tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post5216832431763383564..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Revisiting a sea ice predictionRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-78140676677890445132010-07-31T10:13:40.495-04:002010-07-31T10:13:40.495-04:00kate:
Thanks for the paper link. I mentioned a B...kate:<br /><br />Thanks for the paper link. I mentioned a Barber radio interview last December, and discussed the remote sensing issue in <a href="http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/12/fake-ice.html" rel="nofollow">Fake Ice</a>.<br /><br />side note: The NSIDC uses the satellites, but they're not NSIDC satellites. I use them too, and for the same reasons. But what we're using are actually US Department of Defense satellites -- the DMSP (Defense Meteorological Satellite Program) satellites, carrying SSMI (for F-13, 14, 15) or SSMI-S (F16, 17) instruments.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-22050489936551419982010-07-28T22:26:05.517-04:002010-07-28T22:26:05.517-04:00Something interesting regarding sea ice is a recen...Something interesting regarding sea ice is a recently discovered limitation of the NSIDC satellites. Smaller, separate chunks of multi-year ice, covered by a thin layer of first-year ice, are easily mistaken to be a solid chunk of multi-year ice. It's referred to as "rotten ice" and disappears far more quickly than the satellites lead us to believe it will. <br /><br />See a recent paper by Barber et al in GRL: http://web.mac.com/barber1818/D.G.Barber/Sea_Ice_Research_files/Barber_etal_GRL'09.pdf<br /><br />Kate <br />http://climatesight.orgKatehttp://climatesight.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-67942243105789377752010-07-28T20:37:14.424-04:002010-07-28T20:37:14.424-04:00jg
Absolutely. The point of making predictions, t...jg<br />Absolutely. The point of making predictions, to me as a scientist, is to look back afterwards and see how they did. <br /><br />The 'climatology' involved is the mean for 1979-2000. No trends. The idea of including a trend in your climatology is not yet a standard thing. I may start arguing for it in professional settings.<br /><br />Jesús:<br />I don't have anything new relative to my <a href="http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2010/06/sea-ice-estimations.html" rel="nofollow">Sea Ice Estimations</a> post from June 1. It was a little unsettling to see the ice extend immediately plummet right after that. But in July, the decline was not so extreme, and my estimates for September don't look so unreasonable now. We'll see.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-46883982750321581742010-07-28T16:30:43.790-04:002010-07-28T16:30:43.790-04:00Your guess was well founded.
Do you have a guess f...Your guess was well founded.<br />Do you have a guess for this year's minimum?Jesúsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-8952927862332129082010-07-28T15:42:15.282-04:002010-07-28T15:42:15.282-04:00I believe you would have also reported if your pre...I believe you would have also reported if your prediction had been off, so it's nice to see your estimate come true.<br /><br />Could you clarify what "close to climatology" means? Does it mean within the 30 year trend? <br /><br />thanks,<br />jgjghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00588440067862480858noreply@blogger.com