This is A Rambler's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following A Rambler's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
A Rambler
Recent Activity
What are these IJIS revisions based on, fudging?
Toggle Commented Sep 13, 2011 on First uptick IJIS at Arctic Sea Ice
I was just about to say, this Peter McGrath fellow seems really angry about something and is ruining my zen. Thanks Neven for fixing that.
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2011 on First uptick IJIS at Arctic Sea Ice
A Rambler is now following Neven
Sep 9, 2011
Thanks much Neven, looking forward to it. :)
Luckily there are a few more days left until Saturday, so we can see how things develop from here. But again, if this comes about, what I have written in this SIE update becomes totally irrelevant. Thin ice, warm waters AND perfect weather conditions... Oh, dear. Sooooo... how does it look? Are we still in for a big week next week?
Thanks Kevin. That swath of ice certainly does look like it's getting manhandled.
Chris, the 2 LANCE-MODIS links you posted are to the same image.
Ned, fear not: Even to a newcomer like me, it's pretty obvious that Paul's conclusions are speculation, not fact. (And he has repeatedly said as much.) The same is true of most of what is said on this blog or, for that matter, on any blog.
Thanks Patrice. So you're saying it's an arbitrary threshold intended to reduce measurement error. That's not exactly comforting. Is it a reasonable estimate of the overall physical state of the ice, or the ability of the ice to reflect sunlight, or even the usefulness of the ice as polar bear habitat, for example? If say the entire arctic were covered in 20% ice, how would that compare to say one quarter of the area covered in thick multiyear ice? What's the correlation, if any, between SIE and the actual health of the arctic ice system? Basically, if it's just an arbitrary threshold to reduce noise, should I care about it? All this emphasis on whether some arbitrary measure will beat or not beat the level in 2007 seems strange. If everyone's so convinced that the health of the ice is worse than 2007, why not use a measure that more directly reflects that health? Surely we have the technology?
Sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but is there any underlying meaning to 15% ice coverage (even barring all the complications with sensing and calculating), or is it completely arbitrary? If it is arbitrary, shouldn't more attention be focussed on physically meaningful measures?
I still think that its better than 50/50 that the ice extent falls below the 2007 minimum -- Paul Klemencic Then I suggest you get on Intrade. Last trade: 85%. Minimum Arctic SIE for 2011 > 2007
Toggle Commented Aug 31, 2011 on SIE 2011 update 18: ten yard line at Arctic Sea Ice
A Rambler is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 31, 2011