text:
Time series models of NSIDC Extent and PIOMAS Volume
Author Topic: Time series models of NSIDC Extent and PIOMAS Volume (Read 15396 times)
OSweetMrMath
Independent time series models are proposed for NSIDC Arctic Sea Ice Extent and PIOMAS Arctic Sea Ice Volume. Model validation/performance is analyzed. Future sea ice levels are predicted on the basis of these models.
Satellite measurements of Arctic sea ice extent and volume, beginning in 1979, have provided several measures of the condition of the sea ice. These measurements are of interest both as a historical description of the changes in the sea ice and as a tool for predicting future behavior of the sea ice.
Models of varying complexity and prediction accuracy are currently in use. We propose a time series model in the ARMA (auto regressive moving average) family of models for each of Arctic sea ice extent, as reported by the NSIDC, and Arctic sea ice volume, as reported by PIOMAS. The models use the monthly time series data for the extent and volume as their only inputs, and the two models are independent. That is, the extent data is used only in the extent model, and the volume data is used only in the volume model.
The remainder of this post has several sections. In the next section, the models are described. This is followed by a section validating the performance of the models. Finally, several short and longer term predictions about the behavior of the sea ice are presented on the basis of these models.
The ARMA class of models is a well studied class of time series models with generally understood applications for time series prediction. At the most general level, a time series can be represented as a function of time, so X(t) is the value of the time series X at the specified time t. The time series is represented as a deterministic function of the past plus some random noise component (called "innovations"). If the random noise series is represented as the time series Z(t), then this leads to a model with representation
X(now) = f( X(history), Z(history) ) + Z(now)
where f is some function of the history of the time series X and the noises Z.
The ARMA class of models requires that f be a linear function of the history, so the model simplifies to
X(t) = a1 * X(t - 1) + a2 * X(t - 2) + a3 * X(t - 3) + ... + Z(t) + b1 * Z(t - 1) + b2 * Z(t - 2) + ...
a1, a2, and so on, and b1, b2, and so on, are assumed to be constants. In this notation, if t is any particular time, t - 1 is one unit of time before t (in the past), t - 2 is two units of time before t, and so on. There are effectively two contributions to X(t). First, there is the contribution from previous values of the time series, a1 * X(t - 1) + a2 * X(t - 2) + a3 * X(t - 3) + ... . This is known as the auto regressive (AR) part of the time series, because the values of the time series are predicted by ("regress on") the time series itself. Second, there is the contribution from the noise, Z(t) + b1 * Z(t - 1) + b2 * Z(t - 2) + ... . This is known as the moving average (MA) part of the time series, because the noise at any time can be considered as a weighted average of the recent noises.
In general, the goal in ARMA time series modeling is to find a small set of constants for a1, b1, a2, b2, and so on, and a description of the noise Z(t) which characterizes the behavior of the time series. In general, increasing the number of constants will improve the fit of the model to the existing data, but possibly at the expense of reducing the accuracy of predictions of future data. A good model is one with a minimal number of constants and for which the noises Z(t) can be described as independent and identically distributed. (In practice, the noises as described by the model are approximately uncorrelated and constant variance, which is easier to achieve.)
NSIDC Extent Model
The monthly extent time series from the NSIDC has two traits which mean that it cannot be directly modeled as a ARMA time series. First, it has a trend. Second, it has a seasonal (or periodic) component. Fortunately, both of these can be handled by defining a difference series. Rather than modeling the extent time series itself ( X(t) ), we can model the difference series Y(t), defined by
Y(t) = X(t) - X(t - 12)
Because we are starting from a monthly time series, t - 12 is one year in the past from time t, and so Y(t) is the time series of year over year changes in Arctic sea ice extent. Y(t) can be modeled as an ARMA time series, and we should expect the model to include both month to month changes and year to year changes.
The monthly time series data through April 2014 was downloaded from the NSIDC website and imported into the R programming environment. The original time series was used to compute the difference series, and then the difference series was fit to an ARMA model using the built in time series libraries in R. The resulting model for Y, the difference series, is
Y(t) = -0.0540 + 0.6589 * (Y(t - 1) + 0.0540) - 0.7851 * Z(t - 12) + Z(t)
(all units for extent in millions of sq km). This has a fairly direct interpretation. Y(t) is the year over year change in extent in month t. The average change is -0.0540 (on average, the extent is 54,000 sq km lower in any month than it was one year before). If the year over year change last month was different than 54,000 sq km, 66% of that difference is retained as part of the year over year change this month. (If last month had a lower extent than usual, this month will also have a lower extent than usual.) Z(t - 12) is the noise from one year ago. If the noise was negative, since this month's extent is computed as a difference from the extent one year ago, this month's extent is predicted to be lower. The term - 0.7851 * Z(t - 12) counteracts that to some degree, making the year over year difference smaller in response to a large noise one year ago. Finally, the noise for this month is added.
This time series model is convenient from a standpoint of analysis and prediction. To predict average future values of the time series, assume that the noise takes its average value in the future. The model is specifically constructed so the average value of the noise is zero, so given the difference series Y up to time t and the estimated innovation series Z up to time t (these estimated values are called residuals), future values of Y can be predicted by assuming all future values of Z are equal to 0 and plugging in the known and predicted values for Y and Z into the model equation above. To predict the extent itself, plug in the known values for the extent and the predicted values for the differences into the equation X(t) = X(t - 12) + Y(t) to predict the extent at time t.
This model can easily incorporate new data into the predictions. At the current time t, the model predicts future values of Y(t + 1), Y(t + 2), etc., and X(t + 1), X(t + 2), etc. When the data for X(t + 1) becomes available, Y(t + 1) and Z(t + 1) can be directly computed, and the corrected values for these can be used to update the predictions for Y(t + 2), Y(t + 3), X(t + 2), X(t + 3), and so on. Note that new data does not change the model. The model equation for Y(t) above does not change in response to new data. The change is that new data changes the values for Z(t) at time when they were previously assumed to be 0 to their observed values. This change in data changes the resulting predictions from the model and data, without changing the model.
With somewhat more effort, the model can be used to generate probability distributions for the predictions. Analysis of the residuals for Z(t) indicate that they are heavy tailed, which means that assuming a normal distribution for the noise is likely to result in prediction intervals which are smaller than they should be. A bootstrap procedure can be used, using the observed residuals as an empirical distribution of the noise, and using them to generate sample values for the noise. The distribution of a large number of samples will be approximately equal to the true distribution of the noise.
Chart 1 shows the predicted NSIDC extent for May 2014 - April 2015 in solid red, with the limits of the 95% prediction interval for the extent in red dashed lines. Both the predictions and the prediction intervals are based on the NSIDC data from April 2014. The black line shows the true extent for April 2014 - April 2015.
[Chart 1]
Chart 1 shows the predicted values for May 2014 - April 2015 based on data up to April 2014. As stated above, the predictions can be updated with new data as it becomes available, which will tend to improve the accuracy of predictions for a fixed point in time as the available data gets closer to that point. Chart 2 demonstrates this by plotting the prediction errors. Each colored line represents the prediction error for predicting the extent for May 2014 - April 2015 based on the model and subsequent data. The color of the line indicates the month of the last available data for that prediction, in rainbow order, so red indicates the prediction from April 2014 and purple indicates the prediction from March 2015. The graph shows prediction errors, so a value of zero indicates that the prediction exactly matched the observed data.
PIOMAS Volume Model
The same basic discussion as for the extent model applies to the volume model. The model for the difference series is somewhat more complicated, so the equation for the model based on the data for April 2014 becomes
Y(t) = -0.3216 + 1.196 * (Y(t - 1) + 0.3216) - 0.2641 * (Y(t - 2) + 0.3216) + 0.3396 * Z(t - 1) - 0.6805 * Z(t - 12) - 0.3396 * 0.6805 * Z(t - 13) + Z(t)
(volume is in units of thousands of cubic km) Although the equation is more complicated, it has the same basic meaning. The average year over year change in volume is -320 cubic km. If recent months have a larger year over year change than average, the next month is also predicted to have a larger year over year change. The relationship is more complicated in this case, so both the change from two months previous, Y(t - 2), and the noise from last month, Z(t - 1), directly enter the formula. When considering the influence from the previous year, both the noise from one year ago, Z(t - 12), and the noise from one year plus one month, Z(t - 13), now appear.
As in the case for extent, generating predictions of future volumes is straight forward, and updating these predictions following new data can be made automatic. Again, estimating the prediction distribution requires a bootstrap estimate, due to the fact that the noise is heavy tailed.
Chart 3 shows the predicted volume for May 2014 - April 2015, based on the model and data from April 2014 as a solid red line. The 95% prediction interval is shown as dashed red lines. The observed volume is shown as the solid black line.
Chart 4 shows the effect of incorporating new data into the predictions. In particular, the prediction for July 2014 was too low by 1.000 thousand cu km, so all predictions made before July had errors of 1.5 thousand cu km or more for all subsequent months. On the other hand, predictions made for August and September after the correction for July had errors of less than 0.005 thousand cu km, small enough that the errors are not visible on this chart.
Chart1.jpg (98.43 kB, 1050x1050 - viewed 351 times.)
Chart2.jpg (104.18 kB, 1050x1050 - viewed 551 times.)
Re: Time series models of NSIDC Extent and PIOMAS Volume
Model Validation
A model is useful only in so far as that it is valid. Having proposed models for Arctic sea ice extent and volume, we must address the question of whether the models accurately describe the existing data and predict future data. ARMA time series models place strong demands on the noise model. In order for the model to be valid, the noise, as estimated by the model residuals, must be uncorrelated and have constant variance. A stronger version of this is to require that the noise be independent and identically distributed.
Testing for correlation is typically an automatic part of the model building process. Typically several possible models are tested until one is found which does not show statistically significant correlations in the residuals. In this case, the model for the NSIDC extent does show a statistically significant correlation at an interval of 11 months.
There is a possible physical interpretation for this. The monthly data is averaged over each month. This means that often changes in the ice can be observed in the daily data or in other related data sets which do not appear in the monthly data. However, the year over year changes reflect this change in the ice the following year. A possible example is that in July 2014, by the end of the month it was clear that daily extent loss was slow and so the measured extent was high. This did not appear in the July monthly extent data, but did appear in August, when the August monthly extent was higher than predicted. At the same time, this change appeared in the July 2014 volume data, which was also higher than predicted.
Looking forward one year, the July 2015 monthly extent was higher than predicted. It is possible to argue that the high July 2015 extent reflected the low July 2014 extent loss, which was also shown in the high August 2014 extent. Therefore the July 2015 year-over-year change is correlated with the August 2014 year-over-year change, at an interval of 11 months, and the model should be modified to incorporate this.
Until now, we have considered this possible correlation to be too small, and the overhead in model complexity too large, to justify incorporating this correlation into the model. We will continue to observe this correlation and will modify the model if it becomes necessary to accurately track this correlation.
In contrast, the PIOMAS volume model does not show meaningful significant correlations in the residuals.
The second property that the model requires is that the residuals have constant variance. We prefer the stronger assumption that the residuals are identically distributed, which is a necessary assumption to justify the bootstrap prediction distributions. There are more direct ways of testing for identical distribution, but because we are using these models specifically to predict future ice levels, we propose directly testing the validity of these predictions.
Under the model assumptions, the predictions generated by the model are the true mean of possible future paths taken by the data. The noise is assumed to be independent and identically distributed, with the distribution given by the empirical distribution of the residuals. Under these assumptions, we can create a bootstrap sample of possible futures for the model. For each possible future (or sample path), we can measure the distance from the sample path to the mean path, and then compute a distribution of the distances of the sample paths from the mean path.
We can then measure the distance of the observed actual future path to the predicted mean path. If the model assumptions reasonably describe the true ice behavior, then the observed path should not have a statistically unusual distance from the mean path.
Distance is measured by the sum of the squared differences between the predicted values at each time point and the mean values at each time point.
For the NSIDC extent, a mean prediction and a collection of sample paths were generated for the time period May 2014 - April 2015, and the bootstrap distribution of the distance of the sample paths to the mean prediction was computed. The distance of the observed data for this time period to the mean prediction was computed and compared to the bootstrap distribution. 35.09% of sample paths had a greater distance than the observed distance, so the model appears to reasonably describe the extent over the past year. (This is effectively a two-sided p-value of .70.)
For the PIOMAS volume, a similar computation results in the conclusion that 1.29% of sample paths have a greater distance over the prediction period from the mean than the observed data. (This is a two-sided p-value of .026.) However, this should not necessarily come as a surprise. The prediction error in July 2014 was 1.00055 thousand cubic km, which is the largest positive error in the entire data set. The question then becomes if this prediction error is a failure of the model or a signal of truly atypical behavior of the actual data.
It is tempting to write this off as bad luck. The data is an extreme value among the possible sample paths, but this was a consequence of the fact that the July data was also an extreme value. However, it should also be treated as evidence of typical behavior for the model. In particular, the assumption that the noise has constant variance (or standard deviation) should be reconsidered.
Examination of the residuals on a decade by decade basis indicates that the standard deviation of the residuals (which should equal the standard deviation of the noise) has been growing over time. For 1980 through 1989, the standard deviation was 0.210. For 1990 through 1999, this increased to 0.256. For 2000 through 2009, this was 0.258. Without doing a formal test, the standard deviation may have changed from the first decade of data to the later data, but the 20 year period from 1990 to 2009 appears to be constant.
However, the standard deviation for 2010 through April 2014 (the most recent data used to build the model) is 0.391. This is clearly not in agreement with the earlier time periods. The conclusion is that the ARMA family of models may not provide a good fit in modeling the PIOMAS data. Another possibility, which may behave better, would be to consider models in the ARCH family, which can directly model changes in the variance of the noise.
One final consideration in evaluating the validity of the models is to observe changes in the model based on refitting the model to new data. Rather than considering the new data from May 2014 to April 2015 as new data applied to the existing model, we can rebuild the model from the ground up using all of the data from 1979 through April 2015. If the model represents the data well, we should expect only small changes in the model parameters and in the forward predictions of the model.
The NSIDC model based on the data through April 2014, as stated above, is
Y(t) = -0.0540 + 0.6589 * ( Y(t - 1) + 0.0540 ) - 0.7851 * Z(t - 12) + Z(t)
The revised model based on the data through April 2015 is
The parameter values changed by less than 3%. The data for May 2014 to April 2015 was used to generate predictions for May 2015 to April 2016 from the April 2014 model. This was compared to the predictions for May 2015 to April 2016 from the April 2015 model, and the predictions agree to within 0.05 million sq km.
The results for the NSIDC models are more impressive in light of the fact that there was a substantial revision of the NSIDC data in March 2015. The changes were typically on the order of 0.01 million sq km and always less than 0.10 million sq km, but the fact that these changes did not have a disruptive effect on the model supports the robustness of the model.
The PIOMAS model from April 2014 is
The changes are small, with the exception of the mean value, which has changed from a loss of 320 cu km year over year to a loss of 290 cu km year over year. The predicted values for both models for the time period of May 2015 to April 2016 were compared and the largest difference in predicted values is 120 cu km. This occurs at the April maximum. On a percentage basis the largest differences are around 1%, near the September minimum.
The models for NSIDC extent and PIOMAS volume were updated to reflect the data as of April 2015, and then were used to generate predictions for extent and volume for the following 12 months. The predictions are listed below.
Month May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April
Extent 12.63 10.95 8.13 5.68 4.77 7.58 9.94 12.17 13.58 14.38 14.63 14.05
Volume 22.99 18.38 11.76 7.48 6.22 7.34 10.48 14.02 17.48 20.32 22.34 23.37
The reported data for NSIDC extent for May, June, and July is 12.65, 10.97, and 8.77, respectively. The predictions for May and June were so close to the observed data that correcting for the observations has essentially no effect on the remaining predictions. July, on the other hand, had a substantial missed prediction. This was used to correct the predictions for August and September, resulting in updated values of 6.10 and 5.05. The 95% prediction interval for the September extent is 4.39 to 5.67 million sq km.
Note that extent loss this year has been somewhat atypical. Extent loss in June was low, followed by high extent loss in July. Because of the way that monthly extent is computed by the NSIDC, this may have resulted in an artificially high July extent, contributing to the model's prediction error. In that case, we should expect the August and September values to be below the current predictions. Even so, the observed values are expected to fall within the 95% prediction intervals.
The reported data for PIOMAS volume in May, June, and July is 23.02, 18.54, and 11.63. The fact that July was lower than predicted has the effect of pushing down the updated predictions, so the updated values for August and September are 7.18 and 5.89. The 95% prediction interval for the September volume is 4.83 to 6.83 thousand cubic kilometers.
These models are intended to be short range models. The differencing gives the models the character of a random walk, and the resulting variance of the prediction intervals grows rapidly over time periods greater than one year. The extent model has been shown to be reasonably accurate over short time periods, but no claims have been made about longer periods. The volume model has not been demonstrated to control the prediction error, even over periods of less than a year.
Throwing caution to the wind, we will use the models to predict the September extent and volume through 2019. The predictions include the mean prediction, the 95% prediction interval, the probability of setting a new record minimum, and the probability of falling below 1 million sq km (extent) or 1 thousand cu km (volume).
Year Mean 95% PI Record Less than 1000000
2015 5.05 4.38 - 5.68 Less than 0.01% Less than 0.01%
2016 4.79 4.05 - 5.50 0.2% Less than 0.01%
Year Mean 95% PI Record Less than 1000
2016 5.24 2.80 - 7.49 10.4% 0.04%
2017 4.86 2.09 - 7.47 21.5% 0.3%
2019 4.20 1.05 - 7.30 39% 2.3%
We should emphasize that these predictions should be viewed with a healthy amount of skepticism. Predictions at the longest time frames are far outside the model bounds, and the volume model has not been demonstrated to be reliable even over shorter time intervals. From a numerical standpoint, the mean values are reasonable, but the prediction intervals for the extent (and associated probabilities of setting a new minimum and falling below 1 million sq km) are suspiciously small.
On the other hand, quick observation of the historical extent data for September shows that a linear trend with annual slope of -53000 sq km and a prediction interval of plus or minus 1 million sq km captures nearly all of the observed data. (Notable exceptions include 2007 and 2012, but 2013 and 2014 are just below the trend.) On that basis, the above predictions may not be unreasonable.
As discussed above, the current model for the NSIDC extent shows a correlation in the residuals at an interval of 11 months. The model can potentially be modified to account for this.
The model for the PIOMAS volume fails to have residuals with constant variance. Exploring other time series models (for example, in the ARCH family) which can represent changing variance will likely improve the prediction accuracy of the model, even if just by generating more realistic prediction intervals.
The models are deliberately designed to be simple, with minimal data input. Incorporating more data into the models could improve performance. Possibilities include daily data, regional breakdowns, and data from other sources. As a possible starting point, perhaps the data could be considered as a joint time series of both extent and volume.
For the last year or more I have been posting regular comments in various threads about predictions of sea ice extent and volume based on some time series models. I have given brief descriptions of the models in various places, but I felt it was time for a more complete writeup.
I wrote this in a deliberate fake academic style, which I hope will not make it more unreadable than the length of the post already does. The post turned out to be long enough that I had to break it into two pieces for the system to allow the post. Apparently I have a lot to say.
In any event, I hope this is of interest to the other posters here, and I am happy to answer questions and to accept feedback and criticisms. My goal was to create a fairly simple baseline for predictions of extent and volume. After my own predictions in 2013 were wildly wrong, I created these models with the goal of reducing the chance of my being that wrong again.
Thanks, OSMM.
Thanks from me too. It's such a comprehensive write up that I haven't got any questions. However it is worth noting that using this within the established forecast periods (e.g. Blanchard Wrigglesworth) seems reasonable despite it not being a physical model per se.
It's a useful addition.
Richard Rathbone
NSIDC report trends on the individual months separately. Are these trends in fact sufficiently close to make it valid to use the same trend for April and September? PIOMAS anomaly shows a distinct seasonal variation in recent years, which suggests to me that just removing an annual trend isn't good enough and that a substantial fraction of the "noise" in your time series model is actually due to including systematic differences between spring and autumn trends as noise.
My initial thought was to ask the model when virtually ice free conditions become plausible, but I suspect it will horribly overpredict the time it would take as a result of not capturing a significant difference between trends in different seasons.
I think the heavy dependence on Z(t-12) is an indicator that there is something significant missing from your model. There is something seasonal which is being treated as noise and shouldn't be and consequently once you cease to have data for Z(t-12) i.e. if you project more than a year in advance, inferences drawn from the model will be worthless. If I ask it now what the probability is of a virtually ice free July 2016 is, it can give a reasonable answer because Z(July2015) is known, but if I ask it now what the probability of a virtually ice free September 2016 is, the lack of data for Z(September 2015) will make it thoroughly untrustworthy.
One factor that comes to mind that you will have trouble capturing in a simple time series model, is melting momentum. You don't have a way of distinguishing momentum in melting from momentum in freezing. Extra sun in June means not only extra melting in June from the direct effect of sun on ice, but extra melting in July from sea water that was heated in June. Your PIOMAS model has a t-2 term, which allow this to be captured, but only by including an analogous but unphysical effect of freezing momentum during the winter months.
Quote from: OSweetMrMath on August 15, 2015, 09:54:03 AM
The models use the monthly time series data for the extent and volume as their only inputs, and the two models are independent. That is, the extent data is used only in the extent model, and the volume data is used only in the volume model.
This seems quite a restrictive design decision.
The impression I got from my attempts at prediction was that area was a better predictor of extent than using extent as the predictor, maybe volume was also better for predicting extent depending how it was used IIRC.
Does this design decision mean that you will end up with a model that is almost bound to say that extend will tend to behave as it has in the past? So if there is some critical volume (or other variable) below which extent starts behaving differently, then your model is almost bound to fail to predict this?
If the behaviour is going to stay similar, then a persistence of anomaly model will perform quite well. Isn't it more important to looks for hints of other variables that may change the behaviour? Maybe that depends on what you see as the purpose of your model?
I don't want to be too critical - having a model is better than not having such a model and I could easily be not getting the purpose or wanting to be too ambitious. Just wanted to enquire about such design decisions and what you see as the purpose of that to better understand the aims and goals rather than being negative for the sake of it.
I think there are two basic ideas underlying your comments. They are worth thinking about, and I will consider them separately.
The first is that I am fitting a single time series to every month. The trends for each month separately are different. On top of that, the effect of one month on the following months may be different depending on the time of year. Given that, can a single time series model reasonably represent the entire year?
I wrote a really long answer. I'm throwing it out and trying a shorter one. In the case of the NSIDC extent, there's almost no evidence that these concerns are a problem. The model generally looks good from a diagnostic standpoint, the predictions are plausible, and based on 15 months of data, the predictions show reasonable agreement with reality.
Examining the residuals more closely, I have found that there is a substantial variability in the variance of the residuals month to month. The standard deviation of the residuals in February through April is about half the size of the standard deviation in September through December. This changing variability could be used to produce more accurate prediction intervals, which would depend on the month of the year. However, the mean is nearly zero year round. It is possible that the month to month changes in variance are due to the effects you mentioned, but they do not appear to substantially affect the model.
Volume is a different story. The variance of the residuals is increasing in time, which is clearly a problem. I have been looking into models with changing variance, but I haven't found anything applicable to this case, and my attempts to modify the model or transform the data to improve this have not been successful so far. As with the extent, the variance shows a monthly variability, in addition to the trend increase.
Again, I don't know whether this is due to the effects you mentioned.
One possible approach would be to model each month's data as a separate time series, and then build in interaction effects between the separate series. Modeling a single month alone clearly does worse, because the model must predict a full year in advance, as opposed to the current models, which can predict one month in advance.
There is a fair amount of literature about multivariate series, but less in the way of off-the-shelf tools for working with these series. But this may be an interesting direction to pursue in further work on these models.
The second question involves the role of Z(t-12) in predictions and the validity of long term predictions.
The problem actually occurs before that, as soon as the models are based on the year over year differences. I mentioned in the original post that this differencing gives longer term predictions the character of a random walk. Effectively, prediction errors sum year over year and have the potential to rapidly accumulate. This is clearly visible in my volume predictions through 2019, where the prediction intervals are growing at nearly the same rate that the mean is changing. The same thing occurs with the extent series, but the errors accumulate more slowly.
The conclusion here is that accurate long term predictions are just not possible. There is at least a potential for debate about whether the models reflect reality, or whether this is really just an assumption of the model.
The models can be used for long term prediction, but the results aren't very meaningful. The volume model states that the first year with a greater than 50% probability of being ice free in September is 2035. In that year, the 95% prediction interval is approximately -6 thousand cu km to +6 thousand cu km. Aside from the fact that I have no idea of what a volume of negative six thousand cu km means, the interval is so wide that the prediction is meaningless anyway.
The extent, on the other hand, shows a greater that 50% probability of being ice free for the first time in 2110. The 95% prediction interval is somewhat more narrow, something like -3 million sq km to +3 million sq km.
Both predictions are clearly wrong. The claim from the model that there is 2.3% chance of a volume below 1000 cu km in 2019 seems believable, although the implication of the increasing variance is that this probability is too low. If you want a better guess about whether the volume will reach 1000 cu km before 2029, ask me again in 2019.
Crandles,
My initial motivation for these models was that in 2012 or so, I was more or less terrified by predictions of sea ice levels based on fitting a curve through one data set up to that point and extrapolating forward. (I don't know when I started watching this, but definitely by 2012 and possibly 1 or 2 years before that.) I spent all of the summer of 2013 expecting the extent to suddenly collapse, passing the 2012 extent, and catching up with the prediction.
Needless to say, that did not happen.
In the spring of 2014, I decided that I could take the monthly volume data, and rather than fitting an arbitrary curve for predictions, I could create a time series model and use that for predictions. This had the clear benefit of more connection to reality than curve fitting, and I could set up the model quickly and easily. (It took me substantially less time to create the model in the first place than to complete this description of the model this week.)
A few weeks later, I decided to create a similar model for extent. Through 2014, my predictions for the minimum were consistently substantially higher than the predictions for the minimum on this site, and my predictions for the extent were at nearly the median on the Sea Ice Prediction Network site. I was wrong, of course. The actual minimum was substantially higher than my predictions.
The good news was that in both cases, my month to month predictions were almost always "correct" to within a reasonable error, with the exception of a single missed prediction. Furthermore, after correcting for that missed prediction, my subsequent predictions became reliable again.
(My predicted value from last July of the volume for this July was 11.2 thousand cubic km. The actual value was 11.6. My predicted value from last July of the extent this June was 11.0 million sq km. The actual value was 11.0. My July prediction was less accurate. My volume prediction has gone a full year at this accuracy, but my extent prediction only lasted 11 months.
I should not claim too much. My conclusion is not that my models are this good. It's that they were this lucky.)
This year, I'm doing it again, but I wanted to explain my methodology. My starting goal was to build a simple model, which I could do quickly and easily, but which would give decent prediction performance. This model could almost certainly be made better if I used more outside data in the model.
For starters, building a multivariate model using both the extent and the volume might be useful. Right now, the models are not consistent, in the sense that one model could predict an ice free state while the other model predicts a positive amount of ice. I might be able to fix that. There is some evidence that changes in volume anticipate changes in extent, and I could definitely model that.
The nature of the model, as a purely statistical model without any physical component, basically guarantees that the model will predict that behavior will continue as it has in the past. I'm not sure that incorporating other data would change that, unless the data were built into a physical framework. Modeling extent and volume together as a multivariate time series would still predict that the behavior of volume and extent together would continue as it had in the past.
Right now, I'm not sure that it's possible to accurately predict behavior changes. If ChrisReynolds' Slow Transition is correct, that probably qualifies as a change in behavior. On the other side, I think some people are still arguing that the ice this year is so broken up that an unprecedented collapse in extent could still occur this year. Assuming that either prediction of a behavior change is correct, how would we know before the behavior change actually occurs?
Basically, I'm open to arguments that things will be different, but I tend to be skeptical of arguments that things are different starting right now (or that things are already different, but it's not showing up in any metrics yet). One way that I view my models is as a baseline. If things are indeed different, it will be clear from the models, because the models will fail.
A few things seem fairly fundamental to me:
1. The lower the initial volume the earlier in the melt season albedo is lowered and magnitude of albedo is also increased. This causes increased volume melt and area and extent tend to move with that.
2. During winter ice can grow to over 2m thick in the centre of the pack off Ellesmere Island and this tends to thin as you move away from there. At least the vast majority of this thin ice can form in almost any winter regardless of quantity of starting ice at beginning of freeze season.
3. Thicker ice takes longer to build. When quantities of this melt then it isn't coming back for a least a few years and possibly not returning at all. We have been through a rapid decline in this thicker ice during 1990 to 2007 period.
Observing the decline total ice which is dominated by the decline in the thicker ice and projecting continuation of this trend when there is very little thicker ice left and what is left is declining at a much slower rate seems wrong.
(It actually looks like gains in MYI extent since 2007 but I think it more sensible to think 2007 is shock low level of extent of MYI and a slow decline from higher natural level seems much more sensible. Also note that doesn't say anything about thickness and the trend in ice in excess of 2m thick may well show decline since 2007.)
Time series models are nice in that they learn from what happens without having to understand. However if physical causes are understood and there are reasons why time series analysis could be mislead, then a physically based model seems preferable don't you think?
>"using both the extent and the volume might be useful"
Using both volume and area (or better measures) seems essential to me if you want to try to predict more than 24 months ahead.
For a few months ahead, besides current levels of sea ice, a fast or slow start to melt season seems important and other data like the snow cover on land that Rob Dekker uses could well be useful information. This seems aimed at trying to predict the short term anomalies rather than longer term pattern.
>"Right now, the models are not consistent"
Gompertz shape leads to less difference than exponential shape. It is also more consistent with models and physical reasons above.
>"guarantees that the model will predict that behavior will continue as it has in the past. I'm not sure that incorporating other data would change that, unless the data were built into a physical framework."
I suggest different data for different purposes. How that other data is used may well matter. So physical framework seems essential for substantial improvement - yes I not only agree with that but am tending towards arguing that this is what should be concentrated on instead of time series analysis. Maybe that is too harsh - each to his own: I certainly don't know where it might lead until someone tries.
>"Modeling extent and volume together as a multivariate time series would still predict that the behavior"
Not sure this is the way to go. Lower level of volume as predicting larger size of seasonal swing for physical reasons seems a different sort of model to a 'multivariate time series'?
>"probably qualifies as a change in behavior"
I am thinking evolution in behaviour is more likely than abrupt shift at least for the next several years. While that may sound like time series model might do OK, it needs to work on relevant data rather than misleading data. Teasing out what data is less relevant and what data is more relevant data from the physical reasoning and working on the relevant data seems more sensible if there is reason to think the time series data is being mislead. I.e. thick MYI may be less relevant to future than in past so try to establish what is happening with thinner FYI and perhaps work on using that to predict the future seems more sensible to me.
These are just my thoughts and reactions. You are, of course, free to disagree and pursue your own course. Even if I am inclined to disagree with direction, a model is better than no model. Also I could be completely wrong, your approach may well be much better than what I am suggesting.
Your time series model assumes
i) there is a trend
ii) there is seasonal variation around that trend
iii) other variation is random
iv) there is some persistence in that randomness
Setting it up as a time series allows you to quantify the nature of that persistence and separate it from uncorrelated noise, and hence to use iii) to put more reliable confidence limits around the central projection that is just made from i) and ii). These in turn could be used to generate a pdf for the first ice free year.
Or it would, if what is done to account for 1), ii) and iv) leaves a genuinely random iii).
I'd think the obvious improvement to try would be to make the detrending function used in i) a function of the month.
Why do you use Z(t-12) rather than Y(t-12)? Noise should not suddenly reappear a year later. If something significant is consistently reappearing a year later, that's signal.
I'm not interested in what year this model give a probability that of an ice free month at 50%, once there has been an ice free month the model is no longer valid, I'm interested in what year the probability that there has not so far been an ice free month drops to 50%. I could run it in Monte Carlo mode and see where it stopped each time, but if the noise was better represented I could just derive it from the form of that noise.
I see why Z(t-12) has to be there now. Its because Y is a difference function on X rather than a detrended X.
Y(t) = X(t) - X(t-12) I think correctly deals with the average trend, but I don't think it properly captures the seasonal variation. I think you are implicitly assuming that the first season in the dataset is the best representation of the seasonal variation, rather than calculating it from the full set of data.
Let me try to talk through a derivation. The derivation will make lots of assumptions, but my claim is that the basic ideas still approximately hold even if the assumptions are not correct.
As a starting point, I think it will be more clear if I change the indexing, so X(t, m) refers to the PIOMAS volume in year t and month m. X(2015, 1) is the volume in January of this year, X(2014, 12), is the volume in December of last year, and so on. The month m wraps around, so X(t, m+12) = X(t+1, m).
Now, assume that if we look at the data for one month across every year, this data can be modeled as a linear function plus noise, so for a fixed month m, the volume as a function of the year t is
X(t, m) = a(m) + b(m) t + noise
a(m) and b(m) are constants (the intercept and the slope of the linear fit, but both depend on the particular month, so I have written them as functions of m. Doing linear regression fits on the actual PIOMAS data, we have
for January
X(t, 1) = 588.3680 - 0.2836 t
for February
and so on, so a(1) = 588.3680, a(2) = 574.6602, b(1) = - 0.2836, b(2) = - 0.2753, and so forth. (The constants look large, but if you plug in values starting at 1979 for t, the resulting ice volumes make sense.)
Next, assume the values for a(m) can be anything at all. (It will turn out not to matter.) Assume that b(m) is a sinusoid plus a constant, so b(m) = c + d cos( pi/6 m + e ) where c, d, and e are constants.
Finally, assume the noise is Gaussian and has a well behaved correlation structure.
Substituting for b(m), we have
X(t, m) = a(m) + (c + d cos (pi/6 m + e ) t + noise(t, m)
First, ignore the noise. Second, compute the year over year differences Y(t, m) by
Y(t, m) = X(t, m) - X(t-1, m).
Dropping the noise term from X(t, m) and substituting in gives
Y(t, m) = c + d cos( pi/6 m + e)
c is a constant, so we can subtract it out without changing this argument, so
Y(t, m) = d cos( pi/6 m + e)
Next, some trigonometry shows that
Y(t, m) = sqrt(3) Y(t, m-1) - Y(t, m-2)
This shows that the deterministic part of the original process X(t, m) can be represented as a (deterministic) AR(2) process on the difference process Y(t, m). The constant periodic component in the original process is contained in a(m), which is eliminated by the differencing. The linear trend appears as a constant in the difference process, which can be subtracted out. Any change in the periodic component is represented by the AR(2) process.
The original process has a noise term. Under the assumption that the noise is Gaussian, we can apply the same differencing and AR(2) operations to the noise, and the transformed noise is still Gaussian. If the transformed noise is stationary (and the correlations are well behaved), it can be represented by an ARMA process driven by independent Gaussian noise. The AR component of the noise process adds to the original AR deterministic process, which means that Y(t, m) can be modeled as an ARMA process driven by independent Gaussian noise (plus a constant).
Since X(t, m) can be written as a difference equation using the Y(t, m), plus an initial condition, the ARMA process for Y(t, m) allows us to represent (and predict) X(t, m). This representation includes all of the original features of X, including the trend, seasonal variation, changes in the seasonal variation, and correlated noises (or random variations plus persistence in the randomness).
Caveats: We assumed the trends are linear. If this is weakly not correct, the difference between the trend and the linear approximation is small and can be represented as a slightly nonstationary component in the noise term. If this is strongly not correct, a second differencing will eliminate the quadratic term.
We assumed the change in the seasonal variation remaining after differencing can be represented by a sinusoid. If the shape is approximately a sinusoid, the difference can again can appear as a slightly nonstationary component of the noise. For more complex shapes, the shape can be viewed as a sum of sinusoids (a Fourier series) and we can add higher order AR terms to represent the other sinusoids.
We assumed the noise is Gaussian and the transformed noise is stationary. The Gaussian assumption is really just a convenience. Prediction intervals based on the variance of the noise depend on this assumption, but we can also estimate the intervals based on a bootstrap Monte Carlo method which does not require this.
The stationary assumption is more important. The standard method for fitting the model parameters based on the data minimizes the noise (the details are a little more complicated) but this minimization assumes all the noises are equivalent. The procedure could be modified to handle the case where the variance of the noise changes from month to month and the correlations change month to month, as long as the relationships are still the same year to year.
This is what appears to be happening with the extent model, where the variance of the innovations depends on the month but does not appear to be changing year over year. The volume model has changes in variance both month to month and year over year, and I don't have a good approach for handling that.
The final caveat is that it's one thing to start with a full model and break it down into its components. It is a far trickier thing to start with data and estimate the model that it came from. All I can say is that there are standard methods for finding good estimates, and as applied to the actual data in this case the estimates are mostly working out.
Because the model fitting seeks to minimize the noise, I disagree with the assertion that the model assumes that the first season gives the seasonal variation. There is an implicit seasonal variation, but it is found by "averaging" over all of the data to minimize the total noise.
Related to this, you also asked why I'm using Z(t-12) rather than Y(t-12). The short answer is that I tried both and it gave a better fit. An additional Z(t-24) or Y(t-12) term did not further improve the fit. I could give a longer answer in terms of a physical interpretation, but if I had ended up with Y(t-12), I could give a physical interpretation justifying that too.
As discussed above, the time series methodology results in an update to the predictions from the model as each month's data becomes available. Based on the July extent data, the predictions for August and September extent were 6.10 and 5.05 million sq km, respectively. The 95% prediction interval for September was 4.39 - 5.67 million sq km.
At the time I remarked that the daily data in July implied that the August prediction was likely to be too high, and the previous prediction for August of 5.68 million sq km was likely to be closer to the mark. The observed data for August is 5.61 million sq km.
If I can still take credit for the earlier prediction, this means that my prediction in June for the August extent was less that 100 thousand sq km away from the observed value, which is quite accurate. More honestly, my prediction in July for the August extent was off by 500 thousand sq km, meaning the model has had substantial misses two months in a row.
The updated prediction for September is 4.72 million sq km, with a 95% prediction interval of 4.16 - 5.28 million sq km. The daily data for August has shown an unusually large extent loss recently. This indicates that the observed September extent is likely to be below the predicted value, just as the observed August extent was below the predicted value.
Given how close the September values are in other years, any outcome between 2nd lowest and 6th lowest on record is still plausible. However, the daily data favors the lower outcomes.
I can now update my PIOMAS predictions based on the August data. The predictions from the July data of the August and September volume were 7.18 thousand cubic kilometers and 5.89 thousand cubic kilometers. The 95% prediction interval for the September volume was 4.83 to 6.83 thousand cubic kilometers.
The observed volume in August was 7.073 thousand cubic kilometers, resulting in a prediction error of 0.11 thousand cu km. Not bad!
This was used to update my prediction for September, which is now 5.72 thousand cubic km. The 95% prediction interval is 5.18 to 6.21 thousand cubic km.
This year's September volume is likely to be the 5th lowest on record, but it could still potentially pass below 2013's value of 5.479 thousand cu km to become the 4th lowest. Ending below the 2010 level of 4.742 to reach 3rd lowest or above the 2007 level of 6.526 to become 6th lowest is very unlikely.
mmghosh
Is it worthwhile to look at the total volume drop in 2015, compared to past years? This is in view of the fact that 2015 started pretty high.
Here is a belated update on my model predictions.
My last update included a prediction of the September NSIDC extent based on the August data, in which I predicted a value of 4.72 million sq km, with a 95% prediction interval of 4.16 - 5.28 million sq km. The observed September extent was 4.63 million sq km, which is more in line with my usual prediction accuracy than the previous two months. Based on the April data, the prediction for September had been 4.77 million sq km, so the prediction for the September extent was off by less than 0.15 million sq km 5 months in advance.
Looking forward from there, the September prediction for the October extent was 7.49 million sq km. The observed October extent was 7.72 million sq km, which is within the error range of this model. The current prediction for the November extent is 10.04 million sq km. The 2016 maximum in March is currently predicted to be 14.65 million sq km, with a 95% prediction interval of 13.9 - 15.2 million sq km.
The August prediction of the September PIOMAS volume was 5.72 thousand cu km, with a 95% prediction interval of 5.18 - 6.21 thousand cu km. The observed value was 5.84 thousand cu km. The April prediction for September had been 6.22 thousand cu km. The prediction error 5 months in advance was relatively large due to the more rapid volume loss in July and August than had been predicted.
The September prediction of the October volume was 7.02 thousand cu km. The observed October volume was 6.99 cu km. The current prediction of the November volume is 10.16 thousand cu km. The 2016 volume maximum in April is currently predicted to be 23.17 thousand cu km, with a 95% prediction interval of 21.28 - 24.94 thousand cu km.
AbruptSLR
The linked reference indicates that quantifying regional dependence for Arctic Sea Ice loss can improve the accuracy of our estimates to the timing of the onset of rapid seasonal ASI concentration decline:
S. Close, M.-N. Houssais and C. Herbaut (2015), "Regional dependence in the timing of onset of rapid decline in Arctic sea ice concentration", Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans, DOI: 10.1002/2015JC011187
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015JC011187/abstract
Abstract: "Arctic sea ice concentration from satellite passive microwave measurements is analysed to assess the form and timing of the onset of decline of recent ice loss, and the regional dependence of the response. The timing of the onset is estimated using an objective method, and suggests differences of up to 20 years between the various subregions. A clear distinction can be drawn between the recent onset times of the Atlantic sector (beginning in 2003) and the much earlier onset times associated with the Pacific sector, where the earliest transition to rapid loss is found in 1992. Rates of decline prior to and following the transition points are calculated, and suggest that the post-onset rate of loss is greatest in the Barents Sea, and weakest in the Pacific sector. Covariability between the seasons is noted in the SIC response, both at interannual and longer time scales. For two case regions, potential mechanisms for the onset time transitions are briefly analysed. In the Barents Sea, the onset time coincides with a redistribution of the pathways of ice circulation in the region, whilst along the Alaskan coast, the propagation of the regional signal can be traced in the age of the sea ice. The results presented here indicate a series of spatially self-consistent regional responses, and may be useful in understanding the primary drivers of recent sea ice loss."
"It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change."
― Leon C. Megginson
I knew it had been a while since I posted an update, but I didn't realize just how long it's been.
In any event, I had predicted the November NSIDC extent to be 10.04 million sq km and the March extent to be 14.65 million sq km. The observed November extent was 10.06 million sq km. My prediction for January was too high by 0.1 million sq km, and my revised prediction for February was again too high by 0.1 million sq km, so my current prediction for March is 14.52 million sq km. Based on the fact that the daily extent in March is yet to reach 14.5 million sq km, it is likely that my prediction is again too high.
Looking ahead, the current prediction for September is 4.70 million sq km. The model interprets last year's extent in August and September as unexpectedly low and corrects by predicting an increase this year. However, the model has no awareness of the Arctic heat this year, and does not interpret the current low extent as predictive for the summer minimum. I suspect the model could be very wrong.
Turning to volume, the prediction was that the November PIOMAS volume would be 10.16 thousand cu km, and the April PIOMAS volume would be 23.17 thousand cu km. The observed November volume was 10.30 thousand cu km. The prediction for January was 0.35 thousand cu km too high, and the revised prediction for February was 0.25 thousand cu km too high. The current revised prediction for April is 22.50 thousand cu km.
The current prediction for September is 4.81 thousand cu km. This would essentially erase the "recovery" of the past few years, but would still be above the 2010 level. I find this more plausible than the extent prediction, but I think this could also be too high.
Let's see if I can start writing up monthly updates again.
Last month, my prediction for the monthly NSIDC extent for March was 14.52 million sq km, with the caveat that it was likely to be high. The data is in, and the monthly extent was 14.43 million sq km, so my prediction was around 100 thousand sq km high. This reduces the predicted value for April from 13.98 million sq km to 13.92 million sq km. As I've discussed elsewhere, maximum extent and minimum extent are effectively uncorrelated (after accounting for the long term trend) so the prediction for the September monthly extent is unchanged at 4.70 million sq km.
My prediction for the monthly PIOMAS volume for March was 21.46 thousand cu km. The true value is 21.53 thousand cu km, slightly higher than predicted. This increases the prediction for April from 22.50 thousand cu km to 22.60 thousand cu km. This slightly increases the predicted monthly volume for September, increasing from 4.81 thousand cu km to 4.89 thousand cu km.
I was holding out on an update in the hope that the April NSIDC extent would become available. Since I don't know how long I will have to wait, here's an update to the PIOMAS volume.
My predicted volume for April was 22.61 thousand cubic km. The reported volume is 22.458 thousand cubic km, narrowly setting a record for April volume. This reduces my predicted volume for September to 4.71 thousand cubic km. The current prediction is just below the 2010 value, or the third smallest on record. At five months in advance, the prediction interval is quite wide, so a new record minimum is certainly a possibility.
2012 made its record-setting move in June, so I'm hesitant to predict that this year will break 2012's record before then. My current prediction for June is 16.70 thousand cubic km, compared to 16.002 thousand cubic km in 2012.
Over the last year, there has been a substantial drop in my predicted values. The prediction one year ago for April was 23.37 thousand cubic km. My prediction for September was 5.49 thousand cubic km. January and February were both well below my predicted values (0.35 and 0.25 thousand cubic km, respectively) which pushed my predicted values for April and September lower. With April coming in 0.15 thousand cubic km below my prediction, my September prediction has fallen again. The assumption for the model is that the predicted values are equally likely to be too high or too low. That said, given the weather and other information about the ice, it would not be surprising if the predicted values continue to be too high in the near future.
Osweetmath... 4.7 million in Sept is WAY to high...
Quote from: jdallen on May 18, 2016, 04:22:01 AM
It's what the model predicts. The model assumes that the weather and ice state up to this point is exceptional, and things will return to a more normal mode soon. I don't really believe that, but I do think that the 2012 record was a result of the collapse in June. I think there's potential for a similar collapse this year, but I'm holding off on calling it a sure thing.
I missed a month, but here are my updated model results and predictions.
The NSIDC had satellite problems starting in April, so my last update was based on the March data. Since then, they have switched over to a new satellite and built an entirely new data set. I have updated my model based on the new data set. I have not done an analysis of the differences between the data sets. There may be inconsistencies in comparing my predictions from the old data set with my predictions from the new data set.
Using the new data, my prediction for the monthly NSIDC extent for April would have been 13.98 million sq km. The observed extent was 13.83 million sq km. This is not an exceptionally large error. The resulting prediction in April for the May extent would have been 12.55 million sq km. The actual May extent was substantially below that, at 12.08 million sq km, as the extent maintained its record setting pace. The revised prediction for June would have been 10.59 million sq km, almost exactly on target of the true value of 10.60 million sq km.
Looking forward, my prediction based on the old March data for the September extent was 4.70 million sq km. Even the large miss in May doesn't have much impact on the September prediction, so the prediction has fallen to 4.61 million sq km, with a 95% prediction interval of 3.91-5.29 million sq km.
I had predicted the monthly PIOMAS volume for May would be 21.19 thousand cubic km. The actual volume was 21.024 thousand cubic km, so I was slightly high. The updated predicted volume for June was 16.45 thousand cubic km, while the actual volume was 16.494 thousand cubic km. My model isn't perfect, but I'm pretty happy about its accuracy.
As we get closer to September, the predicted value is more sensitive to differences between each month's prediction and the reported volume, so the predicted value for September is now 4.54 thousand cu km. The 95% prediction interval is almost too wide to be useful, at 3.17 - 5.81 thousand cu km.
Now that the July data is in, here is my updated model.
For the monthly NSIDC extent, my prediction for July was 8.02 million sq km. The reported value was 8.13 million sq km. This pushes the model prediction for September up to 4.66 million sq km, a slight increase over the previous prediction of 4.61.
My prediction for the monthly PIOMAS volume in July was 9.91 thousand cu km. The reported value was 10.261 thousand cu km. This has a relatively large impact on my prediction for September, changing the value from 4.54 thousand cu km to 5.10 thousand cu km.
Based on the August data, I can update my predictions for September.
For the monthly NSIDC extent, my prediction for August was 5.56 million sq km. The reported value was 5.60 million sq km. The model prediction for September has a slight increase from 4.66 million sq km to 4.68 million sq km, with a 95% prediction interval of 4.13 million sq km to 5.24 million sq km. Note that this model does not "see" the recent drop in extent, so I would anticipate the true value being closer to the bottom of the prediction interval than the top.
My prediction for the monthly PIOMAS volume in August was 6.22 thousand cu km. The reported value was 5.94 thousand cu km. The prediction is sensitive to prediction errors in the short term, so the prediction for September has been updated to 4.67 thousand cu km, with a 95% prediction interval of 4.13 to 5.16 thousand cu km. This returns the prediction to more in line with earlier this year, after a changed prediction value last month.


Released earlier this month on the Jammin'colourS label, bassist Reggie Washington has delivered one of the finest jazz albums of 2015 with Rainbow Shadow, an album in tribute to the late guitarist Jef Lee Johnson. Johnson, an accomplished musician in his own right, collaborated with the best and biggest in soul and jazz playing with artists such as George Duke, Al Jarreau, Erykah Badu, D'Angelo, and even Aretha Franklin. Johnson also released twelve albums under his own name, and it is these songs that Reggie Washington has re-imagined on Rainbow Shadow.
The album ends on a poignant note, the beautiful 'For You Jef', featuring a spoken word tribute to the man and the legend of the Rainbow Crow from TIBOO. It is a perfect ending to a brilliant tribute album to Jef Lee Johnson: Washington's bass playing and production is superb, his use of samples of Johnson's guitar is inspired, and the love and admiration that Washington had for Johnson is clearly evident.
For more information on Reggie Washington, please visit his website here where you can find details about how to purchase a copy of Rainbow Shadow.
Reggie will also be performing in London 13th September at the Bussey Building, more information can be found here.


text:
tel: 0121 685 8595 fax: 0121 236 5121
Social Welfare Lawyers in the Centre of Birmingham
Duty Possession Scheme
Complaints Information
The Administrative Team
Housing Cases
Gypsy and Traveller Cases
Boat Cases
Traveller homelessness
Traveller other
Traveller planning
Traveller rented site eviction
Traveller unauthorised encampment eviction
Other Legal Cases
No Mad Laws Campaign
Our Leading Cases
TAT News
Travellers' Times
FJM – v – The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights
Posted by clp-admin 19th December, 2018 Article 8, Housing Cases
FJM – v – The United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, application number 76202/16 – 6th November 2018
The applicant is a vulnerable adult with psychiatric and behavioural problems. She had lost two public sector tenancies on account of her behaviour. In May 2005 the applicant's parents purchased a property with the assistance of a mortgage. They then granted the applicant an assured shorthold tenancy of the property and she claimed housing benefit to pay the rent. The parents fell into arrears with the mortgage repayments and, in August 2008, the finance company exercised its powers under the mortgage to appoint receivers. The mortgage arrears persisted and, in January 2012, the receivers served notice on the applicant under Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 which permitted the Court to make an order for possession of a property let under an assured shorthold tenancy if it was satisfied that the landlord had given the tenant at least 2 months' notice in writing that possession was required. The applicant sought to resist the possession order on the basis of violation of her rights under Article 8 of the European Convention (the right to respect for private, family life and home). The Supreme Court had previously rejected the possibility of such a defence. The ECtHR also rejected this possibility. The ECtHR concluded:-
As the Supreme Court made clear, a tenant entering into an assured shorthold tenancy agrees to the terms – clearly set out in the 1988 Act – under which it could be brought to an end and if, once it comes to an end, he or she could require a Court to conduct a proportionality assessment before making a Possession Order, the resulting impact for the private rental sector would be wholly unpredictable and potentially very damaging. Furthermore, the Court notes that the domestic legislation has, in fact, made provision for cases where exceptional hardship would be caused by requiring possession to be given up within 14 days of the making of an Order; in such cases the courts may postpone the giving up of possession for up to 6 weeks after the making of the Order…Therefore, while the applicant's particular circumstances are undoubtedly deserving of sympathy, having regard to the considerations set out above they cannot justify the conclusion that in cases where a private sector landlord seeks possession, a residential tenant should be entitled to require the Court to consider the proportionality of the Possession Order (paras 43-45).
It would appear that this reasoning would also apply in cases involving Gypsies and Travellers on unauthorised encampments on private land. However, it should be noted that the ECtHR have approved the possibility of a suspension of an order where there are exceptional circumstances and we would argue that the previous Court of Appeal authority (McPhail – v – Persons Unknown [1973] 3 All ER 393) which held that you could not suspend an order against trespassers must no longer be applicable.
← Chambers Directory
CLP at the Supreme Court →
Labour urged to protect Legal Aid Legacy
Swale Borough Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and Maughan [2018] EWHC 3402 (Admin)
Victory for Terryann Samuels in the Supreme Court
Terryann Samuels – The long road to the Supreme Court – Struggles with the Legal Aid Agency
Guildford BC v Cooper & Brazil
The Community Law Partnership is the trading name of The Community Law Partnership Limited, a Limited Company registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 07956828, Registered Office: 4th Floor, Ruskin Chambers, 191 Corporation Street, Birmingham, B4 6RP. The Directors shall be known as and referred to as Partners. Authorised and Regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number: 567240. In the event of any dispute arising as a result of the content of the website, the law of England and Wales applies
© The Community Law Partnership 2020

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


3 Pics & 3 Videos: 21-Year-Old Colombian Girl In Yoga Pants & Workout Shorts" width="600" height="600" class="lazyload aligncenter size-full wp-image-38865" data-srcset="https://www.girlsinyogapants.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Anllela-Sagra-000.jpg 600w, https://www.girlsinyogapants.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Anllela-Sagra-000-300x300.jpg 300w, https://www.girlsinyogapants.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Anllela-Sagra-000-100x100.jpg 100w" data-sizes="(max-width: 600px) 100vw, 600px" />Meanwhile in Colombia, @anllela_sagra is at a gym somewhere. Enjoy these new pics and videos of her. Which one is her best? I'm drooling over every single one but that last one is amazing.
Now check out the some videos of it in action on the next page!


text:
Tags: church and state, Religious Freedom, TFN
Poll: Florida Voters Not a Fan of Measure That Would Destroy Church-State Separation
Florida voters don't seem to be buying into a proposed constitutional amendments that would fling open the door to public funding for religious institutions. The defeat of that amendment, which is on the November ballot, could discourage efforts to pass similar measures in other states, including Texas.
A Suffolk University/7NEWS(WSVN-Miami) poll found that just 28 percent of registered voters in Florida support Amendment 8. The measure, deceptively titled the "Religious Freedom" amendment, would allow public dollars to fund religious schools, houses of worship, other sectarian institutions, and any religious sect or denomination. The poll showed that 52 percent of registered voters oppose the amendment, while the remainder were undecided or refused to answer. The amendment must receive 60 percent of the votes on November 6 to be added to the state's Constitution.
Our friends at Americans United for Separation of Church and State have more on the amendment here.
TFN will be on the look out for any similar legislation when Texas lawmakers begin filing bills later this fall for the 2013 legislative session.
TFN TO HONOR BIOTECH ENTREPRENEUR, YOUTH LEADERS AT 17TH ANNUAL CELEBRATIONAward-winning Film on Texas Textbook Wars Premieres in Dallas Tonight, Houston Next Week
3 thoughts on "Poll: Florida Voters Not a Fan of Measure That Would Destroy Church-State Separation"
Hey there TFN and friends!!!
Along these same lines, knowing that Tennessee has become far worse than Texas, I plan to ask my local state representative (R-John Ragan) to sponsor a bill that would amend the Tennessee state constitution to declare "Bible-believing Christianity" as the official state religion of Tennessee.
I figure he and his friends will bite into it, hook, line, sinker, pole, and fisherman, because the popular belief in the United States during the 19th century (even in most American legal circles) was that the establishment clause in the First Amendment forbids only the federal government from establishing an official state religion—but all of the states were free to have an official state religion in their constitutions if they wanted one. No state ever bit on it for various reasons—but the belief was always that they legally could do so if they wanted to. I looked this up.
Of course, we all know that later U.S. Supreme Court rulings changed all of that and effectively took the position that it was never really true. However, most wingnuts today take the position that we need to get back to an "original, purified" U.S. constitution that does away with all those silly amendments and court rulings that came later. Never mind that the original constitution officially gave the authority that permitted such amendments and rulings–the founding fathers fully well knowing that such power would be necessary down the American road.
However, after they pass the amendment here in Tennessee, more than half the fools in the state will be a "heeing" and a "hawing":
"Weez wuns izz freed you now!!! Weez wuns izza gonna turn the school cafeterias into evangelistic seeners. Weez wuns izza gonna empty that huge uquarium in the skule lobby, wheel her into the cafeteria, and make that baby our baptismal font. Youz wuns jist wait and see. Y'all parents needs to start a teachin yer chilun bouts how to holds their brayuth a cupla secunds cause all youz one's chilun izza a gonna be ires now."
Pray that Romney will mess up badly in the debates tonight—or this might be real one day.
Chester Davidson says:
Outrageous! Sadly, it just might pass.
It would pass here. There is no doubt about that.


text:
Buy · Smoke
Habanos Festival
Habanos Twitter
Habanos Instagram
Habanos Youtube
UNIQUE SINCE 1492
22st Festival
Ediciones Limitadas 2016: Montecristo Dantés, Trinidad Topes and Romeo y Julieta Capuletos
Company, Ediciones Limitadas
• Trinidad, Montecristo and Romeo y Julieta are the three brands selected by Habanos, S.A. for these Ediciones Limitadas (Limited Editions) 2016 and will be arriving to the different points of sales worldwide in the coming weeks.
launch the 2016, Montecristo Dantés, Trinidad Topes and Romeo y Julieta Capuletos, that are reaching to the different outlets around the world.
The Ediciones Limitadas – Limited Editions- of are appreciated and expected by the aficionados every year. These Ediciones are special because their vitolas do not exist in the regular range of sizes of the brand portfolio. They are also distinguished by a careful selection of all their leaves – , and -, which have been aged for a period of at least 2 years. The dark wrapper dressing these Habanos, coming from the highest levels on the , is another characteristic that identifies them, as this wrapper is darker than the one of the vitolas in the regular range of the brand.
All Habanos of these Ediciones Limitadas are made " con " ("Totally handmade with Long Filler") and with leaves selected in very small quantities from the , in the region of , Cuba. These Habanos have been made by Cuban expert , willing to meet the expectations of the most demanding Habano enthusiasts.
Ediciones Limitadas 2016 (Limited Editions)
Topes (56 ring gauge x 125 mm length). This vitola is also unique in the range of sizes of Habanos; it will be the brand's heaviest ring gauge after Trinidad Vigía (54 x110 mm), showing the brand's clear trend of filling out its traditional portfolio with new heavy ring gauge benchmarks. Trinidad Topes, with medium strength flavour, is presented in a 12-unit Semi Boîte Nature case.
Montecristo Dantés (48 ring gauge x 167 mm length). This is a heavy to medium ring gauge Habano, with an elegant format and medium to full strength flavour. In addition, this Habano is the first "Hermoso" (48 ring gauge) launched in the Montecristo brand. This Limited Edition is presented in a special 10-unit case.
Romeo y Julieta Capuletos (53 ring gauge x 153 mm length). For the very first time, the vitola de galera "Sobresalientes" is launched with Capuletos, totally unprecedented in the Habanos portfolio. Enthusiasts will be able to enjoy a balanced, aromatic blend from the brand in a completely new format with strength flavour Habano. The presentation is in a completely new format with strength flavour.
Brand: Trinidad
Commercial Name: Topes
Factory Name: Topes
Dimensions: 56 ring gauge (22.23 mm) x 125 mm length
Presentation: SBN of 12 units
Commercial Name: Dantés
Factory Name: Hermosos No.1
Presentation: 10-unit SPB (special case)
Brand: Romeo y Julieta
Commercial Name: Capuletos
Factory Name: Sobresalientes
Presentation: SB of 25 units
Please, for further information, visit:
www.habanos.com
www.lacasadelhabano.com
Ediciones Limitadas Romeo y Julieta Trinidad
The Havana-based company, jointly owned by the Cuban industry and the British Imperial Tobacco Group, which markets all 27 Habanos brands worldwide.
Limited Edition. Special productions of Habanos made annually using fillers, binders and wrappers aged at least 2 years before the cigars are made. The wrappers come from the top leaves of the shade-grown (tapado) tobacco plant, which are darker in colour. Boxes can be identified by an extra black and gold seal indicating that they contain Limited Edition Habanos and the year in which they were released. Each Habano is dressed with an extra band giving the same information.
The official Denominación de Origen Protegida (D.O.P.), or Protected Denomination of Origin used only to describe the most outstanding brands of cigars, which are manufactured in Cuba to the most exacting standards established by the Regulatory Council, from tobaccos grown only in particular areas of the island that are also protected as Denominations of Origin. In English the word translates as Havanas, which are widely considered to be the best cigars in the world.
The outside wrapper leaf of the Habano.
Filler, the blend of two, three or four different types of tobacco leaves that form the heart of a Habano and dictate its flavour.
The binder leaf. Selected from the largest and finest volado leaves grown on the lower part of the plant.
Literally -covered-. The term is used to describe the method of growing tobacco for wrappers in the shade under muslin cloth.
Cuban Black Tobacco. The indigenous tobacco plant discovered on the island by Christopher Columbus.
Totally by hand. A description created in Havana to differentiate between Cuban methods of making cigars by hand from the semi-mechanised metods used elsewhere that can legally be described as "Hecho a Mano" or "Hand Made".
Long filler. Filler that is made from full-length tobacco leaves.
The finest tobacco-growing land in the world, Vuelta Abajo is the main source of tobacco for Habanos, and the only zone that grows all types of leaf: wrappers, fillers and binders. A Protected Denomination of Origin.
The name of the region that embraces all of the important growing zones in the west of Cuba, and the name of the provincial capital. A Protected Denomination of Origin.
Cigar roller. The word translates as "twister", but that is the last thing a cigar roller should do when making a cigar.
The Trinidad Brand Causes Furor among the Guests of Habanos Night 2019
Two new vitolas of the Trinidad brand showcased at the annual night dedicated to the [...]
Launch of the Romeo y Julieta Churchill Añejados in Italia
From September 12 to 15, the skies of the green island of Ischia were tinged with [...]
AUTHENTICITY CHECK COHIBA 50 VIDEOS ACADEMY CONTACT
Permanent Range
All rights reserved © Habanos S.A. • Havana City, Cuba • Site Hosted and Developed by Golden Age Ltd.
You must be adult to enter this site
Please, enter your birth date
JanuaryFebruaryMarchAprilMayJuneJulyAugustSeptemberOctoberNovemberDecember - 01020304050607080910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 - 191019111912191319141915191619171918191919201921192219231924192519261927192819291930193119321933193419351936193719381939194019411942194319441945194619471948194919501951195219531954195519561957195819591960196119621963196419651966196719681969197019711972197319741975197619771978197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008200920102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
Smoking is hazardous to your health


Practice rods are the perfect way for the angler to practice and improve their casting performance. Designed around a small version of a normal rod these are great to use indoors and pack into your luggage if you are on the go.
This practise rod from Redington is addictive but you can practise even while watching the television.


I have created this script for dot net development where navigation is in master page. So I have highlighed current page with if condition on line 5 on code ($(this).children().attr("href")==document.location.href). i have used gif images you can change code according to your image format.


The beijingwushuteam.com Archive Series presents professional level contemporary wushu competitions from China from the past 25 years. See classic wushu performed by the most famous champions! Wushu has evolved and changed a great deal over the past decades, this series of VCDs allows you to see and appreciate the athleticism, artistry and martial skill of classic wushu athletes of the 70s, 80s and 90s. Competitions of this type are rare and not to be missed by any true fan of contemporary wushu!
Check out this page for trailers, screen captures and content information. The list of athletes on the discs is incomplete, currently only Beijing Team members and a few other famous athletes are listed, we are working to identify more. If you recognize anyone not listed, please send an email.
Note: Due to the archival nature of the material, this disc may contain static, color shifts, pauses, distortions, etc. This is an artifact of the analog sources, not this disc or the system it is played on.
1985 China Nationals Complete Set - TEMPORARILY SOLD OUT!
1985 China Nationals Volume 3 - TEMPORARILY SOLD OUT!
1985 China Nationals Volume 4 - TEMPORARILY SOLD OUT!
We have online ordering for domestic and international orders through PAYPAL.COM . If you don't have a paypal account it's FREE, secure and easy to set one up, then you can pay using your credit card. Click on the 'add to cart' button for the discs you are interested in purchasing and then click on the 'view cart' button at the bottom to check out and complete the purchase.
This competition, held in Yinchuan, Ningxia Province in 1985, is presented on four discs, available seperately or as a set. It features men and women competing in nearly every hand style and weapon available as well as sparring sets and group sets! This event is a catalog of the richness and diversity of "old school" wushu that is rarely, if ever seen in current wushu competition. Many of the champions featured on this series have gone on to become famous coaches around the world, here is a chance to see them competing at their prime. Click here for a partial list of competitors and events on these volumes.
The video quality is generally equally good on all four discs - occasionally some video is color shifted green, but is still rather clear. During the group sets and other far away shots, sometimes the action on the carpets is a bit dark, but still very watchable.
Click here for a partial list of competitors and events on these volumes.
What is a VCD? Video CD, a common alternative to video cassettes in Asia, allows up to 75 minutes of video per CD, quality is considered about the same as VHS. These videos are standard PAL VCD format - 352x288 PAL, 25 fps, MPEG-1 encoded, 1150 kb/sec, recorded on a CD-R disc.
Is this product related to the Beijing Wushu Team? No, although I am a big fan, to the point where I have created the 'beijingwushuteam.com' website, this product is not related to the team. As I am a fan, the Beijing Team athletes are the ones I talk about the most!
Where else can I get old school wushu VCDs? Try The Wushu Center's rerelease of the classic Beijing Wushu Team Instructional Series from 1983.


As the best locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer attract a lot of interest and attention, there is a great deal to be said for receiving as much assistance as you can when applying for these roles. Just because there is a great level of interest in these roles doesn't mean that you have no chance in obtaining a role. There is a broad range of opportunities available and if you are looking to find the best range of locum jobs Hertfordshire has ever seen, we are here to help.
When it comes to applying for the very best locum jobs Hertfordshire, why don't you come and speak to the local medical recruitment experts. At Atlantis Medical, we have been operating for the past 10 years, and we are pleased to say that we have a great deal of experience in helping people find the job that is right for them. If you feel as though you need to filter through the wide range of locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer, come and speak to the local experts.
We always aim to put you first and when you work with us, you can rest assured that you will receive a bespoke standard of service. This is something that we are very proud of, and we feel it helps us to fill the widest range of locum jobs Hertfordshire has ever seen. By taking the time to get to know you and what you expect from a role, we think we can put the best people into the right roles. For the best range of locum jobs Hertfordshire has ever seen, be sure to work with the local experts.
There is a great deal to be said for finding a medical recruitment firm that helps you find a role that is right for your circumstances. We know that many medical professionals can only work at certain times or in certain locations, but this is where we aim to offer the most appropriate locum jobs Hertfordshire has ever seen. By getting to know you and what you are looking for, we help you to filter through the best range of locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer, hopefully helping you to find the role that is right for your needs.
No matter what experience you have or what career path you are looking to take, we believe that we have the right job for you amongst the best selection of locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer. We are dedicated to offering a bespoke service to all of our clients so if you need to find the best range of locum jobs Hertfordshire can provide, we are here to help.
For the best standard of locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer, be sure to arrange an appointment with the leading medical recruitment agents. If you want to choose from the finest locum jobs Hertfordshire has to offer, contact Atlantis Medical by calling 0333 121 2010.


When choosing the place you call home, you need a REALTOR who understands the importance of your wants and needs. We will help you find the home to match your lifestyle and desires.
More buyers are making decisions to purchase a home based on the how a home matches their lifestyle. It is important to buyers to find the perfect location, basing decisions on drive-time to work, easy access to lifestyle activities, family needs, and more. Searching for a home that meets lifestyle needs is our specialty.
A licensed full time agent since 2004. I have dedicated my career to helping my clients sell their homes in the shortest amount of market time possible and purchase their dream home with ease. Hard work and dedication to servicing my client's needs has afforded me repeat business over the years. I am passionate about helping my buyers and sellers reach their real estate goals with the least amount of stress. Through continuous education and training I am able to stay on top of our ever changing real estate market. I would be honored to have the opportunity to go to work for YOU today!
Monique Fields did an amazing job helping us find our home! She is well-informed about the communities and listened closely to all of our preferences in selecting houses to show us. My husband and I knew nothing about buying a house, and Monique took the time to explain the process and answer any questions we had along the way. Her experience has made her an expert at this job and I would highly recommend her to anyone looking for assistance with the housing market.


This morning Alex decided to "help" unload this dishwasher. Now he's been "helping" for many, many months now. I've got pictures of him playing in the water on the door while I unload. He also likes to roll the racks in and out, and attempt to close the door, although until recently, he couldn't get it more than a couple of inches up.
So this morning he decided to "help". Basically, it turned into a race to see who could get more items out of the bottom rack, him or me. Because while my dishes were making it safely into the cupboards where they belong, his were making their way onto the floor, where they needed to be washed again. Hopefully someday his need to "help" will turn into actually being helpful with these things.


Are you or a loved one struggling to recover from an addiction to drugs or alcohol? Taking the first step can be the biggest challenge.
Our team of experts rehabilitate drug/alcohol addictions by administering the most cutting-edge drug and/or alcohol addiction rehabilitation systems. We can offer you a real path to recovery. We'd love to discuss your personal needs and create a plan for your recovery. We are there providing you with practical methods and strategies all throughout your rehabilitation, so you can deal with any obstacles you will face.
You will tremendously raise the likelihood of a sustained rehabilitation with minimal relapses by understanding the best skills and guidelines. Examples of these are: relationship skills, healthy personal boundaries with family and techniques for setting them, and wholesome processes to handle anxiety and worry.
Recovery from addiction to alcohol or drugs is seen as a 30-day long program. Four to seven month prescription drug, alcohol, or illicit drug programs generally to have the best results. There are many drug or alcohol abuse treatments are for even six to seven months, or longer. There certainly are 30 day long treatments, but many last for a longer length of time. To fully attend to the reasons behind drug and/or alcohol abuse, treatment lasts weeks to months of diligent alcohol, illicit drug, and/or prescription drug rehab.
Alcohol/drug addiction treatment that is lasting commonly begins with outpatient recovery, treatment at a local center, detoxing fully with clinical oversight, and continued outpatient rehab. This works best when along with a healthy living environment. To all those that are able to, we strongly suggest that you seize the opportunity be part of a longer term drug or alcohol rehabilitation. The evidence demonstrates that alcohol, prescription drug, and/or illicit drug abuse rehabilitations that are more all-encompassing offer the best recovery prospects. Because they support patients to completely transform their way of living, and this is often what is required to have long-lasting results, drug and alcohol addiction rehab centers that are more comprehensive encourage a greater degree of rehabilitation.
Recovering from addiction to alcohol and/or drugs starts with treating the body, making sure that all toxins are eliminated entirely. Substance abuse rehab requires major changes in style of living and perceptions. Drug and alcohol addiction is a debilitating affliction that changes the mind as well as the physical body. So, our team of specialists need to deal with both facets of the recovery process. Sometimes, a chemical addiction happens in conjunction with a mental health problem.
To get help finding a drug rehab near you in Leiters Ford, Indiana, just give us call us today at our help line (toll free). Speak with one of our representatives to explore ways that we can help, taking into account your needs, finances, opportunities, and budget.


text:
SportLocal Sport
sport, local-sport, Mountains Fencing Club, Marina Carrier, fencing
They come from all walks of life - an educational designer, a university student and a graphic designer - and are united by their love of fencing. Imogen Waugh, Alessandra Wollaston and Miya Chesterman are one third of the coaching team at Mountains Fencing Club, where membership has doubled during the coronavirus pandemic. About one third of the club's members are female. "I started fencing about five years ago," Chesterman said. "It's a lot of fun, it's a sport where you use physical and mental [skills] and it's very fun and strategic." She found the sport particularly beneficial as a stress reliever during her HSC year. Wollaston fenced competitively as a teenager and after a long break, has returned to the sport in her 40s. Waugh also took up the sport in her 40s, when her sons started fencing. "Playing with swords looked like a lot of fun," she said. She immersed herself in the sport and it wasn't long before she became the club's president. The club runs competitions every year, and sometimes club member and Sydney-based pentathlete Marina Carrier, who will represent Australia at the Tokyo Olympics, drops in for a visit. "She comes when her schedule permits. She came to comp day at the end of the year - there is a greater diversity of training opponents and great diversity of body sizes," Waugh said. "To fence an Olympic fencer is pretty amazing," Wollaston said. "She's a positive force of nature." Carrier is coached by Mountains Fencing Club's head coach Joe Raciborski. The club is run by volunteers and is open to all ages and abilities and trains on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday nights and Saturdays at Lawson Hall. For more information visit: www.mountainsfencingclub.org.au/.
/images/transform/v1/crop/frm/WSM4dCumvPJjnaG3ngKbmZ/eafbd3f5-7a40-45bd-9200-5a88a23f697f.jpg/r3_265_1472_1095_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg
February 15 2021 - 9:52AM
Women leading the charge at Mountains Fencing Club
Ilsa Cunningham
They come from all walks of life - an educational designer, a university student and a graphic designer - and are united by their love of fencing.
Imogen Waugh, Alessandra Wollaston and Miya Chesterman are one third of the coaching team at Mountains Fencing Club, where membership has doubled during the coronavirus pandemic.
About one third of the club's members are female.
"I started fencing about five years ago," Chesterman said. "It's a lot of fun, it's a sport where you use physical and mental [skills] and it's very fun and strategic." She found the sport particularly beneficial as a stress reliever during her HSC year.
Mountains Fencing Club coaches: Alessandra Wollaston, Miya Chesterman and Imogen Waugh.
Wollaston fenced competitively as a teenager and after a long break, has returned to the sport in her 40s.
Waugh also took up the sport in her 40s, when her sons started fencing. "Playing with swords looked like a lot of fun," she said. She immersed herself in the sport and it wasn't long before she became the club's president.
The club runs competitions every year, and sometimes club member and Sydney-based pentathlete Marina Carrier, who will represent Australia at the Tokyo Olympics, drops in for a visit.
"She comes when her schedule permits. She came to comp day at the end of the year - there is a greater diversity of training opponents and great diversity of body sizes," Waugh said.
"To fence an Olympic fencer is pretty amazing," Wollaston said. "She's a positive force of nature."
Carrier is coached by Mountains Fencing Club's head coach Joe Raciborski.
The club is run by volunteers and is open to all ages and abilities and trains on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday nights and Saturdays at Lawson Hall. For more information visit: www.mountainsfencingclub.org.au/.
Discuss "Strong and mighty fencing women"
Strong no to quarry plans


text:
Review: The Siren's Dream (Siren #3) by Amber Belldene
Print Length: 150 pages
Publisher: Lyrical Press (November 22, 2016)
From Goodreads.com: Revenge never felt so sweet...Murdered by a bullet intended for her beloved, Katya Dvoynev's fate is to haunt the building where she took her last breath. That is, unless she can lure her killer into her clutches and find the vengeance her mara spirit seeks. But destiny has other plans, and handsome Nikolai Zurkov arrives instead, filling Katya with a desire so strong she must fight to remember it's revenge she seeks, not love...
Investigative journalist Nikolai is on a mission to bring down a corrupt corporation responsible for so many deaths. If the gorgeous ghost who enters his dreams holds the key, Nik has no problem sharing in the seductive beauty's nightly encounters. But when he discovers Katya's intent is murder, he'll do anything to keep her from getting blood on her hands. For only true justice can give her the love she longs for and keep her in his world.
This was definitely one of the more interesting paranormal romances that I have ever read, and I enjoyed the authors fresh and unique spin on ghosts (and to an extension ghost possession).
The characters were interesting and unique as well, and I enjoyed the realistic interactions between Nik and his niece. They had their hardships trying to find the balance with each other, and it was nice to not only see them find that balance, but to also have Katya be able to help with that as well.
I found the romance between Nik and Katya to be believable (as much as it could be considering she was technically dead), and the way that he showed her she was worthy of being loved and treated well added a different depth to the story that only made it stronger.
Overall, I would recommend this story to those who enjoy paranormal romances. I would read more from this author.
The Siren's Dream (Siren #3) is available from Amazon.com


Negoroji Temple is a Buddhist temple located at Wakayama prefecture in Kinki district. The temple is dedicated to Dainichi Nyorai ( Mahavairocana, the chief deity in Esoteric Buddhism ). This temple is famous for Two-storey pagoda designated as a national treasure.
20-minute drive from the Sennan I.C. on the Hanwa Expressway.