Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - magnamentis

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
i dunno if some of you remember my reservations as to the worth of batteries as an environmental solution. while many of my arguments are not covered in that article, i recommend to read the linked article. it's in german but google is your friend, should be good enough to get the info.

Why quote a Boulevardzeitung when a simple Google search would have pointed you to a wonderful news item on the GWPF website? Maybe you'd be interested in some other stuff there as well. I believe they have a wonderful article by Matt Ridley on how there's nothing wrong whatsoever with Arctic sea ice.

Come on, MM, do some better research before regurgitating something here that is on the same level as climate risk denier drivel.

"come on" accepted, try to do a better job next time, was a fast shot. ;)

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: Today at 02:44:01 AM »
Teach me about what IS surface melt

This looks like surface melt to me:

yep, full agreement obviously, was a misunderstanding as i was referring to B14 and you to another. that's the image i meant, hence all clear and good ;)

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: Today at 02:42:53 AM »
did you see the latest image? mean about "no surface melt" i call this surface melt, if it is not teach me about what IS surface melt. would be happy to get rid of an eventual mis-interpretation of a term that is key in this forum.


There are two different buoys being discussed here. When they say "no surface melt", they're talking about IMB 2017A, which doesn't have a camera:

http://imb-crrel-dartmouth.org/imb.crrel/2017A.htm


thanks a lot woodstea, you obviously saw the reason for the little misunderstanding:-)

4
i dunno if some of you remember my reservations as to the worth of batteries as an environmental solution. while many of my arguments are not covered in that article, i recommend to read the linked article. it's in german but google is your friend, should be good enough to get the info.

https://www.blick.ch/news/wirtschaft/schweden-studie-enttarnt-tesla-als-umwelt-suender-so-schmutzig-ist-der-gruene-luxus-schlitten-id6900808.html

just imagine if all ICE vehicles would run on batteries, the footprint wold be way larger IMO than the current footprint of ICE  (putting into account all the other factors that are not in the article but i wrote some in this thread)

i think the only real solution lays in getting rid of 2+ cars per household, car-sharing and generally altering the way of individual transportation. all technical solution lack the thought to the end and often end in even greater misery.

i have to add here that i myself drive an electric vehicle beside my motorbike, hence am by no mean against EV ( hybrid in my case) but still we should early enough consider ALL the consequences of new technologies. hypes and holy cows are usually not helpful long-term.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 26, 2017, 08:53:15 PM »
I would say the ice has thinned about 20 cm in one week, but I doubt it is so much.

Bear in mind that the top & bottom sounders report:

Snow depth : 5 cm
Ice thickness : 111 cm

i.e. no surface melt yet, and 4 cm bottom melt over the last week.  Trying to estimate floe thickness from the thermistor readings is fraught with difficulty at this stage of proceedings.

did you see the latest image? mean about "no surface melt" i call this surface melt, if it is not teach me about what IS surface melt. would be happy to get rid of an eventual mis-interpretation of a term that is key in this forum.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 26, 2017, 08:50:24 PM »

And your point is?

the point is that every post that tries to reduce the gravity of the current conditions as well as development over recent years leaves a bit of a smell of bias and/or talk just to talk or contradict just to be heard.

Haha, I first came here to comment (#2288 ) on what a scorcher this melting season is now setting up to be. Then I'm asked to answer for my moderating bi-sentence, and in going so subsequently being accused of contradicting the common narrative just to grab attention (trolling?)? Anyway, Seaicesailor gets my point - and makes a good summary of the situation - if you don't, lets just agree to disagree (just don't come back in September and tell me "I told you so" :) ).

well, that's fair, to agree to disagree is always a good option till results are available, deal :-)

a smell is not an accusation but something to consider, it was meant to explain the reaction you replied to before my post. as to who get whose point, watch carefully, some people would disagree always with what some others write. kind of personal thing after that something went into the left brain half, hard to get things out of there and mostly it's my fault that it happens due to choice of wording, mea culpa, no problem, still learning like everyone should

enjoy further and nothing personal, let's see how things turn out ;) :D

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 26, 2017, 06:41:31 PM »
Except that the Arctic Ocean is currently the lowest volume on record is it not?

And your point is?

the point is that every post that tries to reduce the gravity of the current conditions as well as development over recent years leaves a bit of a smell of bias and/or talk just to talk or contradict just to be heard. not saying it is, most often probably not but the impression remains at times.

further i'm repeating here that the less ice there is on max, i.e. extent or volume, the less of it is periphery and it's absolutely logical that some of the headstart will be gone sooner or later because the early melting regions and easy to melt ice is/are reduced from the start.

once we shall have half of the ice in march, we can never face the same rate of loss till june and sooner or later the total amount of ice to melt from max to minimum (i.e. zero) will be smaller than the melting rate in any year before 2000.

what i expect is that some denialists will have the "toupé" to claim a recovery just because the amount of ice lost between march and July will be smaller than it was 20 years ago, not considering that only ice that is there can melt at all.

what i'm saying for the umpteenth time is that the less ice we have, the smaller the melt rate will be due lack of material that can melt.

another point is that it makes little sense how some users cherry pick each year the criteria that meats there views. volume is lowest (after all the only that really counts) and extent is very low but not lowest and what we see here is a discussion over pages about laggy melting, (see above why)

all this does not matter, the ice is going down the river and is worse than last year, no matter whether extent is lowest or not, period, not much more to be added to that FACT while most of those back and forth arguments are about short term interpretations, a typical human limitation IMO.

8
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 26, 2017, 06:09:57 PM »
Hullo "devil floe". (Verdade ?)
Your posts have convinced me to rely on the DMI analysis, and especially on the progression of the smb.
Muchas gracias for the explanations.

while everyone is free to choose (of course) i just want to point out that:

"they say" is to be expected and proves nothing.

on the other hand DMI data if one takes a close look over YEARS has been proven (by sat images) wrong and not just a bit, basically they had repeatedly ice, even thick ice, in places where the satellites showed open water. this for me is as close to proof for errors as it can get.

similarly it's with the temps above 80N, 4-5 sources have been showing either obove or on average dtemps over weeks during which only DMI was showing below average temps.

of course in this case it's less clear because one can be right and all others wrong but that with the ice showing where was open water is a clear case o matter what "THEY SAY" in defending their own work. after all most people there have a carrier and get funded and admitting they're wrong is simply out of anything that one could expect.

all this is an opinion based on impressions/observations over several years while i gladly would learn about anything that proves otherwise, just not seen yet

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 26, 2017, 01:35:32 PM »
It has been a very interesting struggle so far between ice volume and land snow/ice concentration/melting ponds, and it seems that so far they have evened out.

But I personally feel a bit uncomfortable now with that new dipole coming up...

Yes, the weather forecast isn't looking good for the ice. High pressure over the Beaufort Sea (and possible beyond) could deliver a massive blow to the already thin ice. I wouldn't be surprised if this is then followed by another, more powerful cyclone in July.

Fortunately, the Atlantic seems to run less 'hot' than we've seen in previous years.

considering all the ice that was pushed into the atlantic and in great part melted there, there must be some kind of impact on SST in that region which, once the ice has melted out entirely in the periphery SST could catch up very quickly considering that the heat is not just a surface thingy but that there is a huge water column for heat storage. what do you think about making this connection ?

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 26, 2017, 01:22:27 PM »
The ice round Prince Charles island looks particularly brown.  Sorry if this is a basic question but is there a likely cause?
http://www.arctic.io/explorer/4Xa5A/2017-06-01/8-N82.50546-W48.71926


an idea that's not necessarily the case is that with the ice getting thinner each year, more and more dirt/soot accumulates on the surface. an example for this happening is the glaciers in the alps (and elsewhere) that get darker and darker in summer when the snow cover melted and this year's surface melt adds to the previous years.

there is a certain amount of sand and other dirt in the ice and some glaciers know entire regions where the ice is almost fully covered by the stuff, which of course accelerates the melting process through increased albedo. the end result in some places is a black surface and not all is just dust, at times there are small stone fragments, at least on glaciers, not necessarily/probable in the arctic and most propably not on sea-ice due to lack of sources for stones. what remains is the dust made from volcanic ashes from centuries and sand imported from deserts over time.


An interesting idea Maggie, and I get where you are coming from, but this particular ice melts out in the summer.


ok, thanks for the heads up, was focusing on soot instead of considering the exact location, so it either is fresh ash etc. or something in the imagery.

resume, idea not valid, thanks, perhaps someone else has more insight, let's see.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 25, 2017, 07:46:45 PM »
The ice round Prince Charles island looks particularly brown.  Sorry if this is a basic question but is there a likely cause?
http://www.arctic.io/explorer/4Xa5A/2017-06-01/8-N82.50546-W48.71926


an idea that's not necessarily the case is that with the ice getting thinner each year, more and more dirt/soot accumulates on the surface. an example for this happening is the glaciers in the alps (and elsewhere) that get darker and darker in summer when the snow cover melted and this year's surface melt adds to the previous years.

there is a certain amount of sand and other dirt in the ice and some glaciers know entire regions where the ice is almost fully covered by the stuff, which of course accelerates the melting process through increased albedo. the end result in some places is a black surface and not all is just dust, at times there are small stone fragments, at least on glaciers, not necessarily/probable in the arctic and most propably not on sea-ice due to lack of sources for stones. what remains is the dust made from volcanic ashes from centuries and sand imported from deserts over time.

12
The forum / Re: What is Off Topic and What is Not?
« on: June 25, 2017, 02:23:28 AM »
It is discouraging sometimes, because you know that when you move to another thread, the momentum of the discussion dies. The same people that are all over the topic when it is off topic will not follow it to another thread. Sounds odd, I know, but true.
This is partially true but there have been cases of very popular threads spawned this way. From a theoretical discussion that went off-topic ad nauseum, to a new life in a thread of its own. For example, importance of waves in the arctic, negative feedback of positive snow anomalies, etc.
From what I've seen it helps to put a link from the melting season thread to the new thread. It also helps to give the thread a more general title, so that people can go back to it when looking for that subject.
(All this advice from someone who has never started a thread...)

all true, if it were easy to keep the right balance it woul be done but it is very diddicult. IMO the best solution is if mods, friendly but consequently would put individual stops when limits are crossed, best after cosulting a co-mod to stay backed.

there is useful ot and non-sense ot and the tone of inerfearing should be moderate in case of the first to keep uzers motivated.

13
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 25, 2017, 02:12:36 AM »
The difference between the NSIDC Greenland Today Melting Graph and the DMI Greenland Melting Graph continues to increase.

well observed & thx 4 pointing it out.

i find many dmi-sources way off, mostly i base my impression on comparisons with sat-imagery and of the kind you just posted. woud not matter if not for causing unnessesary discussions.;)

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: June 24, 2017, 01:44:45 AM »
cross posted in the buoys thread but could be  an image of the day as well

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 24, 2017, 01:42:03 AM »
just like that, an ice-bear sniffing at the co2 sensor LOL (not sayin' just for fun )

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 23, 2017, 10:08:57 PM »
Guys, this thread is for a discussion exclusively about the current melting season, not topics such as solar insolation. If you have any further comments on that matter, please take them elsewhere. Thanks!

probably i gonna bang my head again but i disagree as far as how is it possible to seriously discuss melting season without from time to time talking about insolation since it's a main factor around solstice ?

<snip; it's fine to talk about insolation taking place right now, or about fog or rain, or whatever, but I'd prefer not to see endless theoretical back-and-forths about enthalpy and how much energy it takes to melt 1 kg of ice, etc, etc; N.>

17
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: June 23, 2017, 10:01:35 PM »
Actually, I dreamt of a middle-aged white man last night, a Frenchman called Bertrand Roux who had lost his wife several years ago and had come to Amsterdam to help me with my Arctic analysis. We were watching the Worldview satellite images, and flipping one day to the next there was a huge part of the ice pack that disappeared. And I said: Holy crap, this could mean the Arctic goes ice-free this year! Maybe I should report on this now. Bertrand agreed.

But on-topic: I also think that population is public enemy number three, after the system in general (where there is no limit on personal wealth) and over-consumption.

i know what you're saying and somehow i share your views but please consider one IMO key point.

without too many people all those factors wouldn't have the damaging impact, after all it's the number of people exploiting the planet ( by the means you mentioned and more ) that counts 1 guy living like donald has no effect, hence between one guy without impact and enough people which have that huge an impact that we are facing now must be some kind of threshold (critical number) and this number is "number of consumers, and sh...tters, it's not only consumption that contrubute to co2, it's body functions and nutrition, agriculture and many many things that all together make the whole.

as i said and i think you know by now, one of the biggest screws we should start to adjust ASAP and which we could if we really wanted, is the one with borderless wealth. there i fully agree, only that the above mentioned relation is not deniable, at least not seriously and calling this BS is way off and i have to hold myself not to reply appropriately. LOL


18
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 22, 2017, 07:04:32 PM »
A few days of strongish melting makes quite a difference.

On June 1st 2017 JAXA sea ice extent was 733,000 km2 greater than 2016, and average daily melting (from April 1) was 22% less than 2016.
As at 21st June that difference is down to 157,000 km2 and the average daily melting rate (again from April 1 ) is now only 2% less than 2016.

If melting from now to minimum is at the average of the previous 10 years, the 2017 minimum would tie with 2016 as 2nd lowest at 4.02 million km2. This is a significant change from earlier this month when a 5% above average melt would have been required.
However, to be a new record low (i.e. less than 2102) still requires remaining melting to be 15% above the 10 year average.
This is summarised in the little table below:-

 As At June 21       Melt required     As % av      Resulting Minimum
 For 2016 Result     5,711,402    100.0%    4,017,264
 For 2012 Result     6,551,211    114.8%    3,177,455
 For 2007 Result     5,662,927      99.2%    4,065,739
 Average 7-16 melt     5,708,577                4,020,089

The data illustrates how extraordinary the 2012 melting season was. (A similar story can be told on Greenland's melting in 2012).

There are about 85 days of the melting season left, of which perhaps 75 are significant in an average year. Although the Arctic temperatures are not yet at maximum, peak insolation day was yesterday.
If all other things are equal, a 2nd lowest minimum despite not particularly favourable climatic conditions seems eminently possible. However, not all other things are or will be equal. When will the thickness of the ice in the CAB reduce to below the point of no return?

this only applies if you mean area or extent, in fact we need much less melting  to reach the same amount of ice in september because the amount of ice in cubic-kilometers is much lower than any other year before.

that means that much less energy = melt is needed to reach the "non-goal" so to say.

again, if you refer to area and in parts extent only, your calculation has a point, just that i think we should go slowly away from optical to physical values, extent is optical, it's not real, it just is an impression, while volume is the only value that provides amount of ice = energy needed to melt it.

at the end of the story, once all the ice is gone in a given year, that amount of energy needed to melt the ice is what counts, else it can't happen, while extent numbers can vary so much.

a) example 1 :  5 meters thick and 20% cover
b) example 2 :  2 meters thick and 20% cover
c) example 3 :  5 meters thick and 100% cover etc.

if one's gonna calculate the difference in ice mass between exmaples 1 and 3 and the energy equivalent needed to melt it, we find ourselves in two totally different worlds (scenarious)

this and nothing personal is why i over and over spoil the game of so many hinting at that.
our live energy for a change should be used the most efficient way, more i don't say, else
some will be jumping again LOL

cheers all and enjoy further

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:46:03 PM »
hi all,

i put it wrong, i MEANT the angle of the sun, the objective strenth of the sun, but said otherwise, sorry for that.

of course that amount of insolation over quasi 24 hours ( i know it depends again LOL ) is providing more energy than a winter sun at a 30 degree angel for 1 or 2 hours only

sorry again for the statement that was not thought to the end, sh... happens you're all right of course

EDIT: uppssss..... almost forgot: thanks for letting me know/ making me aware again, very much appreciated

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:43:12 PM »
2012's freakiness, besides the early June cliff that it had, begins in July and never ends until minimum. Rankings now among the top 4-5 are not very meaningful.

you're totally right, ranks are not very meaningful except perhaps the max the low and the time when those 2 happen LOL, i was just wondering why there was no mention, somehow a paradoxon because i was the one fuming against the permanent ranking and now my subconscious
obviously missed it haha... insert a prize of humor here and all is well LOL

21
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:26:13 PM »
IMHO calling population numbers the nr. 1 cause of all those nasty problems on Earth, climate, pollution and so on is a mistake.
Clearly these population numbers exploded along with the other problems as a result of industrialization, look up the graph, it is easy to see.
Do non-industrial folks overpopulate, pollute, destroy biodiversity and so on like we do?
No they usually don't, people on a shitty little island such as North Sentinel have a 60,000 year track record and the place still looks like paradise...60,000 years, let that sink in compared to our industrial society.
"Anthropocene Global Warming" is a faulty name as well for this reason.
Should be Industrial Global Warming....

On the contrary, I think overpopulation is clearly the major problem, not industrialization.  If we had a population of 1 billion people on the earth instead of 7.4 billion (with same socioeconomic distribution), we'd need 1/7th as much land used for agricultural production, and the same reduction in land use for  roads, cities, and suburban sprawl.

Beyond this, modern technologic industrialization tends to use resources more efficiently.  Transportation is more efficient, manufacturing is more efficient, and per-acre yields in agriculture are higher. 

On a per-capita basis, technological advances are part of the solution, in general.  The whole problem is too many of those capita.

 i totally agree with you! reason why most people refuse to accept that fact is that:

a) it would mean a reduction of population is needed, doable only by very nasty means, be it wars, and other catastrophes or be it by political decisions with the remaining question, who is to decide that without being a dictator and who will be the ones who would face strong restrictions in freedom of life.

b) related to a) until now no-one came up with a really good idea how to achieve that goal or in other words, even though ideas might be good, does not mean that the big mass of population would accept it and/or comply with.

so the question remains, is it worth to find a culprit without solution in sight, i say yes, because only by knowing the root problem solutions can be found (developed) that consider the root problem.

others say no because the do not believe that such a solution could exist, those of course are the same kind of people who thought that a 600000 ton machine could never fly and that locomotives directed by the devil directly from hell LOL

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:17:35 PM »
has anyone recognized that 2017 made it ahead of 2012 again ?

wanted to post a proof but that bloody site comes up with that error message for the umpteenth time, here is the link so you can check later, best visible by zooming (reducing the time frame )

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:11:36 PM »
... But Jaxa and NSIDC just tell us the result of the calculation. Perhaps they need to highlight the standard error for us dumbos.

I know this is the IJIS thread, but here's what NSIDC have to say about this subject on their FAQ page...

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#error_bars

basically true, as long as the error remains the same, comparison is valid, only that i suspect that with more fragmented ice, all within the 15% threshold but still not the same like before (not solid anymore) the error is greater or in other words, the comparison is not as valid as before because a en entirely new factor over such large areas has joined the game and until now has not been implemented into the models.

this might account to the fact that extend serves less and less as a good indicator at this time of the melting season which i expect to clearly show later this summer when we shall face more and more poof events once large areas fall under the 15% threshold or disappear within extremely short time.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 22, 2017, 06:04:13 PM »
Newsflash, I could swear that there are refrozen melt areas (not quite ponds yet, but beginning) in the current image (posted below).
It also seems that the snow level maybe dropped a bit in the last 4 days, rather than covered by new drifts (click animation).

generally i'd agree, could also be darker blank ice showing through the snow, ( or where the snow has melted, snow depth is significantly lower taking the peaks of those little bumps in the background as a reference. not saying it's not re-frozen, just adding to the yes, could be, a second, perhaps a bit more far fetched possibility.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 22, 2017, 05:56:49 PM »

Does imported warm air from Siberia and ocean mixing count for more than the significant reduction in insolation during the peak week for sunlight?

I don't think so, especially near the solstice.  But these are only two factors in a system of fascinating complexity.  Among the others: rain will strip away much of the remaining snow cover over areas of higher-than-normal albedo, and the position of the cyclone means winds will push some thicker ice closer to the Fram exit.


solstice up north is not much more insolation than a winter sun in mid-latitudes and i can assure you from experience that nothing melts ice faster than warm "MOVING" air, second only to warm water, second even by far, but hot water is not the main topic here.

about that rainfall's impact on ice compared to insolation etc. it would certainly not apply like this in mid-latitudes but since, as mentioned above, insolation is never THAT strong that far up north and in combination with the winds and the water (rain) making the ice darker, especially where is still some snow on the surface, which then adds to albedo, i'd say YES to that question, depending also on the amount and time period of rain, but in general i'd still say yes.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June - mid month update)
« on: June 20, 2017, 01:53:38 PM »
Reasoning for my choice of inner basin, and a couple of charts:
I've looked at the average of the last 10 years, volume at end-July and mid-Sep.
The only seas with significant volume are: CAB, CAA, ESS, Greenland Sea, Laptev, Beaufort, and Chukchi (only in July). All the rest tend to melt out relatively early and almost completely, and I expect them to do the same in 2017. So I prefer to focus on these "significant" seas, minus the Greenland Sea, when trying to assess volume situation and outlook for September. I'll call this "Inner Basin" here and in future charts. I'm not saying it's the only metric that matters of course, just a specific one that I find interesting.
Regarding Greenland Sea, its ice is a result of constant export, meaning current ice is not the September ice - that will be mostly new ice coming along later in the season. So I prefer not to lump it along with the others, although it will surely have ice in mid-Sep.
So looking at low-volume years, inner basin only (CAB, CAA, ESS, Laptv, Beauf, Chukc), the first chart is a perspective of what the rest of the season looks like. The second chart focuses on June. With inner basin average losses of 2400 (+/- 700) km3 to day 181, 2017 might maintain an inner basin lead of 620 km3 (over 2011) by end-June.
Note: looking at total PIOMAS volume, given the current lead at 380 km3, with average losses of 3550 km3 to day 181, this year could still lead by 210 km3 by end-June.

once again you are the man with the right ideas and the skills to convey them ( as opposed to myself as it seems LOL ) i love that, a real pleasure, KUDOS

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 19, 2017, 07:38:21 PM »
Based on temperatures leveling out and the fact that the ice around the edges was thinner than usual and has melted out fast, there is a good chance the rate of melting will begin to decrease somewhat and ice extent will maintain 4th place for a while and then climb perhaps to 6-8th place. Just a hunch. If I knew how to project the future I'd be rich trading stocks!

For your "hunch" to come to fruition, the rate of extent decrease, which has been the second fastest on record for this time of year so far this month, would have to magically slow to by far the slowest on record.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

Friendly advice: stay away from the stock market. :)
I'm trying to understand this and, apparently, failing.

The most recent 2017 value for IJIS is 9982791.  FTB didn't specify an exact time frame, so let's say this is over the next two weeks:

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011 or 2016 it would climb to 6th place.

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2015 it would reach 8th place

* If the ice follows the pattern of 2004 it would reach 9th place

So melt rates from 8 of the past 14 years would bring FTB's "hunch" to fruition. 

Maybe I've badly miscalculated something, or maybe I misunderstood the claim.  But Jim Pettit's comment makes no sense to me.

following the path of the 80ies or the 90ies would bring things even higher, what's the point to use past years as a base if the ice and temps in the arctic are different nowadays. each year has its own factors that contribute or hinder melting, no-one can know about those in advance and how they play together and when they have to happen to have their max effect on either side, but what we already know, and that's all we can assess right now, is the current state of the ice in general and the current "ranking" which i'm getting tired of to read about, it's such a poor indicator concerning september-low where we stand now. one could read back in 2012 melting season when the max was late and high, without going there i'm sure that everyone (many) were talking about imminent recovery and we all know where 2012 ended.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June - mid month update)
« on: June 18, 2017, 05:33:27 PM »
The June 15 gridded PIOMAS seems to show solid ice volume in regions where Worldview is showing lots of open water. For example eastern and northeastern Hudsons Bay areas seem to show visible open water. Does it lag or is there some kind of averaging being done across grid cells?

well observed, unfortunately each year we come to the point where we can see with our eyes (sat images) that the reality differs from some graphs and semi-official data. still piomas seems to be the most reliable source for volume, all others are even worse, so we have to live with it and use/develop common sense through the help/use of additional input (like sat-images and more)

interestingly sooner or later things fit again, perhaps the error quota, which i cannot quantify, is related to fast developments, means fast decreas/increase combined with alternating states of the ice like in area, extent, fragmentation and mobility.

it would be helpful for us non-scientists if someone how has the necessary know-how and skills would look into this repeating issue and come up with possible explanation or, perhaps, proof those wrong who see a discrepancy. all is possible.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 18, 2017, 02:27:00 AM »
Heavy breathing into the instrument? Like a breathalyzer?  :D
If a photosynthesizing plant had sauntered by, the CO2 reading would have been especially low!   ;D

perhaps it's unlikely but someone posted an image recently from a buoy with a bear standing directly in front (touching) and probably scrutinizing the buoy, hence however far fetched it might sound, as a layman i would not totally deny that possibility. ok i have to admit that i'm totally ignorant about how those sensors work and there measuring intervals etc. just sayin'

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 18, 2017, 02:23:19 AM »
Based on temperatures leveling out and the fact that the ice around the edges was thinner than usual and has melted out fast, there is a good chance the rate of melting will begin to decrease somewhat
I should point out that if you check the regional charts on the PIOMAS thread, you will find that the ice in the core is thinner than usual, while the ice around the edges has typical thickness. So your fact is in fact not very factual.

so glad you point it out, saves me further bashing LOL enjoy further

31
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 18, 2017, 02:21:08 AM »
The thickest ice off Labrador and Newfoundland (excluding icebergs) originates mostly in the Lincoln Sea and passes south through Nares Strait. We observed ice draft every 10 seconds from 2003 through 2012 and ice thicker than 5-m occurs, but is very rare, about 5% of the time. The peer reviewed paper is at

http://muenchow.cms.udel.edu/papers/RyanMuenchow2017.pdf


thanks a lot, very helpful, sheds some light for me and others who are not extremely privy with that.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 17, 2017, 06:15:27 PM »
Maybe you should make your own forums if you can't stand reading other people's ideas.


http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/sie_nsidc_daily_for_selected_years.png

i call this an acceleration of melting and at or close to the lowest level

further the ice is fragmented and moblle

further the volume of the most reliable source is lowest ever

so perhaps it's the other way around when it comes to stand something ?

at least i think that of the several points i mentioned all are true which one cannot say from
the general direction and arguments in that post, hence what's wrong to point it out?

i know that i'm not a diplomat but for me diplomacy is a synonym for hypocricy and lies and i do not have the intention to become one, i prefer a clear word and prefer to say sorry if i overshoot, still better than avoiding facts just because someone could be hurt. personal choice of course.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2017, 05:59:03 PM »
great, thanks, so melt ponds somehow simulate water which lowers area numbers, just didn't have that present (stupid i) should have know that by now ;)

No problem. But keep it mind before calling data useless or misleading again. All data is useful, it's what we do with it that can sometimes be wrong.  :)

yeah, useless is a hard word you're right. sometimes i'm writing too much per day and just loose patience or get carried away. always try to do better but at times fail, sorry for that.

cheers and a nice weekend @all

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 17, 2017, 05:57:02 PM »
As an observer, not a climate scientist, I can only comment on the data that shows what has been, what is and what with reasonable confidence can be expected to happen (as far as weather outlook, that is looking up to 5 days ahead in summer?)..

- Jaxa AMSR2 volume has not declined in June,
- Denmark's polar portal shows arctic sea ice volume in decline but now greater than 2016 (http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent),
- The DMI 80+N graph shows temperature above zero celsius but about a degree below average, (http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php),
- CCI-reanalyzer has shown a temperature anomaly for the Arctic slightly below zero for the last few days and for the next few days slightly positive.

However,
- CCI-reanalyzer shows strong sea temperature anomalies in the far north Atlantic and the pacific mouth of the CAB,
- CCI-reanalyzer also shows that summer has arrived in the CAB with average temperatures at and above zero for most of the CAB and surrounding Arctic,
- decline in sea ice extent (Jaxa) in June means that a second lowest minimum is possible with melt from now to minimum at just above the previous 10 year average.

With just 3 months of the melting season remaining and with no signs of significant melt-accelerating conditions , a record low is looking far less possible.


it's really easy to find graphs and data that fits ones intended statement. i prefer to stick to the more reliable sources and  to the truth (no sign of signifianct melt etc is not true) and to the laws of physics that cannot be fooled with photoshopped images and cherry picked statistics. energy is there, thickness and volume is low. that alone is enough to worry because the total amount of ice incicates the amount of energy needed to get rid of it which, obviously, is much less than ever before and it will have an impact.

i did not pay attention to other posts from you but there are well know sites where that post would be welcome and fit into the general pattern, just sayin'

35
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 17, 2017, 05:47:24 PM »
LaPresse blames the cancellation of the Amundsen's mission on the failure of the Nares arch: http://www.lapresse.ca/environnement/climat/201706/13/01-5106982-les-changements-climatiques-coulent-une-mission-scientifique.php

Des embâcles se forment habituellement au printemps dans le détroit de Nares, entre le Groenland et l'île d'Ellesmere, empêchant la banquise de descendre vers le sud. Cette année, la glace trop mince et trop molle a empêché la formation des embâcles, si bien que d'énormes quantités de glace ont descendu vers le sud, s'accumulant notamment entre l'île de Terre-Neuve et le Labrador. Voyant cela, la Garde côtière n'a eu d'autre choix que d'envoyer l'Amundsen à la rescousse, son seul brise-glace de calibre suffisant alors en état de naviguer.


(My translation): "Ice jams normally form in spring in the Nares Strait, between Greenland and Ellsmere Island, stopping the sea ice from flowing South. This year, thin and soft ice prevented the ice jams from forming, so that enormous quantities of ice flowed South, accumulating notably between the island of Newfoundland and the Labrador mainland. The Coast Guard had no choice but to send the Amundsen to the rescue, it being the Coast Guard's only operable ice breaker."

More details in the story, largely based on an interview with Barber from U.Manitoba.


I am unsure about the scale of impact, but the abnormality of much older/thicker floes into the Hudson (5-8m!!!) will cause a lower rate of SIE loss in the Northern Hemisphere graph, since these flows will persist much longer through the melt season.  However, it would also necessarily lead to more rapid losses later in the season (August cliff).


those floes and that kind of thickness are only exceptions and as far as i can see are not present in significant amounts/numbers. hence i believe that their presence there does not have the slightest impact on any statistics with less than 2 digits after the comma.

further hudson is quite far south and mostly melts out, hence those few "bergs/floes" or whatever they are,  will mostly melt like butter later in the season as you mentioned yourself.

don't hesitate to let me know if and why you disagree with what i said, one can easily miss something, specially one who's reading and writing around 10h a day LOL

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 16, 2017, 11:38:45 PM »
yes there is no reason and i basically explicitly ASKED for something i overlooked which implies the possibility that i don't get a point. this is fair enough i think and more or less the opposite.

What you're missing is simply melt ponds, or to be more precise, the lack thereof. If there had been a lot of melt ponds (like in 2007 and 2012), area would have fallen off a cliff. And that's because for area melt ponds counts as open water, which is why scientists came up with the 15% threshold (ie extent) to dampen the influence of melt ponds on the numbers.

SIA hasn't fallen off a cliff so far, because there are relatively few melt ponds. Useful information, just like sea ice extent is.

great, thanks, so melt ponds somehow simulate water which lowers area numbers, just didn't have that present (stupid i) should have know that by now ;)

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 16, 2017, 10:12:07 PM »
Magnamentis there is no reason to distrust the motives behind what simply is a piece of information with no distortion of any kind in a nice plot (thank you Steven).
Now I am surprised that you have mentioned the bad shape of extent. Yes it is.
I partly agree, 2012 dwarves the other cliffs but I guess it is important as well where area ends in second mid of June, ☀️

yes there is no reason and i basically explicitly ASKED for something i overlooked which implies the possibility that i don't get a point. this is fair enough i think and more or less the opposite.

still ihave to consider things come across in that way, probably because of the term "misleading" while i said "THIS" is misleading "IN SOME WAY" and not the person is mislieading.

all good i think and i hope i could clear that out and to i i submit my thanks for making me aware of possible misunderstandings and giving me the opportunity to clarify :-)

BTW to avoid OT i had such a nice private message ready ;) "big smile"

cheers

EDIT: my apologies to steven, nothing personal for sure and no offence meant, mea culpa for any bad wording.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:21:26 PM »
Is what used to be the CT area anomaly graph available anywhere? That's what I used to use for judging just how cliffy June is.


There has been no "June cliff" in June 2017 so far, probably due to a lack of melt ponds.  In the graph below I used Arctic sea ice area data from Wipneus' site  (filename:  nsidc_arc_nt_main.txt), which he calculates from NSIDC gridded sea ice concentration data.  In the graph I used 5-day running means to smooth the data.





this is misleading somehow, june is one of the biggest overal loosers due to steady instead of cliff-like losses in extent and most probably in volume as well. further as wip posted there are significant losses going on in area currently. further i sea only one real cliff that deserves the name in that graph and that is 2012 coming from relatively high.

i just try to understand the motives behind this kind of post. it's obvious that things are in bad shape and primed for the worse, including forecasted weather for the next few days.

if someone is reading that post he/she could get an entirely different picture about what's going on hence IMO, even, what i don't know, the data are correct thus far, they neither represent the current situation nor do they any good to make and keep people alert to the situation.

of course as usual i'm ready to listen and learn what i'm missing, just my 2 cents.

39
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:15:49 PM »
Looks like Donnie is setting himself up to fire Rosenstein pretty soon.  He has to stop Mueller...and getting rid of Rosenstein is step 1 in that process.  Mueller is making too much headway....too quickly.

Another Saturday night massacre coming?  Possible...

it seems to be a fact but can someone explain to me how it's possible the an individual who is subject to serious charges can fire the "prosecutor" so to say ( the person who investigates ) i mean that would be an obvious hindering of obstruction for the legal process to find the truth. if, as it seems that is possible for the second time after comey that would definitely be another flaw in the system IMO and makes appointing an investigator a charade.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 16, 2017, 07:08:22 PM »
You do mean June rather than May, don't you?

not sure but i think he meant what he wrote but the dates were for june not for may, why should he post 1 months old data today, as i said, just assuming from logic but facts may tell another story, let's see what wip has to say.

howerver, these anims show very well how much of the 100% extent is really 100% hence what
those number at this time of the year and nowadays are (not) worth LOL

i love this gif, tells a big tale.
To take into account that Wipneus increases the contrast to the extreme to show warming events etc.
The albedo anomaly plot of Nico Sun tells us quite a different story.
As a matter of fact I find the ice pack quite compact and that extent is not misleading much from what is going on, as much as it can tell

thanks for adding a different possible and valid point of view on the subject while to see anything there "quite intact" i can hardly see. we gonna see, i think that quite soon we shall either way be able to talk about facts :-)

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Accuracy of poll predictions
« on: June 16, 2017, 07:04:51 PM »
Thanks for this, Ned.

It'd be interesting if we could give the bias a number, and then use that to predict the minimum. ASIF prediction + ASIF average bias = X.  ;D

chances are high that if we do that this year things will be the other way around which would see for a huge bias towards the other end. i'm confident that this year could even run the predictions out on the lower side and even more confident that the majority is at or in the vicinity of being spot on.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 16, 2017, 06:57:11 PM »
Wipneus posted a fascinating and potentially alarming gif on his Home Brew thread.

The state of the ice north of Greenland catches the eye. Wipneus cranks up the contrast for those gifs in order to pick out features, so how bad and/or unusual is the situation there?

Looking on Worldview, I was surprised to see the amount of year-to-year variation in that area.

Hoping this 7.7 Mb gif loads so you can see what I mean.

The year is displayed in the top right hand corner.

I score it:
2014 worst
2013 second worst
2012 ~ 2017
2015 and 2016 the ice looks in good shape.


In any event, 2017 doesn't stand out as anomalous. Apparently there are 'good years' and 'bad years' for the sea ice at this particular date and area.

What do more experienced ice watchers than me have to say on the gif?

unfortunately i lack the right words but IMO the image quality is not comparable, you can see that in one and the same image there is a straight artificial "border beyond which the ice looks homogeneous while on the right of that "border" the ice looks different. to me that means that either resulution or other factors like clouds and corrections have their impact which spoil the picture to the point a comparison becomes useless.

the ice this year is by no means in good shape and has not been in bad shape in 2014, 2014 was the year when many claimed a recovery because the ice recovered from mid 2013 till 2015.

those are known facts, perhaps put a bit simple and those images contradict those facts which again means for me they are not suitable to compare the state of the ice on a year to year basis and are misleading.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: June 15, 2017, 07:24:53 PM »
that was a bear grunting "land in sight" just to find out that it was a buoy :-)

no they really have to hurry to reach land in that direction before it's all gone

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 15, 2017, 07:18:50 PM »
You do mean June rather than May, don't you?

not sure but i think he meant what he wrote but the dates were for june not for may, why should he post 1 months old data today, as i said, just assuming from logic but facts may tell another story, let's see what wip has to say.

howerver, these anims show very well how much of the 100% extent is really 100% hence what
those number at this time of the year and nowadays are (not) worth LOL

i love this gif, tells a big tale.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 15, 2017, 05:12:05 PM »
@Wipneus I'm sure you've answered this before, but what is the basis for the anomalies? Is it an average of the whole satellite record, just recent years, or some other subset?


Like NSIDC, it is the 1981-2010 mean.
Is what used to be the CT area anomaly graph available anywhere? That's what I used to use for judging just how cliffy June is.

yes it is, at least if this is what you mean :-)

just scroll down a bit hope it's right

https://sites.google.com/view/pettitclimategraphs

Those are all extent, not area.

yep, i was fooled by the similarity and just assumed there would be one for area as well, next time i 1st look better before posting, sorry ;)

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 15, 2017, 04:54:18 PM »
We really need several Century drops....  Got to get to Zero Ice..  We need to be happy we are right!

To be at the same level than 2012 on June 30th (9,039,911 km2), we need an average daily drop of 74,289 km2.
In a way, hoping to have an ice-free Arctic seems suicidal to me...   :(

not only that, it is very far fetched (not a realistic szenario, close to impossible IMO) but some folks obviously seek distraction and a kick through big events and big headlines more than to have the real goal of this forum in mind. certainly interesting times are exiting but being happy with a catastrophe is the syndrom we often see on highways when passers by reduce speed to stare and make photos.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: June 15, 2017, 04:49:57 PM »
Open water visible offshore from Utqiagvik

you are totally right just that its sounds like new while that open water is there for weeks already. you can crosscheck with sat-images a month back and even then there was mostly coastal ice (fast ice of some kind ) while farther out one was able to distinguish that dark shadow, at times it even shows in the cloud since the surface color has an impact of low clouds color.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 15, 2017, 04:47:38 PM »
What's notable about this system is how long it's forecasted to linger in the same vicinity. As mentioned, the Laptev Sea looks to see most of the action. Considering the ice-free expanses in the Laptev and the fractured nature of the pack extending well into the CAB, i can't help but think that we'll see some serious waves from all of this.

Below is a surface wind gfs forecast starting in 2 days and ending in 5 days.

absolutely. someone was referring to a bias to the low side in polls in this forum but i'm quite convinced that this year we shall see events "muy grave" or "strong tobacco" as we say where i come from LOL

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 14, 2017, 08:24:35 PM »
@Wipneus I'm sure you've answered this before, but what is the basis for the anomalies? Is it an average of the whole satellite record, just recent years, or some other subset?


Like NSIDC, it is the 1981-2010 mean.
Is what used to be the CT area anomaly graph available anywhere? That's what I used to use for judging just how cliffy June is.

yes it is, at least if this is what you mean :-)

just scroll down a bit hope it's right

https://sites.google.com/view/pettitclimategraphs

50
Our collective prediction record in this poll series is pretty abysmal, and it's strongly biased towards too-low guesses:

June 2013 poll: 99% of predictions were too low, 1% were too high
June 2014 poll: 95% too low, 2% too high
June 2015 poll: 66% too low, 27% too high
June 2016 poll: 91% too low, 3% too high

Looking at those results from prior years, and the distribution of this month's poll responses so far, I'll go with 4.0-4.25 million km2 this year.  [Edit: er, I would go with that, if the poll hadn't closed on 12 June... oops!]

since we can hardly get a weather forecasts for more than 3 days that is worth the term, all those polls are of course a lot of guessing but:

all the ingredients are there for a 30% drop in september minimum, all the factors just have to come together like in 2012.

the year that will resemble 2012 or worse will probably leave us with around 50% of the average sea-ice minimum but no-one can tell when it happens, only thing i gonna lean out of the window very very far is that it WILL happen and that year you will look the way we're looking now LOL

only one more thing ( i know that stevie died ) it's better to expect the worse and take precaution than discard what will happen as biased before it happens and drown (or any other form of sudden death)  symbolically speaking.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21