« Arctic ice melt could pause in coming decades | Main | SIE 2011 update 16: flash melting »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Artful Dodger

I have posted a comparison between the PIOMAS prediction for SIE and AMSR-E observations from Uni-Bremen on Aug 12, 2011 over on the PIOMAS July page:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/08/piomas-july-2011.html?cid=6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8a9d8c75970d#comment-6a0133f03a1e37970b014e8a9d8c75970d

Ennis George

"On a regional level, the long-term downward trend is expected to continue in all regions except the Greenland Sea."

Would this not be expected since the major advection route for Arctic Sea ice is through the FRam Strait into the Greenland Sea?

maltose

After watching the PIOMAS seasonal outlook animation again, it seems that from mid-August to the end of September, the extent really tanks on the Russian side. A prediction of things to come?

Seke Rob

That's a superb animation and with the daily data, albeit totals only, allows for some interesting calculations to ponder on for those that have been very quick to dismiss this project over Cryosat-2 as the new gospel from the first pass.

thanks

Craig Dillon

As I understand it, PIOMASS is a model that is used by the Navy to project where their subs can surface in the Arctic without encountering damaging ice. The need to be very cautious about damaging a sub, or the expense of sending it someplace where it cannot surface, leads me to believe that PIOMASS probably overstates its ice projections. Therefore, I do not recognize it as a valid climate model.
Thank you

Kevin O'Neill

Craig - I believe you might be confusing PIOMAS with PIPS. PIPS is the US Navy product and PIOMAS is from the Polar Science Center -- a department within the Applied Physics Laboratory at the University of Washington.

Ennis George

@Craig Dillon

Craig, how models are used is quite different from what the model actually measures and reports on. For example a model might say that the ice is 1 meter thick +/- 20 cm. The user would the decide to build in a margin of error based on an Expected Value risk assessment. For example a sub costing $5 billion dollars and carrying 100 men might warrant building in a safety margin of 100 cm while an ice breaker costing $5 billion might not need any safety margin.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment