This is crandles's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following crandles's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Very close: 2016.0959 -1.5473126 14.3929777 second lowest day ever after 2006.0850 -1.5731411 14.3918705 Just over 1k above, obviously not statistically significant difference. Arctic rose just over 33k so need an Antarctic fall of 35K with the next datum. Yesterdays Antarctic fall was 42k and typical for this day is 35k. So looks like an even better chance than today is coming tomorrow.
2016.0931 -1.5001982 14.4575024 66k above record and 4k higher than 2 days previously. But this time we have an arctic drop of 22k so antarctic drop of just 44k would be enough. (Last day antarctic fall was 68k and typical fall for time of year is 42k. Looks possible bordering on probable.)
2016.0876 -1.5149544 14.4531231 is now lowest ever for time of year (being below 2006.0876 -1.4466151 14.5214624 2011.0876 -1.2477340 14.7203436 ) less than 62k more than lowest ever 2006.0850 -1.5731411 14.3918705
>"And the volume is? They're not saying," Per BBC "This February, Cryosat saw average sea-ice floe thicknesses of just over 1.7m, giving a volume across the Arctic of nearly 24,000 cubic km. Back in the winter of 2013, following strong melting during the previous summer, floe thicknesses averaged 1.5m and the volume fell below 21,000 cu km." For comparison PIOMAS has 2015 32 20.348 2015 60 22.524 avg 21.502 2013 avg Feb 19.376 so Cryosat continues to have more volume in winter.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
First, second and fourth look much more sensible odds to me. Third looks a bit mean, I might offer 25:1 unless 'top 5' extent means lowest 5 extent when betting at 10:1 would look like good value. I might be interested in 10:1 Not in top 5 extent but probably only a small amount for a bit of fun and only if 'top 5' means lowest 5. If it means highest 5 then odds look a little low but again what record is to be used? By NSIDC, I get the following years to result in a pay off 2014 2013 2001 1997 1996 1994 1992
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
>"Current odds are as follows for September of 2015: 400:1 Continuous ice from NW Passage to Siberia 200:1 Ice remaining in Hudson Bay 12:1 2015 Extent lowest year on record 8:1 2015 Extent within lowest 2 years on record 5:1 2015 Extent within lowest 3 years on record 3:1 2015 Extent within lowest 4 years on record 2:1 2015 Extent within lowest 5 years on record NOTE: Race will be cancelled if Krakatoa, Pinatubo and the Yellowstone Caldera all erupt within the next few weeks!" Serious or in jest? What does "Continuous ice from NW Passage to Siberia" mean? At those rates, I think I would like to place a few hundred pounds on Extent within lowest 5 years and some more on some of the others. Which extent data is involved?
Toggle Commented Mar 11, 2015 on Mad max? at Arctic Sea Ice
I can see that 'tumbling' as in turning 90 degrees at a time would impede brine rejection. However that requires very small pieces of roughly same width as depth. Isn't that unlikely and repeatedly turning upside down more likely? If just repeatedly turning upside down, doesn't the brine have an easy path back down along the route it has carved when going in the opposite direction? Does that impede brine rejection all that much?
Toggle Commented Jan 4, 2015 on Fram Strait 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
What Tilling and colleagues see in the data is a very strong link between autumn thickness and the degree of melting in a year. "You might think, for example, that wind conditions would be important because they can pile the ice up and make it less susceptible to melting, while at the same time exposing more water to freeze," the University College London researcher explained. "But we've looked at this and other factors, and by far the highest correlation is with temperature-driven melting." Am I following this correctly? If there is a lot of melt during spring & summer then autumn thickness tends to be thin. Err, yes I think I would expect that not only for the obvious reason but also because lower ice at maximum tends to cause more melt. Presumably there is something a little more subtle than that she is trying to get at?
Toggle Commented Dec 16, 2014 on In the meantime: CryoSat at Arctic Sea Ice
D has linked the Average for month the end of month figures are Day 151 31 May: 2014 20.288 4th lowest 2013 20.498 2012 19.591 2nd lowest 2011 19.483 lowest 2010 20.229 3rd lowest 2009 22.431 2008 22.878 2007 21.891
Toggle Commented Jun 3, 2014 on PIOMAS June 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
>"Looking at the data I see that modelled volume reached 23,104 km3 on April 15th, which is slightly more than the 292,900 mentioned. Maybe the folks over at the PSC calculated the max differently." The average of the 30 days in April comes to 22.931 so I suspect this is a rounded monthly average rather than a single day maximum. Probably best not to expect too much accuracy at one day level so I would expect scientists to look more at monthly average than a one day max. Whether you use a monthly average or single day this is second lowest, above 2011 by about 0.42 or 0.427. So little difference. Shape of curve in April this year is unusually flat ending month at 3rd lowest. Not really sure why this is. Any ideas?
Toggle Commented May 8, 2014 on PIOMAS May 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
If updating ASIGs, displaying piomas v2.1 and current year would be better; the image to display should be: Thanks for this and all the work you do.
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2014 on PIOMAS April 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
>"I thought it'd be a nice way to pass our time while we wait for the latest PIOMAS update." Which is now out 31 March 14 value 22.609 just below 2011 minimum maximum of 22.677, is second lowest for 31 March 14.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2014 on Research for a novel at Arctic Sea Ice
If the novel writer is looking for more learned comment Maslanik et al 2007 includes "The area where at least half of the ice fraction in March consists of ice that is at least 5 years old has decreased by 56%, from 5.83 * 10^6 km2 in 1985 to a minimum of 2.56 * 10^6 km2 in 2007. Most of the perennial pack now consists of ice that is 2 or 3 years old (58% in March 2006 vs. a minimum of 35% in March 1987). The fraction of 5+ year old ice within the MYI decreased from 31% in 1988 to 10% in 2007. Older ice types have essentially disappeared, decreasing from 21% of the ice cover in 1988 to 5% in 2007 for ice 7+ years old. The greatest change in age distribution occurred within the central Arctic Basin. In this area (region 1, Figure 1), 57% of the ice pack was 5 or more years old in 1987, with 25% of this ice at least 9 years old. By 2007 however, the coverage of ice 5+ years old decreased to 7%, and no very old ice (9 + years old) has survived. From 2004 onward, and in particular in 2006 and 2007, the remaining oldest ice has been confined to a small portion of the Arctic (regions 6 – 8); essentially a relict of the perennial ice cover of 20 years ago."
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2014 on Research for a novel at Arctic Sea Ice
P-maker "The object will be frozen into the pack ice north of Svalbard and slowly drift towards the North Pole." Huh? From north of Svalbard or anywhere along Atlantic edge of ice pack which is likely south of Svalbard it is only heading one way with the Transpolar Drift towards the Fram Strait. Anyway as I mentioned above, Beafort Gyre has weakened recently so gyre was more likely to take object from north pole area towards Ellesmere.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2014 on Research for a novel at Arctic Sea Ice
>"The ice mass balance buoys that started near the North Pole this time last year emerged through the Fram Strait before Christmas:" Yes but the Beaufort Gyre used to be stronger than it has been recently. One or two trips round the gyre seems possible at up to about 8 years per loop, but probably wouldn't remain frozen either coming to top and melting in summer or sinking to sea bed. Getting stuck somehow in landfast shelf seems extremely unlikely but would allow a 200 year timescale. Stuck in a 20m ridge that tends not to move much is also unlikely but much more plausible than in a landfast shelf. I would imagine two or three decades might be possible before being dropped to sea floor or melted at surface during summer on a trip around the gyre. Polar bears can be inquisitive. Taking an object back to a den on land does not seem possible to me, but a transfer from a ridge near a landfast ice shelf to that ice shelf in autumn so it is then buried in snow and remains frozen might just be within realms of possibility. There have been a few videos posted of polar bears being inquisitive with remote control video cameras.
Toggle Commented Apr 7, 2014 on Research for a novel at Arctic Sea Ice
Re solar. forecasts peak was Dec 2012. Highest 2 months seem to be Nov 2011 and Dec 2013. A double peak or just negative noise for 2012 or might the peak be late 2013 or even 2014?
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi, yes Gas Glo is me. Hope you and Neven didn't mind me sending you invites.
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
The White House is hosting Google+ Hangout discussion at 2 PM ET today with prominent scientists and meteorologists to discuss the "Polar Vortex" and how singular weather events play into the larger issue of climate change. They'll be taking questions using the hashtag #WeTheGeeks . We hope you'll join! says a comment on the white house video. However, judging by other comments there, I doubt it is worth trying to ask anything sensible. Any thoughts on why they are pedalling Dr Francis' hypothesis which has been questioned in the scientific literature and suggesting increased frequency to come when they could look at frequency of such cold temperatures as Jeff Masters did demonstrating much reduced frequency of these temperatures?
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Jeff Masters' "Part of the reason that this week's cold wave did not set any all-time or monthly cold records is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so in a warming climate. As Andrew Freedman of Climate Central wrote in a blog post yesterday, "While the cold temperatures have been unusual and even deadly, climate data shows that intense cold such as this event is now occurring far less frequently in the continental U.S. than it used to. This is largely related to winter warming trends due to man-made global warming and natural climate variability." For example, in Detroit during the 1970s, there were an average of 7.9 nights with temperatures below zero. But this decade, that number has been closer to two nights." seems a little at odds with what was said by White House's Dr. John Holdren's (posted right next to the JeffMasters quote): "but a growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern that we can expect to see with increasing frequency as global warming continues." A septic might be driven to suggest that the warmists should get their story straight, is it increasing in frequency or decreasing? Of course it isn't actually a contradiction, the pattern could occur with increasing frequency but such low temperatures occur with reduced frequency. (It is just that reading and hearing them next to next seemed a bit strange.)
Toggle Commented Jan 10, 2014 on Looking for winter weirdness 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
But shows big snow extent negative anomaly in Europe
Merry Christpiomas to you all.
Toggle Commented Dec 23, 2013 on Merry christPIOMAS at Arctic Sea Ice
>"I was just surprised to see the level of disagreement about..." I wondered whether this was a case of journalists not knowing how to deal with science stories other than to either make it into lone scientist fighting long battle against consensus view or to make a disagreement out of it in order to present both sides. Reality might be more like some don't regard it as well established, at least not yet.
Re " I should've worded that better as I didn't mean to imply that what we saw happen this year was a negative feedback due to low NH snow extent." We might speculate that ice cracking in February like it did in Feb 2013 is a negative feedback. This seems likely (also cracking in April is likely to be positive) but I would suggest it is still just speculation rather than established.
Toggle Commented Nov 28, 2013 on And the wind cries methane at Arctic Sea Ice
Quote: "noted how a lot of models predict that a combination of Arctic sea ice and land masses that become snow-free earlier and earlier in spring, could lead to more cyclonic activity in the Arctic. As we saw this melting season, it could be a negative feedback preserving more sea ice but we learn now that .... Every advantage has its disadvantage, it seems." I don't think this is right. Snow cover this April was, given the trend, unusually high and little sea ice was melted whereas previous years had low ice in April and high sea ice melting. (It is less clear if you look at May or June.) I don't think you can suggest a feedback from 1 years data. I think it is pretty logically safe and previously established that it is a positive feedback not a negative one. So it is bad in both ways though I don't think either is particularly surprising.
Toggle Commented Nov 27, 2013 on And the wind cries methane at Arctic Sea Ice
Was the error calling 'Severnaya Zemlya', 'Novaya Semlya'? A bit of confusion with the banana shaped 'Novaya Zemlya'.