tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post5127494523781491524..comments2023-06-21T00:39:34.443-07:00Comments on Dosbat: What does CT Area show?Chris Reynoldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-2629161158561104742013-07-23T09:58:32.475-07:002013-07-23T09:58:32.475-07:00I disagree about the lack of melt ponding this yea...I disagree about the lack of melt ponding this year in June. June 2013 had a 'cliff', and as I understand it the cliff is due to the spread of melt ponding.<br /><br />I had thought (hoped) that the one day drop of 272k km^2 in CT Area a few days ago would herald a second 'cliff'. But since that losses have been average to below average; after the anomaly drop due to that one day loss, anomalies have been climbing (daily losses less than average).<br /><br />I had hoped that atmospheric set up would be like most of the other post 2007 years. It's been very different, which invalidates direct reasoning on the issue of ice thickness. However in terms of loss rates this year is still behaving like a post 2007 year, without the aid of the atmosphere. That's significant.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-13844050795133808032013-07-22T19:58:34.481-07:002013-07-22T19:58:34.481-07:00Chris, I think area is more important - as do the ...Chris, I think area is more important - as do the scientists - but remembering that the uncertainties are large has to be considered.<br /><br />What we see this year is lack of melt ponds (in general) during June - making it look like areas was way behind 2012. Now we see lots of melt ponds in July - giving the impression 2013 is catching up. The 'truth' is it probably was never as far behind as the numbers indicated. Likewise - much of the catching up is a mirage too :)<br /><br />In a normal year I don't think it's really *that* important. We're still comparing like to like. This year, with it's atypical melt pattern, the differences are magnified. <br /><br />Until we get sensors with 3m resolution instead of 3km we'll just have to learn how to work around it :)<br /><br />Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-27964400752693732262013-07-21T11:02:44.436-07:002013-07-21T11:02:44.436-07:00Thanks,
The differences between Bootstrap and NAS...Thanks,<br /><br />The differences between Bootstrap and NASA Team (NSIDC) are striking. Regards IJIS/JAXA, Comiso developed Bootstrap, and IJIS states that their algorithm was developed by Comiso - does that make IJIS better than NSIDC???<br /><br />I've passed a link on to Wipneus as he's working on area and extent.<br /><br />I still prefer CT Area, but may start to incorporate IJIS Extent into future work.Chris Reynoldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16843133350978717556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1367053740188758246.post-42499886546891100502013-07-20T09:43:54.955-07:002013-07-20T09:43:54.955-07:00Chris, a very recent paper (June 27) by D. Notz in...Chris, a very recent paper (June 27) by D. Notz in The Cryosphere Discuss might be of interest: <a href="http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/7/3095/2013/tcd-7-3095-2013.pdf" rel="nofollow">Sea-ice extent provides a limited metric of model performance</a><br /><br />It's intended as a discussion of the correct metric to evaluate model performance, but has plenty of otherwise useful information vis a vis SIA vs SIE. I've only skimmed it so far, but I see the issue of grid size that Wipneus has highlighted is discussed. Kevin O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06692943768484857724noreply@blogger.com