Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm nonplussed by this (Original Post) XemaSab Aug 2013 OP
looks like the line levelled off for during the last 10 days limpyhobbler Aug 2013 #1
Maybe the styrofoam bead analogy explains it pscot Aug 2013 #2
Nonplussed? Android3.14 Aug 2013 #3
Don't be, I suspect it is an artifact of the measure used intaglio Aug 2013 #4
Interestingly, PIOMAS is showing a higher amount right now as well OnlinePoker Aug 2013 #5

limpyhobbler

(8,244 posts)
1. looks like the line levelled off for during the last 10 days
Sun Aug 4, 2013, 11:44 AM
Aug 2013

from about days 205 to 215



doesn't seem normal for that part of the year

pscot

(21,024 posts)
2. Maybe the styrofoam bead analogy explains it
Sun Aug 4, 2013, 11:46 AM
Aug 2013

As the ice breaks into smaller particles, it tends to spread out.

 

Android3.14

(5,402 posts)
3. Nonplussed?
Sun Aug 4, 2013, 11:55 AM
Aug 2013

Two very different meanings to the word, nonplussed. (1)Surprised and confused or (2)unconcerned.
It shows that the area of coverage for sea ice since 1979 has been trending downwards, with the low point in 2012 (day 260) being half the area as the same low point in 1979.
This is unsurprising given what we know about climate change and definitely cause for concern, so I'm going to assume you mostly mean the second half of the first definition, "confused".
You can turn off some of the lines by clicking on the years on the right side of the chart. If you eliminate all of them except for 1979, 2012 and 2013, it will make better sense.

intaglio

(8,170 posts)
4. Don't be, I suspect it is an artifact of the measure used
Sun Aug 4, 2013, 12:06 PM
Aug 2013

In this case sea ice area, except it is not the area of the ice it is the area of the ice in ocean regions with at least 15% ice. Let's say that the grid size for sampling is 25 sq km

Take 4 of those sample patches, 100 sq kilometre of arctic ocean and it has 20% coverage of ice that counts as an area of 20 sq km.

On the other hand if the same sample has only 10 sq km then the ice area is 0 (zero). But let's say there is a storm in sample areas and the ice is pushed about until one 50 sq km section has 0 ice and another 50 sq km section has 20% although it is still the same ice it would add 10 sq km of ice to the measured total or in this case flatten the curve of ice area.

Storms are only one method that can concentrate ice and suddenly increase the measured area. Ocean currents and choke points such as narrowing straits can do the same thing. The add in the chance that the rate of flow of land based ice might have increased and this blip becomes more explicable.

OnlinePoker

(5,719 posts)
5. Interestingly, PIOMAS is showing a higher amount right now as well
Sun Aug 4, 2013, 02:25 PM
Aug 2013

On their daily levels, average thickness has also bumped up in the last week and is now above where it was in 2010-2012 as has the average volume. Still a long way to go though.




The monthly volume totals for July have also gone up, unusual for this early in the season (but then again, what is usual anymore when it comes to the arctic?).

?%3C?php%20echo%20time%28%29%20?

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»I'm nonplussed by this