|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 2, 2009 22:47:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 2, 2009 23:43:25 GMT
*grins* Maybe the reason there's no updates & the ice sites aren't showing 2009 data is because there's been a massive heat wave in the North & it's all gone?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Jan 3, 2009 0:43:23 GMT
Kicking off for 2009 Ice Extent. 2008 ended with Arctic extent almost equal to 2004,2005, and 2006 Comparing 2nd Jan 2006 with 2nd Jan 2009. igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=02&fy=2006&sm=01&sd=02&sy=2009 Looks like 2009 moving ahead, but we will have to wait until IARC-JAXA get their 2009 charts started. Magnification of the JAXA chart, with 2009 going sideways (to show where finished in 2008) until we get some real data: Hey Kiwi. You've written previously about the differing measurements at the borders of sea and land for sea ice, from 1979 until, I believe, the beginning of this century. The former methodology favored ice extent in a way that the new one does not. I am surprised, therefore, that you post the 1979 line, since it looks to my eyes like a piece of AGW data-manipulation. Wouldn't it be tempting only to graph data that come from a level playing field? Or what is your thinking here? Thanks for starting off the new year with the new thread, btw.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 3, 2009 2:16:08 GMT
Woodstove, Haven't you figured there are no level playing fields. I think we all carry our own personal spirit levels! ;D I've leveled the playing field as much as I can. Time for a quick summary of my own progress in this area: The problems are different satellites, algorithms, resolutions, instruments, etc. The older series date back to a time when computational power was limited, and coastal mapping was primitive. Way back in the Sea Ice 2008 thread I wanted to compare the older Goddard (monthly means only) with the daily AMSR-E series. Anyone can go back & study the methods & download data from the links back then. For NSIDC info see: www.nsidc.org/data/seaice/pm.htmlI produced monthly means of the AMSR-E series and compared with the Goddard series for the same months. I used my adjustment matrix to move the Goddard data into Sync with the AMSR-E series. This doesn't correct for older differences with Satellites etc. Its a start. In any case, the older data is then interpolated from a monthly mean into a daily series. (The mean of the reconstructed daily values = the monthly mean.) The values are thus highly smoothed, and are an approximation for comparison only. We work with we have. If my corrections are valid, then 20 Jan for 2003 & 1995 should be close together in extent. Check it out: igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=20&fy=2003&sm=01&sd=20&sy=1995As should 15th Feb for the same two years igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=02&fd=15&fy=2003&sm=02&sd=15&sy=1995
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 3, 2009 7:03:59 GMT
please put the 1979 line below the 2008 line or don't show it at all. Anything else is clearly AGW propaganda.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 3, 2009 7:28:18 GMT
Socold, I know you get treated harshly at times, but most of us are genuinely interested in the truth, not propaganda from anyone, left, right or center; red, blue or green.
But your last amounts to Graffiti, and doesn't contribute to the discussion & search for Truth.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 3, 2009 8:27:25 GMT
A good discussion on fitting the data to 12.5km/25km grids & the old & new is found here: www.nsidc.org/data/ease/ease_grid.htmlThe error with fitting the data to maps and interpreting coastal areas as land or sea (ice or snow) is a known issue, and applies to the older data. The coastal errors mainly effect winter extent, but the controversy and extravagant AGW claims are related to the summer extent. I'm happy that I have been able to relate the old data (and the long term mean) accurately to the AMSR-E JAXA algorithm.
|
|
|
Post by Col 'NDX on Jan 3, 2009 21:49:06 GMT
*2008 Sea Ice thread will remain open (and "stickied") to tag with the new 2009 thread. *
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 3, 2009 22:19:03 GMT
Socold, I know you get treated harshly at times, but most of us are genuinely interested in the truth, not propaganda from anyone, left, right or center; red, blue or green. But your last amounts to Graffiti, and doesn't contribute to the discussion & search for Truth. No - its misdirection of the argument. I don't think anyone here is denying that the world warmed in the last 2 decades of the 20th century. But Socold is trying to draw an argument about whether there was more ice in 1979 - there probably was there were even some hysterics about a coming ice age at that time - which really is not the contention of this thread. The main contention is that despite the correlation of CO2 rising with temperature rising in the last 2 decades of the twentieth century leading to simplistic statistical claims of causation. That correlation no longer exists therefore we could claim it is falsified. (SoCold will only admit to falsification if this lack of correlation now lasts to 2109) I think it bears repeating that - it did get warmer in the last 2 decades of the twentieth century - but the hypothesis that it was atmospheric concentrations of CO2 that was the causal agent in that warming has been falsified by the last decade of now dropping temperatures and other metrics. It is this last falsification by in this case ice-extent, that is the nub of this discussion. There have been recent astounding (literally) discoveries about the Sun's effect on the Earth - that would have reaped scorn from the Solar Scientists had they been broached only 18 months ago. We have a LOT to learn and repeated simplistic claims based on misuse of radiation formulae and statisitics do not add to the scientific effort even though they may lead to significant research funds.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Jan 4, 2009 0:07:41 GMT
No - its misdirection of the argument. It was actually a parody of woodstove's argument about the 1979 curve appearing like "AGW data-manipulation" What can that mean other than he is claiming the 1979 curve should be a LOT closer to the 2007/2008 ones? I just thought a parody would make my objection clear more than a long post explaining it. Well it seemed to work because you agree with me that the 1979 curve is not in error enough to make a relevant argument over.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 4, 2009 1:16:03 GMT
No - its misdirection of the argument. It was actually a parody of woodstove's argument about the 1979 curve appearing like "AGW data-manipulation" What can that mean other than he is claiming the 1979 curve should be a LOT closer to the 2007/2008 ones? I just thought a parody would make my objection clear more than a long post explaining it. Well it seemed to work because you agree with me that the 1979 curve is not in error enough to make a relevant argument over. Three agreements in one day
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Jan 4, 2009 3:34:47 GMT
It was actually a parody of woodstove's argument about the 1979 curve appearing like "AGW data-manipulation" What can that mean other than he is claiming the 1979 curve should be a LOT closer to the 2007/2008 ones? I just thought a parody would make my objection clear more than a long post explaining it. Well it seemed to work because you agree with me that the 1979 curve is not in error enough to make a relevant argument over. Three agreements in one day back shortly Nauti... or should I call you tonni? ;D I'm just off to find the agw confirmation ritual & catechsim - I think I know where the sign-up form is... ;D
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Jan 6, 2009 1:47:23 GMT
Last night I spent the whole evening crying after seeing the fate of the polar bears as presented by the WWF. They were pleading for me to send them my credit card number so that I could make a regular contribution. If only I had known I could have changed my ways. Imagine if the polar ice ever recovers and there will be no more polar bears. We must immediately do something. ;D So far the ice seems to have stopped or is it just a holiday on ice (reporting). ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 9, 2009 20:06:50 GMT
JAXA back on line after the new year party! The first post to this thread is now updated. I'll update every few days if I get time.
2009 Ice is currently ahead of all but 2003 & 2004 at same date. So far it is just business as usual.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Jan 10, 2009 0:56:01 GMT
Since we are now in a Cold Phase PDO, several arctic seas included in the extent are warmed by this phase, (where as in the cool phase these seas are cooled.) Warm areas show in this image: (All anomalies in km 2) Source: arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/So we would expect negative anomalies here:North Pacific: Sea of Okhotsk: -260,000 North Atlantic: Baffin Newfoundland: (-125,000) Greenland Sea: -25,000) St Lawrence: slight - anomaly Barents Seas: -225,000 Kara Sea -100,000 Areas cooled by the cool PDO phase:Bering Sea: Anomaly > 100,000 km 2Following areas usually totally frozen this time of year:Arctic Basic: slight + anomalyBeaufort Sea: slight + anomalyCanadian Archipelago: slight - anomaly Hudson Bay: slight - anomaly Laptev sea: 0 East Siberian Sea: 0 Chuckchi Sea 0 Conclusion: Sea ice is as per the 1979-2000 mean over most of the Arctic. Areas warmed by the current PDO phase have less ice & vice versa. There is every evidence to suggest that we have normality. (Something we haven't had for some time!) We don't have any satellite observations of sea ice pre 1979, which, coincidentally, was the start of the long warm phase PDO. The ice extent of the past couple of years may be either (a) warm to cool PDO transition behaviour, or (b) maybe the norm for cool phase PDO. The last time we had a similar PDO change was back in the late 1940's (When I sum these, I get a net anomaly of -635,000km 2 which appears lower than the total -900,000 for the Northern Hemisphere - but there may be areas not included in the detailed breakdown sea by sea.
|
|