The NorthEAST Passage Over Siberia Norway to the Pacific

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From NSIDC

Notice anything strange about the NSIDC data for the ealier time periods compared to other data sets?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by StuM

Notice anything strange about the NSIDC data for the ealier time periods compared to other data sets?

yes its called mann blinders

[SailOar]

Originally Posted by StuM

Notice anything strange about the NSIDC data for the ealier time periods compared to other data sets?

As I'm sure StuM knows (but newhaul is still struggling to understand), determining the extent of arctic sea ice, prior to the advent of satellite telemetry, is a non-trivial challenge.

The middle chart (above), developed from data analyses by Alekseev, and shown in Connolly, appears to be derived from the scientific paper "Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records"

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/data...7_preprint.pdf

I don't have the scientific chops to understand this paper. Maybe StuM does? What I thought I did pick up was that --

1) They can't measure historic arctic sea ice extent directly. In this paper Connolly is trying to estimate sea ice extent from historic arctic air temperature records.

2) The dataset that Alekseev used is from Siberia. Connolly used Alekseev's dataset, as well as a number of comparable data sets developed from Scandinavian and North American air temperature data sources, to create a composite analysis of historic Arctic sea ice extent.

3) Anyone who intentionally presents Alekseev's data as the only correct data source for the entire Arctic region is either scientifically illiterate (at least pertaining to this subject) or intentionally fraudulent.

Here is a composite chart from Connolly showing the data sources they used, and their final sea ice reconstuction chart.

Fig. 11. Comparison of our All-Arctic summer sea ice extent reconstruction with several other estimates in the literature:
(a) Walsh dataset-derived summer extents;
(b) Pirón & Pasalodos, 2016 September extents;
(c) Alekseev et al., 2016 September extents;
(d) CMIP5 modelled September extents;
(e) Our summer reconstruction.

As can be seen from Connolly's final reconstruction, arctic sea ice extent for the last few decades has likely been lower than anything seen for the last 100 years.

Edit to add:
Here may be Alekseev's paper (mostly behind a paywall)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...F60B8E3.f02t02

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by SailOar

As I'm sure StuM knows (but newhaul is still struggling to understand), determining the extent of arctic sea ice, prior to the advent of satellite telemetry, is a non-trivial challenge.

The middle chart (above), developed from data analyses by Alekseev, and shown in Connolly, appears to be derived from the scientific paper "Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records"

https://globalwarmingsolved.com/data...7_preprint.pdf

I don't have the scientific chops to understand this paper. Maybe StuM does? What I thought I did pick up was that --

1) They can't measure historic arctic sea ice extent directly. In this paper Connolly is trying to estimate sea ice extent from historic arctic air temperature records.

2) The dataset that Alekseev used is from Siberia. Connolly used Alekseev's dataset, as well as a number of comparable data sets developed from Scandinavian and North American air temperature data sources, to create a composite analysis of historic Arctic sea ice extent.

3) Anyone who intentionally presents Alekseev's data as the only correct data source for the entire Arctic region is either scientifically illiterate (at least pertaining to this subject) or intentionally fraudulent.

Here is a composite chart from Connolly showing the data sources they used, and their final sea ice reconstuction chart.

Fig. 11. Comparison of our All-Arctic summer sea ice extent reconstruction with several other estimates in the literature:
(a) Walsh dataset-derived summer extents;
(b) Pirón & Pasalodos, 2016 September extents;
(c) Alekseev et al., 2016 September extents;
(d) CMIP5 modelled September extents;
(e) Our summer reconstruction.

As can be seen from Connolly's final reconstruction, arctic sea ice extent for the last few decades has likely been lower than anything seen for the last 100 years.

Edit to add:
Here may be Alekseev's paper (mostly behind a paywall)
On assessment of the relationship between changes of sea ice extent and climate in the Arctic - Alekseev - 2015 - International Journal of Climatology - Wiley Online Library

no I do understand that data has been fiddled with to get grant money .
There was an article the other day where seal hunters were having trouble due to thick sea ice in the Labrador sea.
Sea Ice Bad For Canadian Seal Hunters | The Daily Caller
But the nsidc. Says the ice is low or almost non existant
Explain the reason for the difference between satellite data and boots on the ground observations.
The first is concentrations according to the satellite data the second is just a zone shot so you know where to look at the bottom of it is the Labrador sea notice on the concentration picture it is much less than 100% .
If that is correct why are they having problems with thick ice?

[newhaul]

Take off the mann blinders for a few minutes.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by StuM

Notice anything strange about the NSIDC data for the ealier time periods compared to other data sets?

You mean besides that they're comparing two different sets of data?

Those words at the top (respectively)


''SEA ICE AMOUNT' (since we're not given the source for the 'cobbled together' first graph, and the fact that the overlay can't be calibrated [I couldn't make out the dates]), realistically it shouldn't even be considered, but what the hell...

'Arctic Sea Ice Extent (September)'

'Arctic Sea Ice Extent Standardized Anomalies Jan 1953-September 2012'


have meaning, and should indicate to all but the most casual reader that these graphs can't be used in any comparison, because they describe different things.


Note the difference in the scales on the vertical axes (note also that it appears, though I can't be sure, that the two scales on the left 'bastard' graph are different).

Graph-doctoring is very common among the psuedo-skeptical, Galilean wanna-be's. (Not that anyone here would do that, I'm sure these are just pulled right off the web).

It's interesting that all these graphs originate with and from actual scientific data, which the 'naysayers' discredit (when the mood strikes them, apparently). Perhaps these naysayers could cultivate some of that lucrative funding they keep harping on about and generate some of their own graphs supporting their findings...

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by StuM

Notice anything strange about the NSIDC data for the ealier time periods compared to other data sets?

The first graph uses a 10% ice coverage parameter. The second graph cherry picks September. The third graph uses a 15% ice coverage throughout the time period and covers the entire years' data.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

If that is correct why are they having problems with thick ice?

Extent (NSIDC data)= length x width

Volume (PIOMAS data)= extent (length x width) x thickness (height).

PIOMAS ice volume data:

The year 2017 finished out with an annually averaged sea ice volume that was the lowest on record with 12,900 km 3 , below 2012 for which the annually averaged volume was 13,500 km3 .

Polar Science Center » PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume Reanalysis

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

no I do understand that data has been fiddled with to get grant money .
There was an article the other day where seal hunters were having trouble due to thick sea ice in the Labrador sea.
Sea Ice Bad For Canadian Seal Hunters | The Daily Caller

There is no fiddling with data.

The Daily Caller is classic yellow journalism. The Gulf of St Lawrence is nowhere the Arctic. There is no Labrador Sea.

BTW here is the ice forecast for the Gulf of St Lawrence

https://weather.gc.ca/marine/marine_...in=ficn17.cwis

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

There is no fiddling with data.

The Daily Caller is classic yellow journalism. The Gulf of St Lawrence is nowhere the Arctic. There is no Labrador Sea.

BTW here is the ice forecast for the Gulf of St Lawrence

https://weather.gc.ca/marine/marine_...in=ficn17.cwis

really no Labrador sea Jack I assumed you would at least know your countries geography.
GPS coordinates of Labrador Sea, Canada. Latitude: 47.7500 Longitude: -52.4500
Look at attitude 48 ( right where it says 48 on the picture )
it is in some 6 of the devil s for arctic sea ice .

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by newhaul

ok explain how I have it backwards ice breakers operating above the arctic circle in the dead of winter . How can this be a good thing?

Seems obvious you don't have much knowledge about ice and freezing temperature.
Stirr the ice so you get even more ice, as snow cover isolates a lot but freshly broken sea freezes up to 10cm a day in thickness depending of the temperature.

Teddy

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really no Labrador sea Jack I assumed you would at least know your countries geography.
GPS coordinates of Labrador Sea, Canada. Latitude: 47.7500 Longitude: -52.4500
Look at attitude 48 ( right where it says 48 on the picture )
it is in some 6 of the devil s for arctic sea ice .

Sorry keyboarding too fast.

The Gulf of St Lawrence is not part of the Labrador Sea.

https://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/DAM/DA...363118_eng.pdf

The DC piece is still nonsense. As is your last "sentence".

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

Seems obvious you don't have much knowledge about ice and freezing temperature.
Stirr the ice so you get even more ice, as snow cover isolates a lot but freshly broken sea freezes up to 10cm a day in thickness depending of the temperature.

Teddy

teddy yes I do have knowledge on ice formation and freezing temps. I also have some experience with icebreakers

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Sorry keyboarding too fast.

The Gulf of St Lawrence is not the Labrador Sea.

The DC piece is still nonsense. As is your last "sentence".

my bad darn auto correct and my big thumbs.
Look just above the 48 parallel on the picture of area 8 just east of st johns.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

my bad darn auto correct and my big thumbs.
Look just above the 48 parallel on the picture of area 8 just east of st johns.

Check my edit.