Now, no doubt Dawlish or someone is going to tell me the chart is upside
down

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Assume the yoga position please

On Mar 8, 10:57*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
Now, no doubt Dawlish or someone is going to tell me the chart is upside
down

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Assume the yoga position please

The chart is completely correct dear boy.I've been watching the late
freeze with interest as well.

On 09/03/10 09:00, Dawlish wrote:
On Mar 8, 10:57 pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
Now, no doubt Dawlish or someone is going to tell me the chart is upside
down

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Assume the yoga position please

The chart is completely correct dear boy.I've been watching the late
freeze with interest as well.

I suppose most of that rise is due to the late freezing of the northern
Barents Sea. Still a light ice year there though. The only area I can
see that's above normal is the SE Barents Sea and the Baltic, though I
think I would have rated the latter at no more than average in the 60s.

East Greenland, Davis Strait and Labrador are lighter than average.
Newfoundland, Gulf of St Lawrence and the Great Lakes have almost no ice
at all!

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks., UK. E-mail: newsman not newsboy
"I wear the cheese. It does not wear me."

Wouldn't this graph be more informative if it also included a line
showing the season of maximum extent (over eg 1979-2000), ie to give a
clearer indication of the extent in a really cold recent winter.

As presently drawn, any small inflection in the direction of increased
extent looks like it's tending towards the upper bound of the extent
whereas in reality it's just tending towards - although certainly not
reaching, as yet - the mean. Or, put another way, if you're going to
include 2006-7 as a lower bound, surely it's logical also to include
an upper bound as well as the mean.

On Mar 9, 10:27*am, prodata wrote:
Wouldn't this graph be more informative if it also included a line
showing the season of maximum extent (over eg 1979-2000), ie to give a
clearer indication of the extent in a really cold recent winter.

As presently drawn, any small inflection in the direction of increased
extent looks like it's tending towards the upper bound of the extent
whereas in reality it's just tending towards - although certainly not
reaching, as yet - the mean. Or, put another way, if you're going to
include 2006-7 as a lower bound, surely it's logical also to include
an upper bound as well as the mean.

The Finns produce a good comparison for the Baltic at
http://www.itameriportaali.fi/en/ita...GB/jaatilanne/

They compare the ice situation now with the average (normal) for
1965-86.
It is a bit more icy this year , but not enormously so.

Len Wood, Wembury
SW Devon

On Mar 8, 10:57*pm, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
Now, no doubt Dawlish or someone is going to tell me the chart is upside
down

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/i...timeseries.png

Assume the yoga position please

Taking leg from behind head.........

Actually Lawrence - and rather ironically - I think you may have
chosen a graph from the exact day that the spring maximum was reached
for your snapshot! *))

It is always a risky business calling the peak and this may come back
and bite me, but I think the NSIDC will soon be calling March 8th as
the maximum; a day earlier than last year.

Recent years have seen a trend towards an earlier date for the spring
maximum.

The ice extent at this year's minimum will be very interesting.The
NSIDC goes for more ice remaining this year, due to a lack of flushing
through the Fram Strait this winter, but the world is warm and that
warmth isn't going to go away during this melt season. In addition,
there is less older, thicker ice, year-on-year. If it is a melt season
dominated by high pressure, especially during August and September
(unlike 2006 when storms interrupted the melt and almost certainly
prevented a record low). It could be another very low minimum.