Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: IJIS  (Read 2659390 times)

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2650 on: July 01, 2016, 11:31:24 AM »
Not sure that sea ice has much of a buttressing effect on a glacier.  ...

from NSDIC's September 2011 Icelights: Greenland’s glaciers and the Arctic climate

Quote
...Winter sea ice also acts as a buttress against glacier ice flow, seasonally slowing the flow speed. An earlier break-up and later freeze-up of sea ice in the fjords may play a role in the ice sheets' mass balance. ...

yep, thanks for confirming while i thought that the buttressing effect of ice shelves in antarctica are so famous
"WAIS" etc, that even the last one having doubts would see the error. hope that's not too bold because i'm really not a glaciologist but i'm confident that this will be further confirmed by one of the pros here.

The WAIS (West Antarctica Ice Sheet) is far different than seasonal sea ice. Ice shelves such as the Ross Ice Shelf have an enormous buttressing effect and their disintegration results in a dramatic acceleration. I may have not understood what was meant by sea ice but I consider sea ice to be the rubble floating around in the CAB and the seasonal ice that forms in front of glaciers including portions of these glaciers that are floating. While this seasonal ice may have some buttressing effect on glacier speeds, if you watch the wonderful animations that are posted on the Greenland section, these glaciers move forward all year long, pushing the sea ice forward and all of the free floating ice bergs with it.

that was not in question, nobody was talking about a 100% blockage. there is not much point in any furhter reasoning just to keep earlier statements at least a tiny bit "right" they were wrong, the effect is proven, measurable and questioning and/or denying it is pointless IMO.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2016, 02:58:11 PM by magnamentis »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2651 on: July 01, 2016, 01:11:46 PM »
So much for my 2 cents  :)

Welcome to the Arctic.  ;D
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Jim Pettit

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2652 on: July 01, 2016, 02:09:22 PM »
And thus the very tepid June extent decrease is concluded. A few facts and stats:

--June finished with no century drops, the first time that's happened since 2009.

--IJIS SIE has now been in 2nd place for three consecutive days, the first time it's spent so long out of first place since late March.

--The total June loss of 1.45 million km2 is nearly a million square kilometers less than 2012's 2.44 million.

--June's average daily drop of 50k is one of the lowest on record, as is, obviously, the month's total loss of 1.45 million km2. It should be noted, however, that June 2016 saw a bit more loss overall than did the same month last year.


magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2653 on: July 01, 2016, 03:09:16 PM »
just as a little reminder, the less ice we start with the less ice will be to melt and the earlier we reach the point were melting is slowing due to generally lower temps, later above freezing temps, thicker ice as well lower sun angle = less energy provided.

for example had the beaufort been entirely frozen in may, we would have seen century drops, but since the ice that usually would melt in june was gone much earlier it was not there to add to the numbers (statistics)

once we shall start the melting season at 10 million sq. km for example we shall have a seasonal drop of only million sq. km to reach a 2 million minimum, that will be less loss, even though we shall see a minimum that will be about half of what we are around now. ( roughly ) hope i could point out that the loss in area and/or extent
is not a good indicator to judge development of the ice because the worse a state the ice will be in, the lower those numbers will get and abused by some. ( no one here of course, i mean others who regularly abuse stats to keep their interest or those of their idols intact. )

this will increase in the future to the extent that we shall see very shallow curves but starting very low, this until the low starting point will suffice to remain below other years. this year we did not make it but it will happen.

this post will probably a lot of back and forth arguing, hence i will bookmark it for a reminder during the next, let's say 3-5 years as a conservative forecast.

EDIT: just quoting this to remind everyone that we are second lowest today and all other number are new records, longest lowest, lowest average, etc. etc. so no reason make it sound like if this season would ever be back to "average" or "normal" and last but not least i predict a sheer drop, no clue when, will depend on the weather but it will eventually happen, about this i'm sure enough to get out on that limb :-)

Quote
Lowest year-to-date (01 January - 30 June) average.
Lowest June average.
2nd lowest value for the date.
124 days this year (68.51% year-to-date) have recorded the lowest daily extent.
30 days (16.57%) have recorded the second lowest.
14 days (7.73%) have recorded the third lowest.
168 days in total (92.82%) have been among the lowest three on record.

dnem

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 709
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 319
  • Likes Given: 278
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2654 on: July 01, 2016, 03:44:09 PM »
i could point out that the loss in area and/or extent is not a good indicator to judge development of the ice because the worse a state the ice will be in, the lower those numbers will get and abused by some. ( no one here of course, i mean others who regularly abuse stats to keep their interest or those of their idols intact. )

this will increase in the future to the extent that we shall see very shallow curves but starting very low, this until the low starting point will suffice to remain below other years. this year we did not make it but it will happen.

Perhaps expressing daily loss as a percentage of the previous day's value or maybe the year's maximum value ("normalizing" the values) would make the comparisons against a shifting baseline more useful?  A century drop ain't what it used to be? (It's actually more than it used to be against a diminished baseline).

Bill Fothergill

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2655 on: July 01, 2016, 04:23:51 PM »
Staying firmly on the topic of IJIS/ADS Vishop ...    ;)

About 5 or 6 weeks ago (page 47 on this thread) I made some observations about the annual average values for Arctic SIE as evinced by the data available on the ADS site.

Having returned from being on tour with Bruce Springsteen (well, OK, having managed to get tickets for his gigs in Glasgow and London) here is a little update incorporating the data up to and including June 30...


1) Annual average extents for the following decades...
(NB All extent values in millions of sq kms, unless otherwise stated.)

1980's   11.957
1990's   11.440
2000's   10.773

For the period 2010 - 2015, the equivalent figure is 10.199 (That's nearly 15% down on the 1980's average.)


2) Actual annual average extents from 2003 onwards.

2003   10.988
2004   10.821
2005   10.489   9th
2006   10.349   7th
2007   10.079   3rd
2008   10.585   11th
2009   10.543   10th
2010   10.324   5th=
2011   10.046   2nd
2012     9.971   lowest
2013   10.418   8th
2014   10.324   5th=
2015   10.111   4th

(NB There were 24 days with missing data. Place-holder values for these were calculated using simple linear interpolation from the before/after values.)

(NBB Out of the 6 most recent years , only 2013 has failed to make the lowest 6 annual averages. The "interloper" was, of course, 2007.)


3) It is hopefully clear that, in any given year, the average from 1st Jan - 31st Dec can easily fail to adequately describe the value reached at the local minima. Concentrating just on the 4 lowest years, as outlined above, their year-end averages were ...

2015   10.111
2007   10.079
2011   10.046
2012    9.971

However, using a rolling 12-month average, the values and end-dates for the local minima are ...

2015   10.111  (31st Dec 2015)
2007   10.057  (11th Nov 2007)
2011   10.015  (17th Nov 2011)
2012    9.915   (15th May 2013)

Unsurprisingly, the current rolling 12-month average has been dropping almost monotonically for the last 6 months, and has been ticking off a few minor milestones en route.

On the 16th May, the rolling 12-month value reached 10.056 millions sq kms, thereby replacing 2007 as having the 3rd lowest local minima. (The year-end value for 2007 had been surpassed on the 1st of May.)

By the 23rd June, this value had dropped to 10.014, thus displacing 2011 as the second lowest local minima for the rolling 12-month average. (The 2011 year-end value had been passed on the 24th of May.)

As at June 30, the rolling average has dropped to 10.003, and, in the absence of any deus ex machina intervention, when the IJIS/ADS figure for July 2nd is announced, we will see this average hit the psychologically significant figure of 10 million sq kms.

PROJECTION TIME: If the July values drop at a steady 70 thousand sq kms/day, then by July 20, the 2016 extent will be greater than that of 2015. This would produce a turning point in the rolling average with a local minima of 9.984 million sq kms.

For what little it's worth, although the low-hanging fruit went early this year, I think the July loss rate will pick up, and the rolling average will continue to decline.

How far? Je ne sais pas.

Lord M Vader

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1406
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2656 on: July 02, 2016, 12:05:34 PM »
IJIS down to 8,889,509 km2 (July 1).

2nd lowest to date behind 2010 which had a SIE of 8,821,005 km2.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2657 on: July 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM »
.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2658 on: July 03, 2016, 08:27:57 AM »
When comparing with previous years it is pretty obvious that 2010's lead is because of low-latitude ice melting out earlier. 2012 is a bit more mixed but a similar picture as well.

The blues are in areas that are going to melt out anyways...




abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2659 on: July 03, 2016, 08:45:38 AM »
When comparing with previous years it is pretty obvious that 2010's lead is because of low-latitude ice melting out earlier. 2012 is a bit more mixed but a similar picture as well.

The blues are in areas that are going to melt out anyways...




Interesting graphs and also interesting that they are different...

Good food for thought in my opinion,... not quite sure what they mean yet but thanks for posting!

 ;)
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2660 on: July 03, 2016, 01:54:24 PM »
The blues are in areas that are going to melt out anyways...

that's the key, once more you got it  ;D

this is what most observers who predict the future from numbers are overlooking most of the times. with a given extent it's very important which part of the ice cover is in which condition. if the parts which tend not to melt out generally are in bad condition and the parts which melt out anyway we are in for very low final extent and
then i predict that once we gonna cross a yet unknown threshold without special even like a storm, we gonna see a new situation. i'm especially referring to fragmentation and the ice detaching from any land, building a floating island that will sooner or later be driven south in late summer and further be decimated and once this will happen we gonna see a new low even without favouring weather conditions.

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2661 on: July 04, 2016, 04:34:02 AM »
The blues are in areas that are going to melt out anyways...

that's the key, once more you got it  ;D

this is what most observers who predict the future from numbers are overlooking most of the times. with a given extent it's very important which part of the ice cover is in which condition. if the parts which tend not to melt out generally are in bad condition and the parts which melt out anyway we are in for very low final extent and
then i predict that once we gonna cross a yet unknown threshold without special even like a storm, we gonna see a new situation. i'm especially referring to fragmentation and the ice detaching from any land, building a floating island that will sooner or later be driven south in late summer and further be decimated and once this will happen we gonna see a new low even without favouring weather conditions.
...down 90k  ;)

(I'm a numbers guy, oops!)
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2662 on: July 04, 2016, 05:22:09 AM »
IJIS:

8,706,651 km2(July 3, 2016)
Have a ice day!

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2663 on: July 04, 2016, 05:23:41 AM »
Welcome back, Espen.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2664 on: July 04, 2016, 05:26:28 AM »
Glad to see Espen back!

Also: is there a way to calculate the differential between 2016 and 2012/10 *without* the low-latitude ice? Without that, I would think this year's lead is more substantial and even pulling away at this point again.

slow wing

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 823
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 155
  • Likes Given: 546
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2665 on: July 04, 2016, 05:37:29 AM »
Glad to see Espen back!

Also: is there a way to calculate the differential between 2016 and 2012/10 *without* the low-latitude ice? Without that, I would think this year's lead is more substantial and even pulling away at this point again.
Yes, Wipneus plots an extent that is only for the Arctic Basin:
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/grf/basin-extent-multiprod.png


Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2666 on: July 04, 2016, 05:53:34 AM »
Also: is there a way to calculate the differential between 2016 and 2012/10 *without* the low-latitude ice? Without that, I would think this year's lead is more substantial and even pulling away at this point again.
The "lead" would be a lot more substantial if we could remove the ice in the peripheral seas for real. But we can't and extent has stalled there.

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2667 on: July 04, 2016, 05:56:40 AM »
..another 90K drop !
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Tensor

  • New ice
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2668 on: July 04, 2016, 06:10:07 AM »
Thanks slow wing (and of course, wipneus) .  Those graphs make the June stall, in all three resolutions, quite apparent.
Paid Insane Murdoch Drone

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2669 on: July 04, 2016, 06:18:54 AM »
Finally, the graph got updated as well.

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2670 on: July 05, 2016, 05:22:19 AM »
IJIS:

8,598,133 km2(July 4, 2016)
Have a ice day!

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2671 on: July 05, 2016, 05:23:58 AM »
-108K KM2 and retakes official lead from 2010 despite the lack of any Hudson or Baffin Bay ice at this point that year.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2672 on: July 05, 2016, 05:57:32 AM »
The peripheral seas, in green overalyed on todays map from uni-bremen. That ice is important for the central ice and it is still there.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2673 on: July 05, 2016, 10:29:47 AM »
The peripheral seas, in green overalyed on todays map from uni-bremen. That ice is important for the central ice and it is still there.

true for sure but what's your point, it's always been there at this time of the year, can you please elaborate for uns laymen ;) i'm sure there is something that you wanted to point out that i've missed, please ?

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2674 on: July 05, 2016, 01:23:23 PM »
My point can be found in Reply #2667 above.
And I still do not understand why he would wish to do so, since he didn't reply.

Downpuppy

  • New ice
  • Posts: 19
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2675 on: July 05, 2016, 03:39:42 PM »
The Masie plots are a nice way to look at the different basins. In 2016 the Laptev & ESS are still covered, but the ice there is pretty thin.

https://nsidc.org/data/masie/masie_plots.html

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2676 on: July 05, 2016, 04:35:21 PM »
The earlier the Peripheral Seas' ice melts, the more open water there is next to and within the CAB to gain solar energy, supporting the CAB ice to melt.  2012, of course, had virtually complete Peripheral Sea ice melt, and by early [edit: mid-] August, no less.  Here is a graph from Chris Reynold's Dosbat blog
:
« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 07:04:22 PM by Tor Bejnar »
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2677 on: July 06, 2016, 05:30:42 AM »
IJIS:

 8,487,072 km2(July 5, 2016)
Have a ice day!

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2678 on: July 06, 2016, 05:34:08 AM »
!00K+ drop .. is that a three day 100K drop average I wonder?
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2679 on: July 06, 2016, 05:36:45 AM »
The earlier the Peripheral Seas' ice melts, the more open water there is next to and within the CAB to gain solar energy, supporting the CAB ice to melt.  2012, of course, had virtually complete Peripheral Sea ice melt, and by early August, no less.  Here is a graph from Chris Reynold's Dosbat blog
:
So, ...you're saying peripheral seas is a good indicator of melting conditions or not?
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2680 on: July 06, 2016, 05:59:40 AM »
abbottisgone, read Chris Reynolds post.

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2681 on: July 06, 2016, 06:01:27 AM »
The peripheral seas, in green overalyed on todays map from uni-bremen. That ice is important for the central ice and it is still there.
If the peripheral seas are so important then why is there so much open water in the red area? What about the Greenland Sea?

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2682 on: July 06, 2016, 07:26:27 AM »
Is this what you mean by "open water"?

bbr2314

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1817
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2683 on: July 06, 2016, 07:35:41 AM »
lol

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2684 on: July 06, 2016, 07:59:46 AM »
 ;D

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2685 on: July 06, 2016, 08:30:33 AM »
abbottisgone, read Chris Reynolds post.
Where do I find that?
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2686 on: July 06, 2016, 08:36:03 AM »
The link to Chris Reynolds blog was in your own quote in Reply #2680.
More specifically, this: http://dosbat.blogspot.se/2016/07/june-2016-status.html

Edit; adding the Post 2007 Peripheral Seas Compactness from there as well.

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2687 on: July 06, 2016, 08:42:39 AM »
The link to Chris Reynolds blog was in your own quote in Reply #2680.
More specifically, this: http://dosbat.blogspot.se/2016/07/june-2016-status.html

Edit; adding the Post 2007 Peripheral Seas Compactness from there as well.
OK, sorry: I will check it out and try and keep up!

I love this planet!!

 ;)
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3410
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 650
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2688 on: July 06, 2016, 08:43:00 AM »
lol
I'm going to point out here a couple of things.  First, that 2013 at this stage was not dissimilar from what we see now; there was more extent in peripheral seas, but great gaps of shattered pack, right up to the pole, very similar to what you are highlighting.

*I*was very excited, and dead certain we were going to see a repeat of 2012, only worse.  I was pretty strident about that, tossing up charts and bits from various places provided in some cases by exactly the people I was disagreeing with. 

And then... Nothing Happened, and I got to eat a healthy dose of crow.  There's a lot more to predicting the melt season and proving your arguments than you've presented with your gleeful attempts at one-upsmanship on this blog.  It is distasteful, and what you present is, frankly, incomplete.

This blog isn't about who's right, or smarter.  It's about taking a collegial, thoughtful approach to the information available to us, debating what it means, evaluating how skillful we actually have been with our conclusions, and then the next go-round attempting to apply what we learn. 

*That* produces greater understanding.  I think you need to ask yourself, what are you here for?
This space for Rent.

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1339
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 679
  • Likes Given: 299
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2689 on: July 06, 2016, 10:09:25 AM »
!00K+ drop .. is that a three day 100K drop average I wonder?

It's a 4 day average of >100k actually. However, that's only 7k above the average since 2007, and 13k above the average since 2003.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

abbottisgone

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 297
  • "...I'm a rock'n'roll star,...... YES I ARE!!!!!!"
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2690 on: July 06, 2016, 10:23:57 AM »
!00K+ drop .. is that a three day 100K drop average I wonder?

It's a 4 day average of >100k actually. However, that's only 7k above the average since 2007, and 13k above the average since 2003.
You are, and always will be, the man!

All good stuff: information is our friend!

 :)
..
But I left school and grew my hair
They didn't understand
They wanted me to be respected as
A doctor or a lawyer man
But I had other plans..........

Jim Pettit

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1175
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2691 on: July 06, 2016, 01:27:19 PM »
It's a 4 day average of >100k actually. However, that's only 7k above the average since 2007, and 13k above the average since 2003.

Yeah, July's extent loss is ahead of the last two years, though it's still not much to write home about:

« Last Edit: July 06, 2016, 01:48:05 PM by Jim Pettit »

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4606
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 879
  • Likes Given: 826
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2692 on: July 06, 2016, 07:21:45 PM »
from late last night:
...
So, ...you're saying peripheral seas is a good indicator of melting conditions or not?
Yes, a good indicator, but by itself, like any other single indicator (especially if taken out of context), it could be misleading.
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things because "we cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice"

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2693 on: July 07, 2016, 05:24:27 AM »
IJIS:

8,401,287 km2(July 6, 2016)
Have a ice day!

Tensor

  • New ice
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2694 on: July 07, 2016, 05:38:24 AM »
Heheheh, I love how the graph for this year has several times gotten "this close" to 2012, then moves away to stay lower.  Although not sure how many more times it will be able to stay lower.   
Paid Insane Murdoch Drone

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3584
  • Likes Given: 3922
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2695 on: July 07, 2016, 07:14:42 AM »
Heheheh, I love how the graph for this year has several times gotten "this close" to 2012, then moves away to stay lower.  Although not sure how many more times it will be able to stay lower.   

Same here.
July 12th might be the next challenge.

magnamentis

  • Guest
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2696 on: July 07, 2016, 11:15:10 AM »
it could pull away, at least the possibility exists looking at all the paramters. we have to keep in mind that
this is not a perfect extent melt year and a speed up could still lay ahead. i said could, by no means
implying that this WILL happen :-) just a bit of playing with ideas and possibilities, hope it's welcome :-)

enjoy further

DoomInTheUK

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 221
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2697 on: July 07, 2016, 12:17:28 PM »
Ahead or just behind 2012, just being in the same vicinity is scary enough!

Espen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3705
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 420
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2698 on: July 08, 2016, 05:23:23 AM »
IJIS:

8,347,136 km2(July 7, 2016)
Have a ice day!

Acts5v29

  • New ice
  • Posts: 44
    • View Profile
    • worshipJehovah.org - not associated with any religion
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: IJIS
« Reply #2699 on: July 08, 2016, 07:45:28 AM »
Ahead or just behind 2012, just being in the same vicinity is scary enough!

I wonder... now this years extent data is drawing closer to 2012 - and may ultimately lose out to it - if the doubters will feel complacent, that an early melt doesn't mean disaster after all.

Daily / monthly data is one thing, but the correlation with previous years speaks volumes.

perhaps the focus should be given much more strongly to other dynamics - altantic current, gyre - whose action and effect, though we have not yet found a concise way to quantify them in themselves as yet, have become more obvious as the things to watch, and let the extent data be just that: a measure of what those actual forces are doing.