|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 16, 2014 18:07:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 16, 2014 18:08:12 GMT
Being I couldn't modify the poll, I did another one.
Please ignore the first one I put up.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 16, 2014 18:10:05 GMT
I am sticking with my 3.1 for now.
The reason I liked the cyrosphere ice area is that you can find out data from previous years if you mouse over the data set presented in the graph.
Sorry for not being low enough in the first post.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 16, 2014 21:24:09 GMT
I am sticking with my 3.1 for now. The reason I liked the cyrosphere ice area is that you can find out data from previous years if you mouse over the data set presented in the graph. Sorry for not being low enough in the first post. Thats a nice feature. I like JAXA because it has an easy download of the data, dropping it in Excel for some analysis and graphing. I suppose the cryosphere data is available someplace. Extent has been the more popular comparison figure in the past because of inaccuracies with distinguishing if an area inside of the extent line is open water or a melt pond sitting on top of the ice. I see in a new feature cryosphere is featuring ice area so maybe they think they have that problem licked.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 16, 2014 21:54:10 GMT
Has to do with the new satellite. It has been programed, calibrated, etc.
I have always felt that the ice area was more important than extent, but the uncertainty in measuring that area kept me with extent.
I think it is now time to make the switch, as the tech is now there to be pretty accurate, or so they say.
Got to believe someone...ya know?
I bet if you wrote cryosphere hosts that they have a data dump that you could use. I did it the old fashioned way, I marked some down by using the cursor and the lines on the presented graph.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2014 1:14:58 GMT
Yes, I noticed that.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2014 1:16:36 GMT
Sig, Have you noticed how the link to the Sea Ice graph cuts off the latest years? All the years after 2007 are off the graph. I wish they were showing up as I would like to click them off the graph. They must have done something, cause now I can go all the way back to the 80's with my mouse. A few days ago that didn't work. Try it again.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 17, 2014 2:35:45 GMT
Has to do with the new satellite. It has been programed, calibrated, etc. I have always felt that the ice area was more important than extent, but the uncertainty in measuring that area kept me with extent. I think it is now time to make the switch, as the tech is now there to be pretty accurate, or so they say. Got to believe someone...ya know? I bet if you wrote cryosphere hosts that they have a data dump that you could use. I did it the old fashioned way, I marked some down by using the cursor and the lines on the presented graph. What did you read on that Sigurdur? I agree ice area could be a better metric with improved equipment but not for comparisons to the past. For historical comparisons its far better to have consistency of measure than higher resolution. Counting sun spots is a big mess because even though they use the same technology to count sunspots as they have always used, when you have higher resolution equipment its going to insert a bias unless you ensure the observers ONLY use the old technology so as to not search a little harder for that spot they saw in the higher resolution images. But thats probably not a realistic scenario in the real world. Mostly for the same reason I have not adopted Hadcrut 4. Heck I would use Hadcrut 1 if they had continued it.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 17, 2014 3:36:11 GMT
Can't remember the name of the new sat. It doesn't get fooled by surface water. It is also measuring thickness rather than using models.
So thought might as well get on in life and use the new tech.
|
|
|
Post by dontgetoutmuch on Mar 20, 2014 12:06:11 GMT
I took 4.0, but really have no idea this year, so I thought I would go for an even number.
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Mar 20, 2014 22:18:54 GMT
now pc is back online going for 3.3 ..
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Mar 20, 2014 23:37:00 GMT
I picked 3.9 as it looked lonely in the pack and I don't think the ice will go real low this year, maybe next year will produce a record challenging low if a good El Nino takes hold.
|
|
birder
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 223
|
Post by birder on Mar 24, 2014 19:31:13 GMT
I went for the lowest available, but I'm still hoping for an ice free summer that would allow some Pacific birds through to our side of the pond.
|
|
|
Post by throttleup on Mar 24, 2014 22:48:41 GMT
Sig et al, For no real reason I picked 4.2. Since any number is as likely as any other number at this point, I'm sticking with it.
I was dismayed that your poll didn't have 0 (zero, nada, zilch, bupkis, diddly squat, zip) so that others of "that persuasion" could participate. I guess they could simply participate via a write-in reply...
It didn't quite make zero as predicted last year as I recall...
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Mar 25, 2014 5:28:17 GMT
That doesn't happen till 2013. Oooops. Its 2014 now.
|
|