ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Also the fact that with pixel method he is coming up with 2011 having more ice than 2006... totally incorrect. 2006 had over a million square kilometres more ice. Even using the IMS maps.. there's clearly more yellow ice area in 2006 than 2011 so I don't know why the pixel count doesn't reflect that. Also just eyeballing the snow coverage.. 2006 also clearly had way more but the pixel count is lower for some reason. The FSU data is clearly better, though a few days out of date. I'm sorry. You're right. I posted this very late at night last night and my eyes were not working well, or my mind! 2006 had 2265 while 2011 has 1953. Yes, a significant amount more ice in 2006. 2005, however, had nearly the same amount of ice that we have now according to the pixel count. 2005 had 2,005 pixels at this time, which is much closer to where we're at right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Moreover, I'm trying to figure out how this... ... supposedly has so much less snow than this... If anything, they look about equal to me, just eyeballing it. Is Art sure his pixel-counting methods don't have some bug/error? 2008 had 6,629 snow pixels 2009 had 6,946 snow pixels Just checked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I'm sorry. You're right. I posted this very late at night last night and my eyes were not working well, or my mind! 2006 had 2265 while 2011 has 1953. Yes, a significant amount more ice in 2006. 2005, however, had nearly the same amount of ice that we have now according to the pixel count. 2005 had 2,005 pixels at this time, which is much closer to where we're at right now. Aha so you got 2005 and 2006 mixed up? That makes sense. You also mixed them up on the snow count I think because 2006 had way more snow than 2011 does... but your pixel count gave it less. But if you really meant 2005 that maxes sense... 2005 looks like it has slightly less snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 What are you doing? The Ice pixels on the snowcover maps I believe are not represented in 30% coverage as seen on the DMI image you posted, so you can't expect 30% coverage to accurately represent what is being shown on the map before-hand. And if it does represent 30% extent then you're not getting the full picture on the 2006 vs 2007/09/10/11/etc shinanigans. And the reason you see differences in 2006 in the snowcover just might be to the curve of the planet and how "area" is represented, meaning what we see versus the amount of space actually covered. Below: If you're comparing 2007 to this year you'd use the 15% extent rather than the 30% knowing that 1) It would more accurately represent the image 2) Large amounts of multi-year ice were flushed from the Arctic during & after the 2007 summer, through the 2008 winter, so the 30% extent will naturally be lower at this time of year until that ice builds back later on. Your chart clearly agrees with my aassessment that we are the lowest we've been since 2007, but are not nearly as low as 2007. We had a great deal of heatwaves this summer... perhaps this is why our ice count is so low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Except as I pointed out the graph is 2 weeks out of date and we have been getting closer to 2007 since then, though still significantly above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 200 pixels isn't a huge difference, but it's a bigger difference than most of the other years he was looking at. And to me (though this could just be because I'm comparing them by eye), the 2010 map looks to have more snow than the 2009 map. 2010 had 6,779 snow pixels at this point. 2009 had 6,946 snow pixels. 2010 did not have more snow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 That graph is 2 weeks out of date. Jaxa stopped updating when AMSR-E was shutdown. 15% shows the same thing as the 30% graph I posted. Near dead last. Nowhere near 2006.. over 1 million sq km behind. That was supposed to be NORSEX, my bad, Iphone ftl. However my point stands really when using whatever 15% extent currently updating. The pixel counting obviously doesn't work. 2006 had way more snow and ice according to reliable sources... and yet the pixel counting gave 2011 more. Of course it doesn't work, the Earth isn't flat. I don't think comparing semantics means much, generally it appears we're heading for a winter with above normal snowcover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Your chart clearly agrees with my aassessment that we are the lowest we've been since 2007, but are not nearly as low as 2007. We had a great deal of heatwaves this summer... perhaps this is why our ice count is so low. I posted the incorrect chart from my iPhone. And I'm sur e no one disputes 2007 having slightly less ice, but it isn't that big of a factor on the snowcover come winter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 2010 had 6,779 snow pixels at this point. 2009 had 6,946 snow pixels. 2010 did not have more snow. Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Fair enough. When do you feel the snowcover and ice up there really matters as far as an indication for our winter? What month do you feel is the most important? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 When do you feel the snowcover and ice up there really matters as far as an indication for our winter? What month do you feel is the most important? Not sure. Just based on what others have said, it seems like any time from late October through November... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QVectorman Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 When do you feel the snowcover and ice up there really matters as far as an indication for our winter? What month do you feel is the most important? If you want to discuss the October snow cover and how it might impact the AO and NOA, you should read it. http://www.nws.noaa....ohen_062211.pdf I've already posted it twice in this thread. http://www.nws.noaa....ohen_062211.pdf Why don't you just read the paper on it already???????????????????????????????? :axe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Why don't you just read the paper on it already???????????????????????????????? :axe: Ok, what's the link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Oct 20th 04-11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Ok, what's the link? This isn't the place to troll, click the link and read it. I read it and it was definitely worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BethesdaWX Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Except as I pointed out the graph is 2 weeks out of date and we have been getting closer to 2007 since then, though still significantly above. Still much different on 15% EXT which matches up better with what is seen on the maps discussed in this thread. Since you're trying to correlate the years you should use data that accurately represents where changes in sea ice could impose a mechanism in snowcover earlier in the season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 So far in the 2000s, less ice has not had any obvious effect on the October snow cover. It appears cyclical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Alright, let's get this party started. Here we were in 2010 Snow: 7,052 pixels Ice: 2,267 Snow: 6,464 (+33) Ice: 2,001 (+72) This is really disappointing. I was hoping to see some larger gains but in 4 days we barely added anything in snow. Compared to last year we are wayyyy below in both snow and ice. 2011 vs. 2010 Snow: -588 Ice: -266 Given that we've doubled the amount of snow in the NH in the past week or so, we may just be re-loading right now. I just checked the weather forecast for Siberia on Weather Underground and it seems they won't be having any snow until Friday. These temps are F not C so I doubt there will be much melting of snow in the coming week in that area. http://www.wunderground.com/global/stations/21908.html I guess a glass half full viewpoint would be that we gained a bit more ice in the past 2 or 3 days than we normally have. Still below all other years except 2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT450R Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Still no big gains in snow compared to past few days. This year compared to last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 Except as I pointed out the graph is 2 weeks out of date and we have been getting closer to 2007 since then, though still significantly above. Virtually tied now. 2011 is starting to uptick now. Probably will start going up neck and neck. But they are now there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WidreMann Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 No updates for two days. We must be in a bad shape. FSU data bears that out. Snow coverage has flatlined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Transplant Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Rutgers snow lab data lags some, but does not look nearly as bad as FSU 41st week (10th-16th, I believe) Rankings: N Hem snowcover: 17/45 Eurasia snowcover: 19/45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 No updates for two days. We must be in a bad shape. FSU data bears that out. Snow coverage has flatlined. Not sure about snow, but ice extent is shooting up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikolai Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Very impressive gains in Russia today, with small gains in NAmerica as well... sea ice continues expanding fairly rapidly . yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 I'll post an update later. I don't like to compare day-to-date. A watched pot never boils, y'know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Well, after looking at the latest the snow maps, it's gone from bad to ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Well, after looking at the latest the snow maps, it's gone from bad to ugly. Nikolai posted the maps in reverse by mistake... the top one is today lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtRosen Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 Snow: 7,732 Ice: 2,225 So, the good news first. We have gained 1,268 pixels of snow in 4 days and 225 pixels of ice. The bad news: This is where we were last year. Snow: 8817 Ice: 2331 As far as ice is concerned, we're pretty close to where we were last year. We have about 5% less ice now than we had last year. What's 100 pixels between friends? The bad news is that we have almost 13% less snow this year than we had last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okie333 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 00Z GFS shows extreme gains coming tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnowGoose69 Posted October 26, 2011 Share Posted October 26, 2011 I would take the deficit a bit less seriously than normal. Some of it is clearly a result of less snow in the lower 48 in the Rockies vs. 2010. In addition, I think somewhat drier conditions in Canada than last fall, the temps up there have seemingly been colder than last year. I continue to place more of my worry for this coming winter on the NAO state than I do the current snow cover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.