of ice goes, and how that energy gets dissipated.

Terry

My guess evaporation, but does it fall, or settle? and where?

[DoomInTheUK]

In the short term the heat will mostly get captured in the first few hundred meters of sea. Some will drive extra evaporation, but most will just go into warming the water.

Ocean currents will then drag that heated water either along, or down. The Arctic will behave no differently than any other partly enclosed sea.

There's an awful lot of water up there to absorb that heat.

[abbottisgone]

This may be a doozy of a Stupid Question, but it puzzles me:

Why not substitute Propane for natural gas?  (As an interim measure, while we ramp up renewables.)

I believe propane generates slightly less power than natural gas, but surely the reduction in greenhouse gas effect would make that worthwhile.

^{LPG (propane) is more dense than air, at a relative density of 1.5219:1 vs natural gas (methane) at 0.5537:1, which is lighter than air.}

source: http://www.elgas.com.au/blog/486-comparison-lpg-natural-gas-propane-butane-methane-lng-cng

[Burnrate]

Can someone give me an overview, explanation, point me to some links that explains the current satellite and data situation?

I've read something about the integration of F18 satellite data.  This (http://www.wmo-sat.info/oscar/satellites/view/65) shows that there are no operationsl DMSP satellites.  This (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/) says that there has been bad data since the beginning of April but no further word on what is being worked on.

Do we expect a return of the Cryosphere today data?  Will they fill in the gaps when things get calibrated?  Any ETA on a fix or replacement?  Where do I go to get updates on the the situation and what the plans are looking forward?  Where should I look to replace the information I was getting from those sources?

[oren]

I can only say that in the meantime be sure to check the IJIS thread for daily updates on extent.

[crandles]

I would suggest check out Wipneus' data if you need area in CT style:
from 2016 sea ice area and extent data thread:

If CT would have, I could have reported a -180k drop is expected for coming Friday.:

day  CT-date       NH               SH                Global
Mon 2016.3479  -75.3 10.917531  +95.8  7.285143   +20.5 18.202674
Tue 2016.3507  -11.6 10.905968  +45.0  7.330120   +33.4 18.236088
Wed 2016.3534  -35.6 10.870406  +79.9  7.410037   +44.4 18.280443
Thu 2016.3562  -39.3 10.831096 +143.9  7.553953  +104.6 18.385049
Fri 2016.3589 -181.9 10.649181  +42.4  7.596343  -139.5 18.245524

I put something together here. Will that do for you?

https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/AreaCalculatedLikeCryosphereToday.txt

Re: Some links that explain

Above file contain link to
https://nsidc.org/data/nsidc-0081
there is also
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2016/05/

[Dundee]

Today Wipneus (09:06:36 AM) noted that NSIDC updated "final" data through 12/31/2015 - I assume gridded concentration data?.

I am putting this in "Stupid Questions" because, to be honest, the more I know about the data environment the more I can see I don't know, and I don't want to clutter the 2016 data thread.

First - background. I have been toying with the statistical behavior of NH daily ice extent. I have been using the NSIDC data set from sidads.colorado.edu (final spliced to nrt). I am at the point where I want to do an analysis run I can talk about in public. Because the statistical chain is tedious (and laborious, at least with the tools I have available) I'd like to start with the most current and complete data I can.

Again, I am looking at NSIDC ice extent for the Arctic overall. The latest final numbers I currently have run through 12/31/2014 (NH_seaice_extent_final.csv dated 04/21/2016 07:44AM). Is there a set somewhere running through 2015?

Next, The path I am on can lead to a projected minimum, but not with March 31st data. Is the data Wipneus computes from DSMP F18 (nsidc_nt_nrt_main.txt - I think) a like product to the sidads.colorado.edu? I recognize it is uncalibrated (the effect of which I'll need to consider) but what I am asking is am I on the right track or am I trying to combine two unlike products? What I anticipate ending up is working up a forecast model exclusively from the "official" data, then looking at how things come out for this year, after extending the official view with Wipneus calculations or using his numbers exclusively for the current season, depending on how the statistics work out.

Finally, are the numbers from both Wipneus and sidads.colorado.edu actual daily numbers, or has the five day average (used in NSIDC's public graphs) already been applied to one or both?

I would rather know what I am looking at (or only thought I was looking at) now rather than at the end of a long analysis chain . . .

Thanks!

[ktonine]

Dundee - all of the data that we use is publicly available. 

Off of the main blog page, under Arctic Sea Ice Graphs, you'll find links to:
NSIDC sea ice extent daily data
NSIDC sea ice area and extent monthly data
NSIDC/NIC MASIE homepage and daily data
JAXA (ADS-NIPR) sea ice extent daily data
Cryosphere Today Arctic sea ice area daily data
Cryosphere Today Antarctic sea ice area daily data
Cryosphere Today Global sea ice area daily data
PIOMAS ice volume 1979-present daily data
Arctic ROOS area and extent monthly data

Here on the Forum if you go back up to the Home page, select the 'Developer's Corner' under AGW in General.  Wherein you'll also find links to many of the data sourcees.

[Wipneus]

Today Wipneus (09:06:36 AM) noted that NSIDC updated "final" data through 12/31/2015 - I assume gridded concentration data?.

Yes. There is also NSIDC extent, or "Ice Index" calculated from the final data, here:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/NH_seaice_extent_final.csv

But this has not been updated for a while. Surprising because it is still based on version 1 of the SIC data. The SIC data is now replaced by version 1.1, with substantial modifications in the years 1979-1999.

All MY calculations now use version 1.1.

I am putting this in "Stupid Questions" because, to be honest, the more I know about the data environment the more I can see I don't know, and I don't want to clutter the 2016 data thread.

First - background. I have been toying with the statistical behavior of NH daily ice extent. I have been using the NSIDC data set from sidads.colorado.edu (final spliced to nrt). I am at the point where I want to do an analysis run I can talk about in public. Because the statistical chain is tedious (and laborious, at least with the tools I have available) I'd like to start with the most current and complete data I can.

Again, I am looking at NSIDC ice extent for the Arctic overall. The latest final numbers I currently have run through 12/31/2014 (NH_seaice_extent_final.csv dated 04/21/2016 07:44AM). Is there a set somewhere running through 2015?

Yes, use mine, it is using version 1.1 as well!

Next, The path I am on can lead to a projected minimum, but not with March 31st data. Is the data Wipneus computes from DSMP F18 (nsidc_nt_nrt_main.txt - I think) a like product to the sidads.colorado.edu? I recognize it is uncalibrated (the effect of which I'll need to consider) but what I am asking is am I on the right track or am I trying to combine two unlike products? What I anticipate ending up is working up a forecast model exclusively from the "official" data, then looking at how things come out for this year, after extending the official view with Wipneus calculations or using his numbers exclusively for the current season, depending on how the statistics work out.

When we are using the same input (sea ice concentration) data, my shadow extent number are the same as those from NSIDC, exactly if you take into account that NSIDC rounds figures to 1000's of km².
(CT-area numbers are less exact, but almost always are with 1k)

Finally, are the numbers from both Wipneus and sidads.colorado.edu actual daily numbers, or has the five day average (used in NSIDC's public graphs) already been applied to one or both?

I would rather know what I am looking at (or only thought I was looking at) now rather than at the end of a long analysis chain . . .

Thanks!

I do not average, neither is NSIDC in their *daily* numbers.

My final NSIDC extent and area data:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/nsidc_nt_final_main.txt.gz?attredirects=0&d=1

same per regio:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/nsidc_nt_final_detail.txt.gz?attredirects=0&d=1

Near Real Time (including post 31 March, uncalibrated F18 data) extent and area:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/nsidc_nt_nrt_main.txt?attredirects=0&d=1
same per regio:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/data/nsidc_nt_nrt_detail.txt?attredirects=0&d=1

[Dundee]

Again, thanks!

I've seen all the data sources on ASIG (barring dead links) and many, many others besides - so many it was becoming unclear what the distinctions were.

I knew there was a change in the SIC and probably should have been able to work out (but didn't) from the source data field in NH_seaice_extent_final.csv that this older "final" data was based on 1.0.

Thanks for clarifying which of your files to look at, and the moving average question. I was pretty sure what I was looking at had not been averaged, but if it had been I'd be treating it inappropriately.

I am looking at a distinct change in statistical behavior that occurs in the months around peak melt. If an effective forecast is to come of it, I'd have to be able to state that, in a particular year, that shift had or had not occurred on a given date (the closer to real time, the better). If it turns out I only know reliably the transition has occurred well after the fact it would be interesting, but have no forecast value. Of course if I was trying to draw conclusions from two datasets that were not as related to each other as I imagined, that would have no forecast value either (no matter what the spreadsheet says). Hence the stupid questions, before I start invest real time in the analysis.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Guys!

 Can you help me to flesh out the energy we see from an 'average Nino' compared to the energy an ice free basin , mid July to mid Sept, would provide?

I was thinking that a Nino is probably a 1 in 7 year event so I would need to add up 7 years worth of 'ice free' energy to see how it compares to a nino's output.

Anybody got any input?

[Ice Shieldz]

Hi Guys!

 Can you help me to flesh out the energy we see from an 'average Nino' compared to the energy an ice free basin , mid July to mid Sept, would provide?

I was thinking that a Nino is probably a 1 in 7 year event so I would need to add up 7 years worth of 'ice free' energy to see how it compares to a nino's output.

Anybody got any input?

Hi Gray-Wolf, so you're asking what the amount of solar insolation input into the arctic ocean would be?  Of course nino is mostly a transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. 

For both arctic input and nino transfer, I too would be interested in knowing what the cumulative watts are over given time frames.  Perhaps a good place to start would be in existing research papers with necessary data and/or equations. 

I remember reading from a questionable source that the amount of heat our 2015-16 nino transferred into the atmosphere is on par with the amount released by the Chicxulub asteroid that finished off the dinosaurs.  PS here is a bookmark-worthy Wikipedia page to put the magnitudes of energy we're talking about in perspective - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

[Andreas T]

I don't have a straightforward answer, so feel free to skip the following musing on the topic. I hope though I can provide some pointers to what a reasonable answer should include.
If you want just a simple and crude figure you might take the incoming solar radiation at that latitude (integrated over the arctic ocean ideally), at the top of the atmosphere the number is easy to work out, and multiply with a change in albedo ice free / present average ice cover.
That number would be too high because less of that radiation reaches the surface even on a clear day  and because much less (although still some) reaches it on cloudy days. Then it is very difficult to say whether an ice free arctic ocean would be more or less cloudy.
The other thing which would have to be figured out somehow is whether an ice free arctic in the summer means more heat lost into space in the winter. It is generally accepted I think that in order to have ice free summers every year the ice must be thinner than it is now at the beginning of summer. This would mean a warmer ice surface in the winter which if everything is the same looses more heat by radiating at a higher intensity out to space in a clear arctic night.
This can be reduced by cloudier skies than now but even then those clouds will radiate out to space and can only be maintained by continuing updraft of warmer and moister air.

Some idea of the incoming solar radiation at ground level the arctic ocean receives now (up to end of 2015) can be found here  https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/srbavg
it lets you choose an area for which it displays monthly average radiative fluxes calculated on the basis of observations of cloudiness etc.

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't have a straightforward answer, so feel free to skip the following musing on the topic. I hope though I can provide some pointers to what a reasonable answer should include.
If you want just a simple and crude figure you might take the incoming solar radiation at that latitude (integrated over the arctic ocean ideally), at the top of the atmosphere the number is easy to work out, and multiply with a change in albedo ice free / present average ice cover.
That number would be too high because less of that radiation reaches the surface even on a clear day  and because much less (although still some) reaches it on cloudy days. Then it is very difficult to say whether an ice free arctic ocean would be more or less cloudy.
The other thing which would have to be figured out somehow is whether an ice free arctic in the summer means more heat lost into space in the winter. It is generally accepted I think that in order to have ice free summers every year the ice must be thinner than it is now at the beginning of summer. This would mean a warmer ice surface in the winter which if everything is the same looses more heat by radiating at a higher intensity out to space in a clear arctic night.
This can be reduced by cloudier skies than now but even then those clouds will radiate out to space and can only be maintained by continuing updraft of warmer and moister air.

Some idea of the incoming solar radiation at ground level the arctic ocean receives now (up to end of 2015) can be found here  https://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/srbavg
it lets you choose an area for which it displays monthly average radiative fluxes calculated on the basis of observations of cloudiness etc.

Hi! It is the heat that is there to escape ( like the Nino?) that I wish to get a ballpark figure for. I think it would be very useful for me to have such info as , currently, I'm fed up with deniers telling me the recent hike in global temps " was all El Nino"..... and not the tiny bit on top that climate scientists tell us Nino added?

If I could counter with just how much energy the autumn ocean is pouring into the atmosphere each year, and a figure in Nino terms, of how much an open Arctic ocean would bring to the planet, then they might not be able to argue it away?

As for 'lost to space'? The northern lanmasses will be able to cool far faster than the ocean , come Autumn, so won't this leave an imbalance that Nature would like to fill?

[DavidR]

Currently, I'm fed up with deniers telling me the recent hike in global temps " was all El Nino"..... and not the tiny bit on top that climate scientists tell us Nino added?

Perhaps the attached graph will help. It  shows temperature anomalies for the 1997/98 and 2015/16 El Ninos. The 2015/16 El Nino was not as strong  as 1997/98.

The difference in the anomaly, shown by the black line, represents the global warming, since 1998, component of the recent temperatures.

If in fact it was all down to El Nino the black line should be below 0 because 1997/98 was stronger than 2015/6.

[Andreas T]

The key point is that El Nino doesn't generate heat or increases energy uptake by the Earth, it releases energy stored in the pacific ocean. That redistribution is larger than what global warming adds in a single year, sure, but this El Nino can produce higher temperatures than previous ones because the Earth as a whole has been accumulating more energy each year through global warming.

[JimboOmega]

Does GFS include the ice extent in its modeling?

Specifically, if there are anomalous ice conditions, does that mess up its temperature forecasts?  (I'm looking at cci-reanalyzer, specifically)

[Michael Hauber]

Does GFS include the ice extent in its modeling?

Specifically, if there are anomalous ice conditions, does that mess up its temperature forecasts?  (I'm looking at cci-reanalyzer, specifically)

yes

But current conditions are detected by SSM/I which is malfunctioning.  Whether that is enough to mess up its temperature forecasts I don't know.

[seaicesailor]

Today there's a good example for a question I've got. I have understood, from reading comments here, that Modis false-color images 3-6-7 could indicate surface melting wherever the surface looks more reddish than orange. Lately I started to follow cues that the images 7-2-1 could be better indication of surface melting wherever blue becomes dark blue.

Below a Modis tile of today showing part of ESS and CAB.
The 3-6-7 image (left) is very much red for the whole area without clouds, when compared to Beaufort sea (not in the image). However the 7-2-1 image shows blue gradually getting darker only in a smaller extension closer to the coast.

Anybody would know what is a better indicator of surface melting? BTW, it goes without saying I have not  idea what 3-6-7 or 7-2-1 channel combinations mean.

[Andreas T]

there is some information on the 3-6-7 and 7-2-1 images here
 https://earthdata.nasa.gov/faq#ed-rapid-response-faq
As I understand it the more orange shade of red indicates finer crystals of ice, i.e. high clouds or fine snow. Snow which has warmed to its melting point and has coarser grains of ice becomes similar to ice in appearance (red). Therefore 3-6-7 will show the onset of surface melt before 7-2-1 which shows water on the surface more strongly (see the landfast ice east of the Lena delta today versus yesterday)
http://go.nasa.gov/24naZlm

[seaicesailor]

Thank you Andreas!

[JimboOmega]

Where do people get MODIS images?

[Laurent]

4 km range
https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/imagery/subsets/?mosaic=Arctic

Click on a tile to get some more precise choices.
Change the date in the address bar.

You have also this link that is for the whole world :
https://lance.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/imagery/realtime.cgi

[Jim Hunt]

Where do people get MODIS images?

Worldview is the easiest venue (IMHO). Try Andreas' most recent link, and maybe this one too?

http://go.nasa.gov/1ZsGDNa

Then do a screengrab or click the camera icon at the top right.

[Okono]

BTW, it goes without saying I have not  idea what 3-6-7 or 7-2-1 channel combinations mean.

This is cobbling together knowledge from several places, so if it's wrong, someone please correct me.

AFAIK, they're frequencies of light, "channel" or "band" generally being shorthand for "wavelength".  The numbers are a conventional mapping from satellite frequency to numbers that can be remembered easily.

This then gets mapped to displayed colors, R-G-B.  Wavelength and brightness on the screen are based on the wavelength conventions and the order.

Here are some example combinations and example interpretations of colors based on the combinations.

http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/gis/notes/RS2.htm

Next life, I'm planning on my eyeballs going C-M-Y-K, but it's already possible to do fancier combinations than these quick ones.

[seaicesailor]

Thanks Okono : -)

[Okono]

No problem, I just hope it's all correct.  I think it is.  I found the same explanation on the page I linked.

I can ask a follow-up that is immediately relevant to your question in the melting thread, though, and I can't answer it as well, so:

Can anyone give example band mappings and how to interpret the colors for satellites that cover the Arctic?

edit: "sorry, beyond the information on 3-6-7 and 7-2-1 with MODIS linked to in the FAQ earlier at:"

https://earthdata.nasa.gov/faq#ed-rapid-response-faq

[Jim Hunt]

MODIS bands are documented at

http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/specifications.php

[Andreas T]

Not something which is much help at the moment, but I have started a thread http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1573.0.html
 (a bit out of the way, but that means it does not fill quickly with other issues)
I want to collect examples of images where the colours can be related to known features, so we build up a kind of library of situations where parallels can be drawn from known situations to unknown ones. That's how experienced analysts of these thing work I guess, gaining experience from previous correlations.

The first example I posted shows darkened ice on a floe which I know is thinner ice by tracking this floe since over a couple of months. In the same shot landfast ice shows similar darkening but the 7-2-1 image shows one to have a watercovered surface and the other not.

[JimboOmega]

What site has a good "nowcast" (temps, winds, clouds) of the arctic? Is there one with good recent (i.e. last few days) data?

[mmghosh]

When Climate Reanalyzer reports on temperatures at 2 meters, do they mean 2 meters above ground level or 2 meters in snow/water/buoys?

[jdallen]

When Climate Reanalyzer reports on temperatures at 2 meters, do they mean 2 meters above ground level or 2 meters in snow/water/buoys?

2 meters above ground. That helps avoid microclimate conditions.

[gregcharles]

Wipneus reports on CT Area (example) using CT Dates. The day of the week generally shows that the latest date is either five days in the past or two in the future. For example, today is Wednesday, and the latest value in that data is labeled Fri 2016.4548. How can the dates be translated to human-readable form?

[Hugabufallo]

Hi, I'm a complete novice when it comes to the dynamics and intricacies of the arctic ocean melt cycle. However I have been reading what a lot of you have had to say on the matter for the past few months or so with great interest.

Due to my lack of knowledge on the scientific side of things I have been focusing on satellite imagery of various parts of the arctic and how the ice changes and moves around over time and how that differs to previous years. I was wondering if there are any suitable resources for tracking the movement of the entire arctic ice pack over time other than satellites?

The reason being that in the last week the entire outer edge of the ice seems to be rotating anticlockwise round the whole of the arctic. I was wondering whether due to the rapid change that is occurring in the temperatures of our oceans and the changing structure and increasing fragility of the ice pack that we might (in the future) see a large change in how the entire arctic ice moves about and whether this could have a significant impact on the freeze/melt cycle?

Sorry in case there is any incoherence in this post, English is my first language.

[Neven]

Welcome, Hugabuffalo.

Ice drift/movement is largely driven by winds, which are driven by (differences in) atmospheric pressure. It could be that AGW is changing these patterns, but it takes a long time to gather enough statistical evidence. One thing is for sure and that is that as ice gets thinner, it becomes more mobile/easier to move.

[Hugabufallo]

Thanks.

It is a shame that we are changing the globe so rapidly. Perhaps by the time we have gathered such evidence all the ice will be gone and it will be but a curiosity. I feel like we are just on a rollercoaster looking backwards sometimes.

[anotheramethyst]

Wipneus reports on CT Area (example) using CT Dates. The day of the week generally shows that the latest date is either five days in the past or two in the future. For example, today is Wednesday, and the latest value in that data is labeled Fri 2016.4548. How can the dates be translated to human-readable form?

It's because wipneus is a prophet haha just kidding.  It takes CT area a few days to process and release their data, but they release the raw data immediately.  Wipneus figured out their formula and calculates it for us the same day, with a small margin of error.  When CT releases the data, wipneus adjusts his numbers, if necessary. So wipneus is telling us the numbers sattelites received that day, but he writes thedate that the num ers will officially be released.  Kt'sone of a thousand incredible tbings wipneus does around here, including supplying us with data when other agencies weren't releasing any official numbers.  I think if any of us ever run into wipneus in person, we should immediately hand over some beer.