Vergent Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17803691 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 It's beginning to sound as if Cryosat may only be producing historic data, as opposed to near real time. I was hoping for more. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physicsguy21 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 This animation goes to show how ice free waters can gain 3-4M of ice in winter, only to melt out completely in summer: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17775158 From the BBC article, appears that in measuring the freeboard portion of the ice you can then determine thickness given the physical properties of of frozen water submerged in liquid water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Since there has been a lot of back and forth on Cryosat versus PIOMAS it is worth quoting from the article: Cryosat found the volume (area multiplied by thickness) of sea ice in the central Arctic in March 2011 to have been 14,500 cubic kilometres. This figure is very similar to that suggested by PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System), an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume, and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely. So if anyone has been dreaming of the day when Cryosat will refute PIOMAS - keep dreamin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Since there has been a lot of back and forth on Cryosat versus PIOMAS it is worth quoting from the article: Cryosat found the volume (area multiplied by thickness) of sea ice in the central Arctic in March 2011 to have been 14,500 cubic kilometres. This figure is very similar to that suggested by PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System), an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume, and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely. So if anyone has been dreaming of the day when Cryosat will refute PIOMAS - keep dreamin'. Cryosat-2 doesn't include the Hudson or SOO. I think it also excludes the Bering, Kara, Greenland, and the Barents Sea's. In the central Arctic basin, the volume of ice at March is calculated by Cryosat to be about 14,500 cubic km. do you have PIOMAS numbers from just the central arctic basin? Nope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 It's beginning to sound as if Cryosat may only be producing historic data, as opposed to near real time. I was hoping for more. Terry Is it 4 months behind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 Cryosat-2 doesn't include the Hudson or SOO. I think it also excludes the Bering, Kara, Greenland, and the Barents Sea's. do you have PIOMAS numbers from just the central arctic basin? Nope. If you actually read the entire articles or videos with this. You would have known they were comparing the same region. As far as cryosat2 excluding the greenland sea, kara, and barents. Why does cryosat2 have ice thickness data on them if it excludes them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 If you actually read the entire articles or videos with this. You would have known they were comparing the same region. I have never seen PIOMAS break down individual areas wrt to volume. If you can show that PIOMAS had the volume of the central arctic at 14,500km3 in March 2011 post away. If you can also show data that shows Cryosat-2 had the volume at 14,500km3 in March 2011 feel free to post that as well. I'm hearing a lot of numbers being thrown around with no links to the actual data. As far as I know, it doesn't exist. As for the Barents, Kara and Greenland Seas not being included I stated I wasn't sure and nothing you posted swayed me one way or the other wrt that. The article clearly states central arctic basin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physicsguy21 Posted April 25, 2012 Share Posted April 25, 2012 If you actually read the entire articles or videos with this. You would have known they were comparing the same region. As far as cryosat2 excluding the greenland sea, kara, and barents. Why does cryosat2 have ice thickness data on them if it excludes them? I read it, the article is deceptive, they were not comparing the same regions. Actually they were referencing the 'arctic basin' in the Cryosat2 article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 I have never seen PIOMAS break down individual areas wrt to volume. If you can show that PIOMAS had the volume of the central arctic at 14,500km3 in March 2011 post away. If you can also show data that shows Cryosat-2 had the volume at 14,500km3 in March 2011 feel free to post that as well. I'm hearing a lot of numbers being thrown around with no links to the actual data. As far as I know, it doesn't exist. As for the Barents, Kara and Greenland Seas not being included I stated I wasn't sure and nothing you posted swayed me one way or the other wrt that. The article clearly states central arctic basin. I read it, the article is deceptive, they were not comparing the same regions. Actually they were referencing the 'arctic basin' in the Cryosat2 article. First off, it's interesting that the people in charge of Cryosat2 admit the Thickness Map from Jan-Feb 2011 was not calibrated. This is the Calibrated data from April 2011. The next image came from the web show at the unvieling: Neven saved it as a screen shot for a live unveiling blog. During the webshow, I can't remember if they said it was one day volume check or an average for each month. But the Black dots are Cryosat2 ice volume measurements based on Area vs Thickness. The line is Piomas for the same region. The Central Arctic Basin, which is bigger than it sounds. They didn't talk about Piomas specifically in terms of validation, but the Professor talked about how close they are. If your going to try and act as if this is not real or it's some deceiving conspiracy. Then wait for the "real" papers to come out this summer on the calibration and validation as well as the volume, and of course how it relates to Piomas. the 2nd black dot has Cryosat2 about 9500km3. It has Piomas around 7500-8000km3. Below is Piomas data for 2010 and other years but focusing on 2010. we see the first October data point for Cryosat2 was 6000km3 and Piomas is at 5000km3. Below on the Piomas graph it is at 5000km3. the 2nd black(November 1st) dot has Cryosat2 about 9500km3. It has Piomas around 7500-8000km3. Looking below Piomas has 7500-7800km3. the 3rd black(December 1st) dot has Cryosat2 about 10,500km3 and Piomas around 9500km3. Looking below Piomas is at 11,000km3. Of course by December 1st ice is forming outside of the Cryosat2 vs Piomas graph area vs the Piomas graph which goes to 48N or so. I don't see how any of this is to hard to understand. Anyone can cleary see the folks running Cryosat after validation and calibration showed the origional map showed this can work, but was way off. The new map actually compares very very well with Piomas sea ice thickness maps. Do you think the guy behind all of this would say cryosat helps show the accuracy of Piomas if he is lying? That would be crazy talk. If Cryosat2 is more accurate, at least in 2010 it shows a slightly higher Volume. The April 2011 Graph, really explains why the melt season went that way. It is good to finally have some continuity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Nice post!! The data was for the month - Cryosat won't work in smaller time increments because of the narrow width of each path. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Nice post!! The data was for the month - Cryosat won't work in smaller time increments because of the narrow width of each path. Terry Your right Terry, I forgot about the limited range on a daily basis it has and how monthly composites are the better bet. Do you know why some months have a full range of data sweeps while others are missing so much data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Your right Terry, I forgot about the limited range on a daily basis it has and how monthly composites are the better bet. Do you know why some months have a full range of data sweeps while others are missing so much data? No - seems like a work in progress. I haven't been able to devote much time to this for the last while, but should be back up to speed after the end of the month (Canadian Tax time). Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 ouch at that volume graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physicsguy21 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 ouch at that volume graph It isn't a big deal. As the Cryosat2 animations have shown, ice can grow from nothing up to 3-4M in one winter, only to melt away the following summer. Re-linking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17775158 It is mostly about keeping ice in the arctic. The past decade has featured unusual circulatory regimes that have both pushed ice out of the Arctic and brought warmer air from southern areas well into the arctic circle. It is important to understand when and why concern over a natural phenomenon is warranted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 First off, it's interesting that the people in charge of Cryosat2 admit the Thickness Map from Jan-Feb 2011 was not calibrated. This is the Calibrated data from April 2011. The next image came from the web show at the unvieling: Neven saved it as a screen shot for a live unveiling blog. During the webshow, I can't remember if they said it was one day volume check or an average for each month. But the Black dots are Cryosat2 ice volume measurements based on Area vs Thickness. The line is Piomas for the same region. The Central Arctic Basin, which is bigger than it sounds. They didn't talk about Piomas specifically in terms of validation, but the Professor talked about how close they are. If your going to try and act as if this is not real or it's some deceiving conspiracy. Then wait for the "real" papers to come out this summer on the calibration and validation as well as the volume, and of course how it relates to Piomas. the 2nd black dot has Cryosat2 about 9500km3. It has Piomas around 7500-8000km3. Below is Piomas data for 2010 and other years but focusing on 2010. we see the first October data point for Cryosat2 was 6000km3 and Piomas is at 5000km3. Below on the Piomas graph it is at 5000km3. the 2nd black(November 1st) dot has Cryosat2 about 9500km3. It has Piomas around 7500-8000km3. Looking below Piomas has 7500-7800km3. the 3rd black(December 1st) dot has Cryosat2 about 10,500km3 and Piomas around 9500km3. Looking below Piomas is at 11,000km3. Of course by December 1st ice is forming outside of the Cryosat2 vs Piomas graph area vs the Piomas graph which goes to 48N or so. You posted lots of numbers there which are all a guess of exactly what they are and their relationship to PIOMAS. It's all conjecture at this point. So yes, before I go making any assumptions about Cryosat-2 vs. PIOMAS I will wait for the "real" data to be released. That is a very fuzzy screen capture. You can't read it very well and there is nothing stating that the other line is representative of PIOMAS. I'm not sure how that could even be possible when CryoSat-2 is only measuring the Central Arctic Basin (from what we have heard). When have any of you ever seen PIOMAS break down to a specific region like the central arctic basin? Something is just not adding up and I'm far from convinced that one fuzzy screen capture is evidence that PIOMAS and Cryosat-2 agree with each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A-L-E-K Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 It isn't a big deal. As the Cryosat2 animations have shown, ice can grow from nothing up to 3-4M in one winter, only to melt away the following summer. Re-linking: http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-17775158 It is mostly about keeping ice in the arctic. The past decade has featured unusual circulatory regimes that have both pushed ice out of the Arctic and brought warmer air from southern areas well into the arctic circle. It is important to understand when and why concern over a natural phenomenon is warranted. tldr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
physicsguy21 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 tldr I don't understand what that means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 You posted lots of numbers there which are all a guess of exactly what they are and their relationship to PIOMAS. It's all conjecture at this point. So yes, before I go making any assumptions about Cryosat-2 vs. PIOMAS I will wait for the "real" data to be released. That is a very fuzzy screen capture. You can't read it very well and there is nothing stating that the other line is representative of PIOMAS. I'm not sure how that could even be possible when CryoSat-2 is only measuring the Central Arctic Basin (from what we have heard). When have any of you ever seen PIOMAS break down to a specific region like the central arctic basin? Something is just not adding up and I'm far from convinced that one fuzzy screen capture is evidence that PIOMAS and Cryosat-2 agree with each other. You can get the piomas data from their website and use whatever coordinates you want. I figured you would know that. You could also email the guy who presented the data during the presentation and ask him why he is a liar since he presented the data compared to piomas. You should also post the countless papers validating cryosat2 prior to two days ago. You said there is countless papers, why not post 2 or 3 that youve read? Your calling the cryosat team liars they admited that thickness map was junk. But you have seen countless papers verifying it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 You can get the piomas data from their website and use whatever coordinates you want. I figured you would know that. You could also email the guy who presented the data during the presentation and ask him why he is a liar since he presented the data compared to piomas. You should also post the countless papers validating cryosat2 prior to two days ago. You said there is countless papers, why not post 2 or 3 that youve read? Your calling the cryosat team liars they admited that thickness map was junk. But you have seen countless papers verifying it. This post is full of fail. If you can show me a graph of PIOMAS showing only the central arctic basin I'll say I was wrong and apologize. My point still stands, the team hasn't released much for public consumption. I guess it's unreasonable for me to want to wait for a clear picture and actual numbers from the team. As for the guy presenting, I have yet to see a video of him saying anything. All I've seen is some fuzzy screen captures and a summary of what was said by other sources, not the team. btw proper English would be: are, you've, you're and admitted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 This post is full of fail. If you can show me a graph of PIOMAS showing only the central arctic basin I'll say I was wrong and apologize. My point still stands, the team hasn't released much for public consumption. I guess it's unreasonable for me to want to wait for a clear picture and actual numbers from the team. As for the guy presenting, I have yet to see a video of him saying anything. All I've seen is some fuzzy screen captures and a summary of what was said by other sources, not the team. btw proper English would be: are, you've, you're and admitted regional data is part of the PIOMAS model it is just not regularly published. An article that shows this can be found here: http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordpress/research/projects/seasonal-ensemble-forecasts-of-arctic-sea-ice/ In this article Zhang used piomas to predict the September 2010 minimum extent to be 4.8M, it turned out to be 4.7M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 regional data is part of the PIOMAS model it is just not regularly published. An article that shows this can be found here: http://psc.apl.washi...arctic-sea-ice/ In this article Zhang used piomas to predict the September 2010 minimum extent to be 4.8M, it turned out to be 4.7M. I read the article and also did a search for the words region and regional and nothing in that piece says what you are claiming. While it may be true, I have yet to see it. Nothing in that article shows the data. This will all be a mute point in a few months hopefully when we get some data released to the public regarding Cryosat-2. I hope they show it in relation to PIOMAS. I just can't trust with confidence until I hear it from the horses mouth as they say. Nearly all the claims in this thread are conjecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 I read the article and also did a search for the words region and regional and nothing in that piece says what you are claiming. While it may be true, I have yet to see it. Nothing in that article shows the data. This will all be a mute point in a few months hopefully when we get some data released to the public regarding Cryosat-2. I hope they show it in relation to PIOMAS. I just can't trust with confidence until I hear it from the horses mouth as they say. Nearly all the claims in this thread are conjecture. So, basically you are calling the cryosat-2 scientist liars, so you can keep your fake skeptic trolling of every thread and post I make. You will keep sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and babbling until the arctic ice is gone. then you will disappear into a hole and pretend you never did this. Yes PIOMAS is accurate and this is what is happening in the arctic: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Since there has been a lot of back and forth on Cryosat versus PIOMAS it is worth quoting from the article: Cryosat found the volume (area multiplied by thickness) of sea ice in the central Arctic in March 2011 to have been 14,500 cubic kilometres. This figure is very similar to that suggested by PIOMAS (Panarctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System), an influential computer model that has been used to estimate Arctic sea ice volume, and which has been the basis for several predictions about when summer sea ice in the north might disappear completely. So if anyone has been dreaming of the day when Cryosat will refute PIOMAS - keep dreamin'. PIOMAS is a robust model. I'm not surprised about the similarity. I would have been surprised had there been substantial differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 So, basically you are calling the cryosat-2 scientist liars, so you can keep your fake skeptic trolling of every thread and post I make. You will keep sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and babbling until the arctic ice is gone. then you will disappear into a hole and pretend you never did this. Yes PIOMAS is accurate and this is what is happening in the arctic: I'm not calling the team liars. I honestly cant believe the hostility I'm hearing because I want to see what they have to say without it going through another person's mouth first. Have any of you seen the presentation or a paper released from the team or are you all going based off of the fuzzy screenshots and what some people said was said? I have said it before, I trust the Cryosat-2 satellite and the team. I just want to hear it from them. When they release a paper or the presentation to the public then I feel we can have a honest discussion about Cryosat-2 and how it relates to PIOMAS. Until then it's conjecture. Cryosat-2 may very well agree with PIOMAS and everything being said could be right but don't crucify me for wanting to wait for the team to release it's findings to the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 This post is full of fail. If you can show me a graph of PIOMAS showing only the central arctic basin I'll say I was wrong and apologize. My point still stands, the team hasn't released much for public consumption. I guess it's unreasonable for me to want to wait for a clear picture and actual numbers from the team. As for the guy presenting, I have yet to see a video of him saying anything. All I've seen is some fuzzy screen captures and a summary of what was said by other sources, not the team. btw proper English would be: are, you've, you're and admitted Regarding Cryosat - It seems very much to still be a work in progress, and I assume they are leery of releasing much preliminary data that is still subject to verification and calibration. The little we've learned so far is that monthly averages are all that will be produced, and that while great accuracy may become possible for very narrow swathes, the overall picture is going to be blurred because of ice movement, melting or freezing between runs. Cryosat should be able to verify and add precision to PIOMAS, or PIOMAS like models, particularly in inaccessible areas, but it won't supersede them. The quality of the screen captures is moot since the data shown is clear. I'm sure that there is a copy of the video floating somewhere on the internet, and that you could verify what Neven and others have summarized. I won't be doing so myself since I've come to regard Neven as a reliable source. Terry BTW "This post is full of fail." - is at least as egregious a misuse of the language as anything Friv has posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The quality of the screen captures is moot since the data shown is clear. I'm sure that there is a copy of the video floating somewhere on the internet, and that you could verify what Neven and others have summarized. I won't be doing so myself since I've come to regard Neven as a reliable source. The data shown is not clear. The graph isn't labeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergent Posted April 26, 2012 Author Share Posted April 26, 2012 The data shown is not clear. The graph isn't labeled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryM Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 The data shown is not clear. The graph isn't labeled. Sorry you aren't able to extract the data, and that you won't accept the interpretation of those that are. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LithiaWx Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Sorry you aren't able to extract the data, and that you won't accept the interpretation of those that are. Terry We agree to disagree on the matter. I'm not sure what to believe and I feel that waiting for the info directly from the team is not unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.