tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post5935446330343172366..comments2023-06-07T09:04:36.390-04:00Comments on More Grumbine Science: Connolley-Grumbine sea ice betRobert Grumbinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-82047233522609479572009-07-24T03:25:02.520-04:002009-07-24T03:25:02.520-04:00Hi Bob. OK, I accept. I still haven't found ti...Hi Bob. OK, I accept. I still haven't found time to work it out myself but I'm sure I can trust your numbers.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-22280690709020184552009-07-05T21:34:52.773-04:002009-07-05T21:34:52.773-04:00If you want to put a curve into my pool, the curre...If you want to put a curve into my pool, the current state of play is here:<br />http://lablemminglounge.blogspot.com/2009/07/arctic-sea-ice-pool-4-weeks-to-go.htmlC W Mageehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09706100504739548720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-49539926896493999462009-07-01T20:16:31.571-04:002009-07-01T20:16:31.571-04:00Do idle SToats
of Penguins Dream
As Arctic ice
Thr...Do idle SToats<br />of Penguins Dream<br />As Arctic ice<br />Through summers channels stream<br /><br />:)EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-55040026053347368342009-07-01T16:23:46.793-04:002009-07-01T16:23:46.793-04:00Belette: 'long as you're back to me before...Belette: 'long as you're back to me before, say 1 August. :-)<br /><br />Eli: I'm afraid the ST reference flew by me. ST = Space Telescope?Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-69974979183358818192009-07-01T11:54:52.206-04:002009-07-01T11:54:52.206-04:00What bothers me about STs position is how unphysic...What bothers me about STs position is how unphysical it isEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-45567271835011999762009-06-30T18:20:08.027-04:002009-06-30T18:20:08.027-04:00I need to think about this and draw some pix. In p...I need to think about this and draw some pix. In principle, yes.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-24204025625060138052009-06-25T06:23:22.035-04:002009-06-25T06:23:22.035-04:00I have only now realised what my method is!
It is...I have only now realised what my method is!<br /><br />It is based on the idea that there is a biennial oscillation in the ice melt. In other words a big melt is followed by a wee melt, followed by a big melt and so on. The big melts are becoming larger and the wee melts are becoming larger. <br /><br />The last big melt was 07 and the last wee melt was 08. So I predict O9 will be another big melt. The last big melt increased over the penultimate wee melt by 1.4 M sq km so I am predicting that this year the next big melt will increase by at least 1.4 M sq km on the last wee melt. <br /><br />There are other ways you could play with the figures using the big melt wee melt concept but since it is not going to give an accurate result, e.g. because of the weather, then I have just used the simplest method and got a ball park figure.<br /><br />Cheers, Alastair.Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-73526723572958416502009-06-24T07:30:33.510-04:002009-06-24T07:30:33.510-04:00Don't worry, you're still apart from the f...Don't worry, you're still apart from the field. Not least, you ignored that 2007-8 showed an increase in figuring your 'per year'. <br /><br />I'm not sure what the thinking is about the size of the next step, but don't think it's expected to be as large as 2006-7. What I'm reasonably confident about is that nobody is thinking that the next step will occur this year. We'll see on Friday, when the ARCUS estimates are released.Robert Grumbinehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10783453972811796911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5337555368793819627.post-58484644494574232292009-06-23T06:01:08.642-04:002009-06-23T06:01:08.642-04:00From what you say it seems that I am taking a more...From what you say it seems that I am taking a more conventional view in assuming that the rate of decline is increasing.<br /><br />It is difficult to decide what the rate of decline is at present but it seems to me that the change for 2006-7 should give a good approximation. Using 1st September values from IJIS, then that was was a decline 1,382,500 sq km per yr. Subtracting that from last year's extent of 4,957,656 sq km gives 3,575,156 sq km. That should let me win my bet that the average during September will be less than 4,000,000 sq km. :-) <br /><br />Cheers, Alastair.Alastairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15152292130415788120noreply@blogger.com