|
Post by msphar on Aug 21, 2009 9:37:16 GMT
In terms of Atlantic hurricanes there is a peak date in the season. It is September 10th, based on historical results. Is there an equivalent date for the turning of the Ice melt to Ice growth point. Or is it too all over the calendar to nail down at this time ? If so, what are its ranges ?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Aug 21, 2009 11:48:11 GMT
In terms of Atlantic hurricanes there is a peak date in the season. It is September 10th, based on historical results. Is there an equivalent date for the turning of the Ice melt to Ice growth point. Or is it too all over the calendar to nail down at this time ? If so, what are its ranges ? Interesting correlation there - its around the same date for area a little later for extent. arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/ice-area-and-extent-in-arctic
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 22, 2009 9:40:36 GMT
According to IARC/JAXA data, in 2005 it was Sep 22nd and in 2007 it was Sep 24th. Those were both el Nino years. In other years between 2002 and 2008, it was anywhere between the 9th and the 18th. A lot depends on whether the current weak el Nino (or facsimile thereof) fizzles out or not.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 22, 2009 18:13:49 GMT
Is the poll using the IARC/JAXA charts (my assumption), or Nansen, or something else?
|
|
|
Post by medic1532 on Aug 23, 2009 0:44:21 GMT
A question about Cryosphere today images
does anyone else think that the straight lines on the antarctic ice extent images are strange ?? Could it be that the algorythm is running up against a limit of some sort and simply cutting of/ignoring anything beyond that limit???
Just wondering Medic 1532
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Aug 23, 2009 22:55:55 GMT
From: Seasonal Outlook For North American Arctic Waters Summer 2009Link: ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001/20090603000000_ARCTIC001_0004399792.pdf(Page 25) "This will most certainly prevent the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year and affect transit through the Victoria Strait region during late August and early September period." This implies that the North West passage was last "clear" in the summer of 2005, though Ice breakers would have been able to assist with passages since. If the statement from the USA/Canadian combined report is correct, then we have certainly head a lot of nonsense about the NW passage for 2007 and 2008 from the media.
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on Aug 24, 2009 2:44:10 GMT
From: Seasonal Outlook For North American Arctic Waters Summer 2009Link: ice-glaces.ec.gc.ca/prods/ARCTIC001/20090603000000_ARCTIC001_0004399792.pdf(Page 25) "This will most certainly prevent the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year and affect transit through the Victoria Strait region during late August and early September period." This implies that the North West passage was last "clear" in the summer of 2005, though Ice breakers would have been able to assist with passages since. If the statement from the USA/Canadian combined report is correct, then we have certainly head a lot of nonsense about the NW passage for 2007 and 2008 from the media. I'm pretty sure they mean that, unlike during the past three years, it will not be possible to clear the Northwest Passage in 2009, which would have been the 4th straight year of navigability. The document is from June, though, and I'm not sure whether those sailboats are going to make it through or not. Last I checked, one was en route to Cambridge Bay with the expectation of clear sailing moving west after that.
|
|
|
Post by walterdnes on Aug 24, 2009 2:48:28 GMT
This implies that the North West passage was last "clear" in the summer of 2005, though Ice breakers would have been able to assist with passages since. Actually, it's vagueness of the English language. In math, you use parentheses, like so... - This will most certainly prevent (the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year)
- This will most certainly prevent (the clearing of the Northwest Passage) for a fourth consecutive year
The first version implies that it has been clear the past 3 years, but won't reach a 4-year string. I think this was what they meant. The second version implies this is the 4th year in a row of not-clear.
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Aug 24, 2009 6:47:00 GMT
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Aug 24, 2009 16:22:01 GMT
If that little wiggle is an indication of previous behavior...it looks like it just bottomed out. So...looks like about 5.5 million. Of course, if you added in the extra ice that canada, alaska and other places (that physically check the ice) can tell is there...it's probably closer to 6million. Either way, the recovery seems to continue and it may actually be...at perfectly normal levels already.
|
|
|
Post by hilbert on Aug 25, 2009 1:03:38 GMT
This implies that the North West passage was last "clear" in the summer of 2005, though Ice breakers would have been able to assist with passages since. Actually, it's vagueness of the English language. In math, you use parentheses, like so... - This will most certainly prevent (the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year)
- This will most certainly prevent (the clearing of the Northwest Passage) for a fourth consecutive year
The first version implies that it has been clear the past 3 years, but won't reach a 4-year string. I think this was what they meant. The second version implies this is the 4th year in a row of not-clear. In English, one uses commas, as This will most certainly prevent the clearing of the Northwest Passage for a fourth consecutive year. This will most certainly prevent the clearing of the Northwest Passage, for a fourth consecutive year. The latter statement would indicate that, for four years in a row, it had not been possible to clear the passage.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Aug 25, 2009 6:58:30 GMT
If that little wiggle is an indication of previous behavior...it looks like it just bottomed out. So...looks like about 5.5 million. Of course, if you added in the extra ice that canada, alaska and other places (that physically check the ice) can tell is there...it's probably closer to 6million. Either way, the recovery seems to continue and it may actually be...at perfectly normal levels already. 5.5 would be just below the 30-year trend-line. But could we please at least see this year's outcome *before* you start to change the goalposts?
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Aug 25, 2009 7:05:08 GMT
Ice extent dropping. Less than 5.5 looking increasingly likely
|
|
dresi
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 120
|
Post by dresi on Aug 25, 2009 7:17:44 GMT
I extent dropping. Less than 5.5 looking increasingly likely Yes, but I don't know who to trust anymore. Cryosphere is showing that ice isn't melting at all.
|
|
|
Post by robertski on Aug 25, 2009 8:06:20 GMT
I extent dropping. Less than 5.5 looking increasingly likely Yes, but I don't know who to trust anymore. Cryosphere is showing that ice isn't melting at all. Yes, Cryosphere show that the ice extent is definately on a sharp rise....On August 17, Arctic sea ice extent was 6.26 million square kilometers. It seems very unlikely that we will see anywhere near 5.5 Miliion square kilometers. Closer to 6+ Million SQ Kilometers.
|
|