Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Author Topic: 2017 sea ice area and extent data  (Read 32227 times)

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #150 on: April 09, 2017, 11:28:58 AM »
I know I said they should be ignored, but will this adjustment give climate risk deniers something to shout about? For instance, if later years get revised downwards more than earlier years. The whole reason for adjusting seems complicated enough for some nice spin.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #151 on: April 09, 2017, 12:12:14 PM »
I know I said they should be ignored, but will this adjustment give climate risk deniers something to shout about?
Of course it will, but science should continue in spite of that. It's like living with a psychotic person, even when you are perfect you always seem to fail and blame yourself. At some point you must realise you should be true to yourself.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • ASIF Governor
  • *****
  • Posts: 3412
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #152 on: April 09, 2017, 12:16:52 PM »
I'm not talking about blaming anyone, and climate risk deniers will do as they always will, but I was just wondering if they might get some traction with this. The Lord knows they need some Arctic propaganda to stall the inevitable.
Il faut cultiver notre jardin

LRC1962

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 398
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #153 on: April 09, 2017, 02:51:40 PM »
I'm not talking about blaming anyone, and climate risk deniers will do as they always will, but I was just wondering if they might get some traction with this. The Lord knows they need some Arctic propaganda to stall the inevitable.
Any time when scientists start talking about probabilities, even among those at odds among their peer group, unless you are deadly accurate in your predictions, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. A case in point was Einstein's theory of General Relativity.   The only way it could then be tested was to get a precise measurement of deflection of light  from a star around the sun. Took years to get that measurement for proof and finally got the proof he needed.
As for measurements today? you are relying on satellite data that is still primarily 2d and getting data only during a passover, unlike what you can get on geostationary equatorial stations. As satelittes improve and get better data then can update old data basing it on old data you will get changes. Problem is that unless you can and care to understand the math involved, you will never truely believe that the science is good.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1812
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #154 on: April 09, 2017, 03:31:05 PM »
I know I said they should be ignored, but will this adjustment give climate risk deniers something to shout about? For instance, if later years get revised downwards more than earlier years. The whole reason for adjusting seems complicated enough for some nice spin.

Climategate 3 or 4 or whatever. How difficult would it be for them to generate both metrics simultaneously for a couple of years? This way we could still track long term trends by looking at the existing metric while evaluating the effectiveness of the change in capturing what has really been going on.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #155 on: April 09, 2017, 03:41:23 PM »
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."     John Adams

"Publish and be damned".   Lord Wellington

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #156 on: April 09, 2017, 07:02:28 PM »
Update for the week to April 8th

The current 5 day trailing average is on 14,090,000km2 while the 1 day extent is at 13,995,000km2.

(All the following data is based on a trailing 5 day average)
The daily anomaly (compared to 81-10) is at -970,000km2, a decrease from -1,114,000km2 last week. The anomaly compared to the 07, 11 and 12 average is at -392,000km2, a decrease from -477,000km2 last week. We're currently 3rd lowest on record, down from lowest last week.



The average daily change over the last 7 days was -10.9k/day, compared to the long term average of -31.5k/day, and the 07, 11 and 12 average of -23.1k/day.
The average long term change over the next week is -39.6k/day, with the 07, 11, and 12 average being -31.4k/day.



The extent loss so far this April is the 6th smallest record. To achieve the largest loss, a drop of at least 73.1k/day is required (over -72.3k/day with with single day values), while the smallest drop requires a loss of less than 31.0k/day (loss less than 26.1k/day with single day values) and an average loss requires a drop of 49.7k/day (-46.7k/day with single day values).


Jim Pettit

  • Global Moderator
  • ASIF Middle Class
  • *****
  • Posts: 893
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #157 on: April 10, 2017, 03:06:15 PM »
In not earth-shattering but nonetheless interesting news, NSIDC extent has experienced back-to-back century drops. That's a fairly rare thing so early in the season; it hasn't happened prior to April 10 since 2004. 2016 is now just 5k behind 2016, and should retake first place in the next few days, at least for awhile.

Wipneus

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3170
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #158 on: April 10, 2017, 03:39:09 PM »
Wipneus: I was thinking about these for example CT-area numbers that you posted quite regularly during the melting season last year.  :)

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg87403.html#msg87403

Best regards, LMV


Because the Cryosphere Today seems to have stopped for good, and there is a better alternative: my NSIDC area, I decided to stop the CT area calculation.

Remember that CT-area is calculated from the same source, NSIDC sea ice concentration but with some differences that make direct comparison with NSIDC extent impossible.

- not taking the true grid cell area in account;
- including lake ice;
- no revisions when the input data (sea ice concentration) is revised;
- not making a 15% cutoff;

On my side it would not be a big deal to restart the CT calculation again, but in my opinion the confusion would not make it worth it (unless CT comes back again).

Wipneus

  • ASIF Governor
  • Posts: 3170
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #159 on: April 15, 2017, 12:41:13 PM »
Kevin Pluck created a wonderful video with animated NSIDC sea ice extent, SH, NH and Global.

Link to the video

More of Kevin's work here

TerryM

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1217
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #160 on: April 15, 2017, 04:00:27 PM »
Jesus H Christ !


Terry

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #161 on: April 16, 2017, 03:23:00 PM »
Update for the week to April 15th

The current 5 day trailing average is on 13,817,000km2 while the 1 day extent is at 13,739,000km2.

(All the following data is based on a trailing 5 day average)
The daily anomaly (compared to 81-10) is at -966,000km2, a decrease from -970,000km2 last week. The anomaly compared to the 07, 11 and 12 average is at -445,000km2, an increase from -392,000km2 last week. We're currently lowest on record, up from 3rd lowest last week.



The average daily change over the last 7 days was -38.9k/day, compared to the long term average of -39.6k/day, and the 07, 11 and 12 average of -31.4k/day.
The average long term change over the next week is -37.3k/day, with the 07, 11, and 12 average being -22.8k/day.



The extent loss so far this April is the 12th smallest record. To achieve the largest loss, a drop of at least 84.6k/day is required (more than -91.6k/day with with single day values), while the smallest drop requires a loss of less than 23.0k/day (less than 20.5k/day with single day values) and an average loss requires a drop of 50.4k/day (-52.1k/day with single day values).


Juan C. García

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #162 on: April 18, 2017, 02:26:02 AM »
I made this graph that shows the number of days on a year, in which the day breaks a record or stays at the second or third lowest.

I would say that it represents the stress that we suffer on a daily basis, wondering what will happen on a particular year.

It is interesting that the worst years are 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2016. Of course, these are for the whole year and in 2012 we didn't have too much days of breaking record, but they happened exactly when they count: at the end of the melting season!
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost?
50% [NSIDC extent vs 1979-2000] or
80% [Orig. PIOMAS volume vs 1979, 77.6% with corrections]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3D is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC official trends underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Juan C. García

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #163 on: April 18, 2017, 02:32:48 AM »
This is a similar graph, but only looking at the days on the melting season (kind of arbitrary the assignation of days at the melting season).
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost?
50% [NSIDC extent vs 1979-2000] or
80% [Orig. PIOMAS volume vs 1979, 77.6% with corrections]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3D is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC official trends underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Juan C. García

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #164 on: April 18, 2017, 03:05:51 AM »
To better understand the previous graphs, this is the NSIDC graph for 2005 and previous years. So it is easy to see that 2005 was breaking records continuously, on a daily basis. Of course, here I don't show 2006, but 2006 broke several records of 2005. And so on, year after year.
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost?
50% [NSIDC extent vs 1979-2000] or
80% [Orig. PIOMAS volume vs 1979, 77.6% with corrections]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3D is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC official trends underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #165 on: April 21, 2017, 01:36:36 PM »
Hullo Juan,

I have highlighted a bit of your post which I think I disagree with. Yes, I am being picky.

It is interesting that the worst years are 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2016. Of course, these are for the whole year and in 2012 we didn't have too much days of breaking record, but they happened exactly when they count: at the end of the melting season!

The 2012 end of season melt could be regarded as least important in 2 ways:-
- early season melt (as in 2016) maximises positive feedback from insolation and from that ocean warming to inhibit winter sea ice growth,
- by late August  / September the sun is heading South and insolation is in rapid decline,
- some of us still think maybe it is only when winter sea ice reduces sufficiently will we see an ice-free summer (though the Jury is still out on that one - 2012 does NOT support that speculation).

I wonder what the graph if it included freezing months only would look like. Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).

AndrewB

  • Guest
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #166 on: April 21, 2017, 03:49:21 PM »
...
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).
GC,
Sorry to point out the obvious, but there is no need to calculate a statistical correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima, because the two are directly related by a simple formula:
summer ice minimum = (previous) winter ice maximum - total spring/summer melt

The evolution of the three interlinked variables over time is completely summarized in the following excellent chart by Jim Pettit:

CognitiveBias

  • ASIF Lurker
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #167 on: April 21, 2017, 04:08:41 PM »
...
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).
GC,
Sorry to point out the obvious, but there is no need to calculate a statistical correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima, because the two are directly related by a simple formula:
summer ice minimum = (previous) winter ice maximum - total spring/summer melt

The evolution of the three interlinked variables over time is completely summarized in the following excellent chart by Jim Pettit:

As max trends lower, min also trends lower.  Sounds like a positive correlation to me.   I'm not sure of the value of this statistic, but the 'obvious' dismissal is a bit much.

AndrewB

  • Guest
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #168 on: April 21, 2017, 04:38:48 PM »
The obvious refers to the fact that there is not a statistical correlation; while there is actually a straightforward logical and mathematical relation. And the excellent chart makes this relation quite obvious, as does the formula.

It's much like asking if the number of ice creams the iceman has in his truck at the end of the day is statistically correlated with the number of ice creams he had in his truck when he exited the factory in the morning. The obvious answer is that there is no need to work out a statistical correlation because we know exactly that:
ice creams at the end of the day = ice creams in the morning - ice creams sold *

Is it obvious why it's obvious?  ???

* In some rare cases, this relation may not hold true. I would suspect the iceman, not the statistician.  ;)
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 04:58:14 PM by AndrewB »

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #169 on: April 21, 2017, 04:47:24 PM »
Indeed there is a relation but the correlation does depend in some cases on the third variable, namely the annual loss. Had there been a 100% correlation between max volume and annual loss, there could be 0% correlation between max and min volume. Indeed this is what will happen when min volume is 0 every year.
In reality though, annual loss remained stable and then even increased as max volume decreased over the years. Therefore min volume, on average, is dropping even faster than max volume.

AndrewB

  • Guest
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #170 on: April 21, 2017, 05:06:46 PM »
Indeed there is a relation but the correlation does depend in some cases on the third variable, namely the annual loss. Had there been a 100% correlation between max volume and annual loss, there could be 0% correlation between max and min volume. Indeed this is what will happen when min volume is 0 every year.
...

Indeed, that's the case whenever the iceman sells all the ice creams in his truck.

But the correct analysis is not that there is a 100% correlation between number of ice creams in the truck in the morning and the number of ice creams sold, but quite simply that on that day, the iceman sold all the ice creams he had picked up in the morning.

When x - y =0, you don't say that x is 100% statistically correlated to y, you just say x = y.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 05:36:38 PM by AndrewB »

Juan C. García

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 372
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #171 on: April 21, 2017, 11:19:17 PM »
Hullo Juan,

I have highlighted a bit of your post which I think I disagree with. Yes, I am being picky.

It is interesting that the worst years are 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2016. Of course, these are for the whole year and in 2012 we didn't have too much days of breaking record, but they happened exactly when they count: at the end of the melting season!

The 2012 end of season melt could be regarded as least important in 2 ways:-
- early season melt (as in 2016) maximises positive feedback from insolation and from that ocean warming to inhibit winter sea ice growth,
- by late August  / September the sun is heading South and insolation is in rapid decline,
- some of us still think maybe it is only when winter sea ice reduces sufficiently will we see an ice-free summer (though the Jury is still out on that one - 2012 does NOT support that speculation).

I wonder what the graph if it included freezing months only would look like. Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).

Hi gerontocrat.

Thank for your comment, but I am not sure that I understand it.

2012 started a little low in January and February, but in March it had an important refreeze. So, the daily records on the first five months were not too many, as you can see on the first graph, that compares 2012 with 2007, 2010 and 2011. Even in April, 2012 was above the 1981-2010 average. The melt in June was important, but the real difference appeared after the Great Arctic Cyclone, on August. So, most of the 2012 daily records happened on the second semester, as you can see on the second graph.

2016 was completely the other way. We have daily records almost the whole year, except for July, September and the first half of October. So, I was expecting a minimum record at 2016 lower than what finally happened. I don’t agree with some conclusions that NSIDC makes public, specifically, that 2016 was the fifth lower year. From my point of view, 2016 should be cataloged as the second or at least the third worst year on record, because that it is what it was, in area, daily extent and volume. But well, that is another story.

2016 had 182 days being the daily lowest (against 1979-2015) and 312 days being among the three lowest on record.
2012 had 125 days being the daily lowest (against 1979-2011) and 211 days being among the three lowest on record.

That is, according to my calculations. I compare the days on the year as NSIDC do on a Charctic graph. That is, I compared day 60 on 2011 with day 60 on 2012. Being 2012 a leap year, the 60th day will be Feb 29, while on 2011 would be March 1st. These is what we visually see on Charctic, but the numbers could change a little, if I erase the feb 29´s and I compare the dates matching for the day on the month.

Regarding your last question, I believe that it is not a rule that the year that has a winter minimum, will have a summer minimum. But surely, even that 2012 does not match that rule, it should help to start with a winter minimum. So yes, I agree that there is a bigger possibility of having an ice-free Arctic, on years like 2015-2017, that the melt season starts with low ice. Specially 2017, that we are starting with the lowest volume on record, according to PIOMAS.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 01:02:59 AM by Juan C. García »
Which is the best answer to Sep-2012 ASI lost?
50% [NSIDC extent vs 1979-2000] or
80% [Orig. PIOMAS volume vs 1979, 77.6% with corrections]

Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3D is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC official trends underestimate the real speed of ASI lost.

Steven

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #172 on: April 22, 2017, 02:11:41 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ?

Using data for 1979-2016,  the correlation between detrended maximum volume and detrended minimum volume is 0.648, which is highly statistically significant (p-value: p < 0.001).

However, this is only true for sea ice volume.  For sea ice extent (rather than volume), the correlation between detrended maxima and detrended minima is very weak.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #173 on: April 22, 2017, 02:49:04 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ?

Using data for 1979-2016,  the correlation between detrended maximum volume and detrended minimum volume is 0.648, which is highly statistically significant (p-value: p < 0.001).

However, this is only true for sea ice volume.  For sea ice extent (rather than volume), the correlation between detrended maxima and detrended minima is very weak.

Thankyou Steven - bloody marvellous.

And, therefore, is it fair to say that a reduction in winter sea ice maximum volume increases the likelihood of a reduced sea ice volume minimum in the following summer and so on ...... ? (though natural variation, e.g. an unusually warm or unusually cool melting season can overwhelm the signal).

If so, then the April sea ice volume maximum will at least indicate the direction of travel?
Or am I making a cause and effect where none really exists ?

To explain my thought processes, in the risk analyses I have done in many different fields from risk of war, economics, finance, water resources and others, absolute data was often rare. One attempts to identify influences, rank them in +ve and -ve directions and attempt to weight them. From that, take a deep breath and make a forecast and assign probabilities of various future events (and be proved wrong).


AndrewB

  • Guest
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #174 on: April 22, 2017, 03:06:29 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ?

Using data for 1979-2016,  the correlation between detrended maximum volume and detrended minimum volume is 0.648, which is highly statistically significant (p-value: p < 0.001).

However, this is only true for sea ice volume.  For sea ice extent (rather than volume), the correlation between detrended maxima and detrended minima is very weak.

Steven, just curious: what correlation coefficient did you calculate and how?

oren

  • ASIF Upper Class
  • Posts: 1058
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #175 on: April 22, 2017, 03:13:14 PM »
gerontocrat, absolutely. This year's extremely low winter volume makes me expect a record summer min volume even with average melt conditions.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2017, 08:02:36 PM by oren »

Steven

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #176 on: April 22, 2017, 06:41:47 PM »
And, therefore, is it fair to say that a reduction in winter sea ice maximum volume increases the likelihood of a reduced sea ice volume minimum in the following summer and so on ...... ? (though natural variation, e.g. an unusually warm or unusually cool melting season can overwhelm the signal).

Yes, that is fair to say.

The 2017 maximum PIOMAS volume should be about 20.8 thousand km3.  For what it's worth, a simple regression analysis then suggests that this gives an 80 percent chance of a record low minimum volume for September 2017.

gerontocrat

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #177 on: April 23, 2017, 03:59:51 PM »
And, therefore, is it fair to say that a reduction in winter sea ice maximum volume increases the likelihood of a reduced sea ice volume minimum in the following summer and so on ...... ? (though natural variation, e.g. an unusually warm or unusually cool melting season can overwhelm the signal).

Yes, that is fair to say.

The 2017 maximum PIOMAS volume should be about 20.8 thousand km3.  For what it's worth, a simple regression analysis then suggests that this gives an 80 percent chance of a record low minimum volume for September 2017.

Thanks again, Steven.
The PIOMAS April analysis should be coming out in about a fortnight. Any chance of you running the correlation and indication for 2017 minimum again when it appears and shoving it onto the PIOMAS thread ?

Bill Fothergill

  • ASIF Citizen
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #178 on: April 23, 2017, 08:10:31 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ?


Using data for 1979-2016,  the correlation between detrended maximum volume and detrended minimum volume is 0.648, which is highly statistically significant (p-value: p < 0.001).

However, this is only true for sea ice volume.  For sea ice extent (rather than volume), the correlation between detrended maxima and detrended minima is very weak.


Thank you Steven. That was a concise and meaningful answer to a perfectly reasonable question.

However, an earlier response to Gerontocrat's question was less helpful.
... Sorry to point out the obvious, but there is no need to calculate a statistical correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima, because the two are directly related by a simple formula:
summer ice minimum = (previous) winter ice maximum - total spring/summer melt
...


Instead of answering the question as to the existence (or otherwise) of such a correlation, that was simply a descriptive statement of an obvious equality. A similar example of an obvious equality from the world of finance would be...

Closing share price = Opening share price + Change in share price

Although taken from entirely different spheres, these two equality statements share a common weakness: namely that, in the absence of any reliable form of time travel - other than the usual unidirectional 1 second per second familiar to everyone - the predictive skill of each is precisely zero.

As Steven goes on to stress, although there is a strongly positive correlation when the metric is volume, that breaks down when looking at either extent or area. In the summer of 2013, Rob Dekker and myself independently wrote articles on this subject for Neven's Arctic Sea Ice Blog.

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/06/problematic-predictions.html
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2013/07/problematic-predictions-2.html

Bringing that a bit more up to date, and using Excel's CORREL function on the NSIDC monthly values for both Artic Sea Ice extent and area for September 1979 - March 2017...

Correlation between September extent (year X) and March extent (year X+1) = 0.739
Correlation between September area (year X) and March area (year X+1) = 0.678

However, those seemingly meaningful correlations are largely due to the overall downward trend in the dataset(s).

March extent trend = - 42k sq kms/annum
March area trend = - 32k sq kms/annum

September extent trend = - 87k sq kms/annum
September area trend = - 79k sq kms/annum

Once the data has been de-trended (using a simple least-squares linear regression), the output(s) of the CORREL function change to...

Correlation between September extent (year X) and March extent (year X+1) = -0.068
Correlation between September area (year X) and March area (year X+1) = -0.165

As Steven stated, this represents a pretty weak level of correlation - and it actually comes out as being weakly negative.


N.B. As mentioned earlier, during those array comparisons, the average September value of (year X) would be paired with the average March value of (year X+1). The reason for this particular arrangement was because Gerontocrat's original question concerned the correlation if only the freezing season was considered. Had the question pertained to the melting season, then March and September values from the same year would have been compared.

However, it would not really have made much difference, as the de-trended correlations for the March - September melt season are also very weak...

extent = 0.000
area = -0.022

BornFromTheVoid

  • ASIF Middle Class
  • Posts: 937
    • View Profile
Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« Reply #179 on: April 23, 2017, 08:21:22 PM »
Update for the week to April 22nd

The current 5 day trailing average is on 13,587,000km2 while the 1 day extent is at 13,493,000km2.

(All the following data is based on a trailing 5 day average)
The daily anomaly (compared to 81-10) is at -935,000km2, a decrease from -966,000km2 last week. The anomaly compared to the 07, 11 and 12 average is at -515,000km2, an increase from -445,000km2 last week. We're currently 2nd lowest on record, down from lowest last week.



The average daily change over the last 7 days was -32.9k/day, compared to the long term average of -37.3k/day, and the 07, 11 and 12 average of -22.8k/day.
The average long term change over the next week is -40.7k/day, with the 07, 11, and 12 average being -44.2k/day.



The extent loss so far this April is the 14th smallest record. To achieve the largest loss, a drop of at least 130.0k/day is required (more than -157.4k/day with with single day values), while the smallest drop requires a loss of less than 14.4k/day (less than 3.5k/day with single day values) and an average loss requires a drop of 65.7k/day (-71.9k/day with single day values).