Pan-Arctic and regional sea ice predictability: initialization month dependence

Seasonal-to-interannual predictions of Arctic sea ice may be important for Arctic communities and industries alike. Previous studies have suggested that Arctic sea ice is potentially predictable but that the skill of predictions of the September extent minimum, initialized in early summer, may be low. The authors demonstrate that a melt season “predictability barrier” and two predictability reemergence mechanisms, suggested by a previous study, are robust features of five global climate models. Analysis of idealized predictions with one of these models [Hadley Centre Global Environment Model, version 1.2 (HadGEM1.2)], initialized in January, May and July, demonstrates that this predictability barrier exists in initialized forecasts as well. As a result, the skill of sea ice extent and volume forecasts are strongly start date dependent and those that are initialized in May lose skill much faster than those initialized in January or July. Thus, in an operational setting, initializing predictions of extent and volume in July has strong advantages for the prediction of the September minimum when compared to predictions initialized in May. Furthermore, a regional analysis of sea ice predictability indicates that extent is predictable for longer in the seasonal ice zones of the North Atlantic and North Pacific than in the regions dominated by perennial ice in the central Arctic and marginal seas. In a number of the Eurasian shelf seas, which are important for Arctic shipping, only the forecasts initialized in July have continuous skill during the first summer. In contrast, predictability of ice volume persists for over 2 yr in the central Arctic but less in other regions.

The Mystery of Privity: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Robinson (1915)

This article examines a little known decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada v Robinson (1915). The examination is historical and it provides a different insight into the understanding of privity of contract, a doctrine central to contract law. The examination reveals a process of trans-Atlantic legal migration in which English law was applied to resolve an Ontario case. The nature of the resolution is surprising because it appears to conflict with the better known decision of the House of Lords, Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v Selfridge and Company, Limited, which a similarly constituted panel delivered in the same week. This article argues that there was a greater malleability in the resolution of cases concerned with privity than was thought to have existed. It is also argued that the power of Canadian railway capitalism is a significant factor in understanding the legal resolution of the case. Finally, it the article considers the use of English and American precedents relevant to the case. The application of English precedents to the case led to a resolution not entirely befitting Canadian conditions.