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 ... 24
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 20, 2017, 10:50:28 PM »
Really? You look at models over ice itself?


No Killian. I look at the ice charts kindly provided by the Canadian Ice Service.

YMMV.


Take it up with the CIS. And actually that's an image I posted:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,762.msg125874.html#msg125874


those are on the safe side, it's about money once again, liability, eventual rescue costs etc.
IMO NWP is navigable looking at all the info that is floating around but the official status by canadian ice service is a bit about covering their back.

2
i doubt that any humanly built barrier can withstand that kind of force, forces like ice-drift on a very large scale. doubt does not mean i say it's not possible, i'm not an engineer or architect but i'd guess that such barriers would simply be pushed away and if it were feasible, maintenance and construction would cost huge and then for what benefit. the ice would simply melt on the other side of the barrier very soon ;)

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: August 15, 2017, 01:11:01 AM »
I often wonder why there is so little consideration for biofuel for aviation to reduce (or eliminate) net carbon emissions from planes. It is proven technology which is mostly limited by high cost at this point.

Turns out biofuels can also reduce  other pollution currently emitted by jet engines.

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2580/nasa-study-confirms-biofuels-reduce-jet-engine-pollution/#.WP-pErf3r4g.facebook

depends which biofuel, fuel from "FOOD" is a bullet in starving peoples foot as well as bad for those who cannot easily or at all afford raising basic food prices like corn, wheat and the likes.

there are many enough examples where biofuel has started to produced ins significant quantities while they were far from the quantities needed to replace fossil fuel and already there have arisen serious issues as mentioned above and more.

food, as long as there are people who starve on this planet is a crime to be used for energy purposes hence if biofuel it has to be produced from real waste and with very strong regulations.

the regulations needed i don't trust will be implemented due to our corrupt and lobby driven
political system, especially once the big players join the party in serious.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 08:06:34 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)


Go look at this area in PolarView (there's an image from this morning that shows the area just north of the buoy) and you can see that the buoy is near the edge of a lot of ice to the west and open water to the east. We couldn't see it up until now because the buoy wasn't free to rotate. Definitely I think there was a lot of melt and break up this weekend, but it isn't like all that ice we were seeing before has all but disappeared.


i think i clearly mentioned that the other side may look different, nevertheless the buoy has till recently been surrounded by ice, sitting inside a floe, visible on the very same sat images you mentioned. of course i can read between the lines, hence nothing new from that side.


i wanted to avoid identical double-posts since they're often not welcome, hence read both my posts on the matter, combine them and all is said and clear

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg125274.html#new

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 08:04:47 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)

In view of the GPS track, and of the satellite images, some here were wondering why we were not watching an image like this before.
I am not sure what you have been claiming since since months but I hope you are not 🍒 picking or utilizing this otherwise expectable image


i think i pointed out "NO CLAIM" how much clearer can one be ? i have the opinion that due to thinner than usual ice, bottom melt will sooner or later see to some kind of sudden death and this image looks like that. whatever one can say, short ago the buoy was inside a flow on all sides and that has first slowly and now more or less suddenly disintegrated at least on one side.

i wanted to avoid identical double-posts since they're often not welcome, hence read both my posts on the matter, combine them and all is said and clear

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1834.msg125274.html#new

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:52:00 PM »
Watching closely yet reserving judgment.  I recall quite a prolonged warm spell across the CAA a few years back, which I thought would cause a dramatically early opening of the NWP.  In the event, it was only a little early (end July iirc).  It takes a lot of heat to melt all that ice.

as to the NWP, due to last years import of more than usual MYI chuncks it will take even more to clear it, keyword "garlic press".

once the CAA kept the thick ice north of it the more southern parts were easier to melt out. as we have seen O-Buoy 14 has made quite some distance south-east which is somehow showing the path the ice that in parts originates in the CAB would take.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:28:52 PM »
Much like last year:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/resources/arctic-sea-ice-images/summer-2016-images/#OBuoy14


exactly and last year ended second extent wise and not sure about area but depending on the source that was even lower, hence we're on a schedule expected by many if not most, nevertheless the poor melting momentum and once the atlantic side will get hit by storms, waves and humid warmth, who knows how it will end, probably second lowest again but this time by far, somewhere in the middle between 2012 and 2016 is well possible.

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:22:07 PM »
i'm sure many remember what some here are expecting over wider areas (as a possibility of course, no claim that it has to) then look at this image and those a few hours before:

http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,327.msg125272.html#msg125272


9
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 14, 2017, 07:19:57 PM »
if anyone is interested to know what i'm talking about for months now is this what happened withing a few hours around o-buoy 14:

and yes i'm aware that the back could look still difference (probably does) but nevertheless it was not so much open water anywhere during recent rotations of the buoy ;)

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 14, 2017, 03:17:23 PM »
By my calculation, the odds of finishing in various places are as follows:

1st:  0%
2nd:  39%
3rd:  11%
4th:  36%
5th:  01%
6th:  12%
7th:  01%
8th or worse:  ~0%

1st 0% would have been the value in 2012 throughout most of the season, what happened then was something new that never happened before,  hence could not be foreseen.

2017 something new could happen as well ( in polls i opted for 2nd all season so no disagreement with that ), just saying, only, even though it can't be predicted, this time most of us are aware of the possibility, (thin, fragmented ice that could be eaten up to zero extent by bottom melt, as well as possible strong winds and wave action )

what i want to say is that 0% chance for 1st i wouldn't sign, (a) for the above reasons and (b) because i generally try to never say 0% and to never say 100% sure if it's avoidable.

i would give a 1st place still a chance or 5-10%, going down by the day of course but for the next 10 days i'd not call it 0% chance.

i know you did the math and they're correct, the above i just wanted to add to round up the picture.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 12, 2017, 08:35:34 PM »
For some ground-truthing, compare Wipneus' high-contrast map with O-Buoy 14's location and camera image (60% water?)


beside the fact that you're right when it comes to the direct optical comparison it has to be mentioned that he many times pointed out that this images of his come with a somehow extremely increased contrast to show where things get "watery" only with that in mind those images can be interpreted correctly. they are artificial to point something out and not meant to be 1:1 readable as ice covered or ice-free which is why the comparison for the purpose of truth finding is not appropriate.


12
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:49:37 PM »
you're right but why reaches ? it has been like that for most of the year or do i translate the word "reach" wrongly. until now i thought reaching is to get to a point/state/place where one has not been the moment before? would gladly make sure that i'm not mistaken or learn.

13
be patient, the main difference this year is thickness and logically it will show on the last mile, means during the last few weeks of the melting season. it's already hinting and if the weather conditions won't see to a very early minimum and a calm reminder of the season i still think we're getting close ( opted for second lowest from the beginning and stick to it )

BTW, talking about being close at the end of the season, IMO we are permanently close to the lowest at almost any time this year or below earlier. i opt for a sudden death over wide areas for the reason mentioned above.

14
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:42:38 PM »
It's devastating for the local wildlife. Tundra grows very slowly.
I would think it's a normal part of nature there.

growth is fastest after wildfires, where i live almost half of the area has been on fire once during the past 20 years and growth, including speed and hight of brushes has doubled after each fire. further i think that the soil is building a bit faster since the tundra does not build that much of humus while ashes and burned residues do. even though in places it's blown away, it will accumulate in places and build fruitful earth, behaviour would be simiilar to sand and snow, filling throughs and building little thicker spots where different plants can grow once the climate allows.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 11, 2017, 09:35:06 PM »
The water-ice interface once again looks (to me) like some surface freezing recently took place, and that afterwards the water level fell, or, more likely, the ice edge raised up. 

For the ice edge to rise, I think this means surface melt has to be significantly faster than bottom melt. Enlargement from Obuoy 14 camera image.


don't think so, the ice is melting from below and the edges get thinner and thinner. temps were well above zero yesterday and hover around zero for the reminder, certainly it's too warm there to build new ice from water.

the raise comes with the melting ice sitting higher in the water, well observable with ice-bergs that melted so much that the former waterline at times can be serveral meters above the water surface.

further, again looking at  bergs, one can often see how they get some mushroomy form factore, well visible once they capsize and the underwater melt being stronger than the surface melt is the very reason why they topple at all, they become top-heavy.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:45:46 PM »
a good page in this thread, many possibilities have been mentioned and no non-sense has spoiled it, we're getting to terms ;) ;)

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 08, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »

Then look at the filtered versions -- attached to following posts. They eliminate most of the purple flashes, and instead show a record of an earlier value (exactly what value they show depends on the algorithm).

i'd have to repeat myself but that exactly makes this so valuable for many of us and considering the consistency of retread by getting rid of the noise makes it a real tool that provides better information about the ice than any other i have seen. laymen or not, facts remain exacxtly that and these images show the short/mid term development in a most comprehensive way, at least for me and some others as it seems.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 07, 2017, 09:29:05 PM »
2017 cannot keep up with 2012, despite the very poor ice conditions.

not yet, just because 2012 started to drop to the bottom on day "X" does not mean that other years can't start the race earlier or later. it's too early to tell. as it was mentioned a few times the condition of the ice would "allow" for a sudden death of huge areas while this in no way means that it must happen. should we by any means look at a relatively calm and cool late summer it won't happen and the canon ball would be dodged for the umpteenth time this year.

generally as i said earlier it would certainly be good for the discussion if we were less jumping to conclusions because of daily ups and downs of the curve compared to other years, only 1 or 2 days ago there were voices calling the cliff (was possible) and now that we got one bin up others are calling the race off (it's possible) we simply don't know while my opinion is clear, i expect at least one or two bigger drops over a few days ahead and opted all season for second lowest in the polls.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 07, 2017, 06:06:31 PM »
These animations are a really nice addition the forum.  Thanks gd2 for taking on this project.

One suggestion I have is to add a pause on the last frame of each animation.
[/b]

this one can easily suggest to 99% of all the gif makers, not only is it good for the eyes to rest for second or two to be prepared to digest the succession but also it would be much easier to distinguish the last from the first picture, including the content of the two.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 07, 2017, 12:10:41 PM »
I'll try again

80 hour loop. August 3-6

Not sure why the gif won't run, I'll use another method.

working well (gif running) no problem, thanks

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:56:56 AM »
Adam, yes the ship is going backwards!

It is a double acting ship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_acting_ship

"The propulsion system of the new gas carrier consists of Azipod type propulsion units. They provide a very high degree of manoeuvrability, and allow use of the stern-first motion (Double Acting Tanker, DAT function) principle, which is necessary to overcome hummocks and heavy ice fields. Uniquely Christophe de Margerie has three Azipods – this is the first time so many of these propulsion units have been installed on an Arctic ice class vessel."
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/unique-ice-breaking-lng-carrier-christophe-de-margerie-ready-to-serve-yamal-lng-project/


In thick ice, it is faster when going backwards!

"The stern section is designed to enable navigation in severe ice conditions.
The double-acting tanker capability allows the vessel to break heavy ice in both bow and astern manuoevres.
The vessel proved her capability to move stern-first in 1.5 metres thick ice at a speed of 7.2 knots (target figure was 5 knots) and head-on at a speed of 2.5 knots (target figure was 2 knots)"
http://www.ship-technology.com/projects/christophe-de-margerie-class-icebreaking-lng-carriers/


perhaps i overlooked, then sorry, but it seems noteworthy that latest those pods/props can be used to crash the ice, with the props themeselves while before recently props had to be protected by either hardware appliances and/or hull shape to produce the right flow to steer the ice clear of the props and/or rudder if there is one (does not apply to pod equiped propulsion systems of course)

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice Concentration Images and Animations
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:50:39 AM »
Thanks Sterks. I have similar thoughts. For long-term animations the median is probably is best, nice and smooth. It may even filter out some of the low concentration artifacts in the original images. On the other hand, it is relatively insensitive to day-to-day changes. For instance, if you watch the pacific side, you can see it "breathing" in some of the other animations, which I think does reflect real physical changes to the ice (although maybe not exactly just concentration). So for short-term animations, I am leaning towards one of the noisier versions (to better watch the horse race  ;D ).

your entire idea and approach with using filters on those graphs is a great improvement to get the bigger picture of how things went and are currently developing. great thanks for that, something really new and noteworthy. wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later some of the idea would be adopted by one or several of the main data providers.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:47:51 AM »
I think what is being said is that 2012 still had large, contiguous floes whereas this years pack does not show this? In 2012 a 1km sq would be covered with 100% ice whereas this year the 1km squarer might only have 16% of ice yet be counted as the full 100%?

The '15%' or greater ( and 30% and greater) were brought in to deal with peripheral , fragmented ice and not designed to work well over the central basin where 'roundups' can make for a large difference in the numbers?

Didn't someone contact NSIDC earlier on in the year concerning this issue?

Certainly last year but I think maybe the year before? showed this 'fragmented pack' across the central basin? The 'crackoplalypse' events, since 2013, have tended to reduce floes sizes by riddling the pack with 'fault lines' (over late winter) which readily fall apart once melt season arrives leaving us with a very broken pack?

+1 thanks

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:46:01 AM »
But if you are going to make grandiose claims, challenging the fundamental reliability of rigorously tested models, then you should damn well be held to the same standards as the people you are challenging – in this instance the Polar Science Center.

I don't disagree in substance.  What I would say is if you're going to pull someone up about it, then do at least make the case a bit more strongly.  PIMOAS  is a model based on data and not verified data in and of itself.

All volume models have been criticised on these boards because the enthusiast effort we see on a daily basis can, at times, make a complete nonsense of the volume models when there is patently no ice where the model says there is 2M ice or more.  Even worse when a storm kicks up and the area showing 2M ice, in whatever concentration,  suddenly vanishes in a day or two and the whole area is clear of ice.

These are statistical anomalies and they do exist in all the models.  Even more so in challenging times of rapid and fundamentally outside current understanding, rates of change in ice dynamics.

It is correct to challenge.  That is how science gets better.  But it is also a requirement to provide the evidence of where the model is failing, so that those who work with the models can work out why it failed.

As you say most of us do this as a hobby and very few subject their comments to rigorous statistical analysis.  Most don't have the time and the rest of us wouldn't know how to anyway.

But it doesn't meant that the analysts among us can't spot inconsistencies.

I guess I'm saying educate don't berate.

all you're saying is totally correct while to repeatedly mention obvious (visible) flaws in any model can't be wrong at all. we should never settle with what we get as long as flaws are obviously present.

the problem with criticism if any is the wording of it which i know from own experience is often subject the language barriers. even people who speak a language well in daily life at times reach some limits as soon as it comes to scientific and/or most precise talks where the exact terms become more and more important, especially when it comes to criticism of any kind, including intent constructive criticism.

each of us know his true intentions but often through imperfect wording/tone the good intentions/motives get omitted to the native speakers of a language. the worst level of
language skills for high level talk is between 50 and 80% level, because once language and
orthography appears to be good, a wrong word is understood as intended while it perhaps was not.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Solar wind storms effect on ICE?
« on: August 07, 2017, 11:31:55 AM »
add the word "significant" to your theory and there you have the answer.

beside the fact that every kind of interaction in the entire universe has an effect of some kind, while it remains to determine which and where, i think if you add the word significant to the word effect the answer is clearly "NO" it might have an effect like everything else has, but which effect that is and where it does apply is somehow of low relevance as long as the effect is not "significant" which i think is quite obvious considering the levels of energy needed to affect polar ice caps in general.

however, i still like the question and any discussion on such topics because however things are on the topic, there is usually something to learn for everyone who is not active directly in the field of science in question.

don't hesitate to continue and bring up further arguments and stuff, i'll read, consider and filter with pleasure and should by any means the discussion here end, there always remains PM for a further exchange.

plus what jim said ;)

26
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 06, 2017, 12:14:50 PM »
magnamentis,
I probably would have worded it different myself, had I written it, but what can you do. Like you said, they write the headline to get attention. That is most likely why Neven is so ticky about how we word our posts. It detracts from it later, if something is over-stated.

P.S. Sorry if I over defended. It is an old habit, you know. Take care.

ohhh... no, i'm glad you did reply, this way i learn to do things better, i need this kind of feedback, less about what but about how to word/post things as you say. constructive feedback makes that much easier and i'm grateful for that.

wish you a nice sunday  8)

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 06, 2017, 11:17:32 AM »
Was pretty sure in spring the 2017 would be rivalling 2012 by now. Wouldn't have been astonished by a half a million lead by this time. It could be the estimates of the thicknesses of second-year floes are more accurate than what i guessed. In other words, i could have been wrong in april and may and henceforth during the summer. I'm rather happy to see this likely end up over 2.5 mkm2

if all the currently remaining ice would be building a solid ice-sheet as it once was we would be well below that mark. fragmentation and the resulting dispersion are the main reason IMO why the numbers don't tell the entire story but eventually will. just discount from the current values a certain percentage for all the blue between floes that is clearly visible on sat-images and one would be surprised how low we really are. always keep in mind the 15% threshold and that all above that counts as 100% even though it's often a lot less than that, especially nowadays.

28
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:46:18 AM »
magnamentis,
I don't see any of the places in this article that you have mentioned specifically that have wrong information. If there was a train wreck in my hometown, a headline may read," American Train Wreck Kills Two" and mainly on the world news, but that does not mean that it happened everywhere in America or the U.S. This article gives specific times and dates of events including fires. Which of these do you dispute? Also,
At least two people have died - one in Romania and one in Poland - and dozens more have been taken to hospital suffering from conditions related to the extreme weather, Reuters news agency reports.
Is the World's most known news source lying?  And,
On Thursday, temperatures hit 43C near Rome while Sicily recorded 42C as a blanket of hot air from Africa swept through the Mediterranean.
Which of these are not true?

People who argue against global warming use a similar argument to say that it is not warm everywhere. It is an average of temperatures from all over the area, and there is always some places that are going to be pleasant nearby.
it's ok, it was the "europe" term while it's local but you are right, it's common to word things like you did, wasn't necessary to be so d ;)etailistic

29
The rest / Re: Article links: drop them here!
« on: August 05, 2017, 12:53:11 AM »
Europe heatwave sparks health warnings as temperatures soar

www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40825668



coolest summer since 11 years in southern spain, hence take news with a prise of salt. what's Europe, sweden, spain, italy greece, each with their own peak years and cool years. it's like saying americans are like ......... where in california or new york? huge difference. european summer hat peak temps in june in some places and temps on the cool side in others and again i did not have to sleep one single night on the sofa in the airconditioned living room as compared to the last 11+ years in southern spain.

you know by now how much i appreciate your spot on contributions but this is just not a statement that is true under the "europe" label. we each day at breakfast discuss and enjoy the ectraordinary cool nights for july and early august and we know the difference whether we can open our windows at 10 pm or 03 am ;)

i'm always fuming when i hear news weather telling that it's cold in spain = madrid at minus 1C while at the costa del sol it's 15-20C, same applies to summer heat where sevilla hits 40C+ each year in june and rarely gets below 30C till mid/end september while temps at the coast can be very pleasant. that's only spain weather and calling "europe" hot that includes scandinavia, british islands as well as greece, poland, spain, portugal and the likes is simply to simplistic and mostly outright wrong.

there are hotspots indeed but they are not european but local and most of europe is currently on the cooler side. watch this image of europe:

36 in madrid for example is not hot, it could be much hotter, way beyond the 40ies.

same applies to portugal, 31C in lisbon is no heatwave at all, it's quite pleasant for the time of the year.

in my place we call it hot beyond 36C and night temps hardly below 30C or even above 35C that's what we call a heatwave and currently we are permanently 10C below that for almost 1.5 months and enjoy a historically "cool" summer.

that's nothing personal but headlines are not helpful to narrow things down since too many people know they are disconnected, sorry the word, "fake news" an in the aftermath shed a bad light on the facts that really matter.



30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 04, 2017, 07:48:17 PM »
I suggest not to give this "second-lowest July volume loss" thing too much meaning. Years with low volume tend to lose less, as a lot of the easy ice is already gone. 2012 was 3rd lowest, with a relatively small difference. It was still enough for 2012 to take back the lead, but it's not a huge move. In addition, IJIS loss during July and especially the 2nd half was relatively slow, and temperatures relatively cool with lots of clouds, so why expect PIOMAS to report an unusual melt? If anything, I consider this year's volume loss to be surprisingly resilient (and disturbing) in the face of such a slow July.
I would expect the 1st half of August to show above-usual melt, due to the recent storm with its flash melt, but if a GAC fails to arrive don't expect volume numbers to get back into the lead over 2012.

+1 so grateful you wrote, i deleted mine for known reasons LOL

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (mid July update)
« on: August 03, 2017, 06:22:23 PM »
Here is PIOMAS monthly volume, 1979-present, by month, scaled relative to the 1980-1989 average and smoothed with a 10-year LOESS function.



The biggest change has been in September.  Then there are symmetric pairs of months:
2nd and 3rd biggest change:  October & August
4th and 5th biggest change: November & July
6th and 7th:  December & June

Then the symmetry breaks down.  January has decreased faster than May, and February faster than March/April.


in direct reply without reducing the value of those graphs for now, i want to repeat an earlier remark that once we get lower and lower the loss relative to earlier years are becoming smaller and smaller.

the month we gonna hit zero could be an august and the change could be very tiny.

what i'm heading at is that the lower we get the higher a small change is in percent and the more we gonna have to take naked compared numbers with a prise of salt and/or relativate them IMO

EDIT: i'm fully aware that we are far from zero volume, it's just the example that explains my point best.

32
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:15:31 PM »
It seems that the recent strong melt is in decline. Of interest, to me at least, is that the 30 year average maximum for melt and surface mass loss was a few days ago, and surface mass gain starts by the end of August. I wonder if the Greenland melting season has extended in recent years.

well possible but the same was said one day before the last super-peak. even though your graphs are very useful i do not think they are suitable for daily usage when it comes to the value of the information they are providing. but that's only for efficiency-apostles like me ;) just keep going and do it your way, just a remark to consider.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:11:26 PM »
the terms:

1) TREND

2) SHORTTERM

contradict each other, even though all kind of thinking is welcome and allowed it would not even spend a second to read anything from short periods in a graph. value is close to zero on the positive side while all the discussions it often is causing makes it inefficient at best IMO.

nobody is meant, this is meant to be a general statement to consider for those who do like to use their resources in time and energy efficiently ;)

34
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: August 03, 2017, 05:05:38 PM »
Houston; We have a problem!


when it comes to the topic of global warming of which sea-ice loss is a result and indicator it's global sea-ice the draws the real picutre ice-wise and as we can see (thanks for posting it, i follow that daily) we are "BELOW" 2016 and of course any other year and that is extent, taking volume it looks even much worse, especially if we convert those observation values into mega-joules and the likes, the surplus energy needed to get rid of that volume.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 03, 2017, 04:58:07 PM »
Sorry, if I'm interrupting the current discussion. Just posting an animation of the last two weeks with some slowmotion. In my opinion now you can see very well, what are clouds and what is SI. If the trend we see continues, the next two weeks could definitely wreck the ice.

Is it just me of is everything outside the triangle canada ~135th longitude and 15th longitude looking to go poof in any moment?

certainly not just you ;) doesn't necessarily happen but has been seen coming as a serious threat for quite some time by TT and others.

EDIT: as mentioned by SH, have seen it later only, sorry for the ninja post.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 03, 2017, 04:55:02 PM »
Wow...

i think the swan will be beheaded ;)

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 03, 2017, 04:47:17 PM »
IJIS:

6,258,935 km2(August 2, 2017)down 90,020 km2 and 4th lowest measured for the date.

This next week will reveal a lot.

there will be years ahead when the key event will take place in july and there will be years ahead when the key events will take place in september, only because 2012 events happened the second week of august does not mean much for this year, especially because the situation is totally different with much less MYI and much thinner ice in general.

the possibility that the big drops will occure later in the season is higher than earlier in the season IMO because higher temps extent more easily into fall now and the higher humidity somehow protects the ice during summer more often in the future, especially during peak-insolation periods in june and july.

the state in which the remaining ice currently is would allow for a huge drop in september given the right winds etc.

of course, it's possible that none of the necessary events will take place any given year and it will probably take another 3-5 years to reach 2012 without special events like GAC etc. at the right time between early august and early september.

38
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: August 02, 2017, 07:36:17 AM »
An oddity ? - will it persist?

Well, according to JAXA, Antarctic extent has dropped more in the last 2 days than Arctic extent!

events like this on the 1st of a month have to be taken with a prise of salt, at times thera are correction and/or algorithm changes. dunno the details but it has been mentioned a few times.

does not mean it didn't happen, just that there might be some exagerations.

39
3.5 - 4.0 2nd lowest, no change to my earlier votes

40
3.75 - 4.25, second lowest over all, no change to my earlier votes

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 31, 2017, 03:02:04 PM »
Sterks,
It is quite confusing to hear of a storm compacting stuff on the ocean


Exactly. At least on the open ocean. I don't expect the ice in the passages to make a very firm backstop for long before the ice pushes through. It is possible that it already has started moving south, and it is a matter of waiting on updated images.

check o-buoy-14's gps data that just accelerated it's southward journey, could well stand for the general direction of movement in that area. should the garlic press pick up even more speed there most probably will be a significant impact on the thickness and amount remaining in the CAA at the end of the melting season.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: July 31, 2017, 01:48:54 PM »
o-buoy 14 picking up speed

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 31, 2017, 01:48:22 PM »
so beautiful

44
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: July 31, 2017, 12:28:07 AM »
thanks a lot, that's something really new i've learned thanks to you and that's a good thing, could save me one day to look like a fool ;)

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 30, 2017, 08:54:36 PM »
Tundra is beautiful. From the sky it looks like dirt, but on the ground you see all the flowers and mosses and lichens and low shrubs.

sure, didn't mean country-side, meant within city limits.

except the mosquitos i love tundra as well, since my first wife from russia i had the pleasure to grasp some of it's beauty, even though on the other side of the arctic ocean :-) one of my daughters and 2 grand-kids are currently living in Dudinka (Дудинка) at the Yenisei river (Река енисей) doing some biological research.

46
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: July 30, 2017, 08:06:18 PM »

Just saw this post.

Despite being very dry precipitation-wise, the desert areas near the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea are the most humid on earth. The reason is evaporation. The extreme temperatures drive SSTs well into the 90s (mid 30s C) in the summer, resulting in a shallow layer of very humid air, especially once the early-summer Shamal wind dies out. Dewpoints regularly soar into the 80s. Mass subsidence from the Hadley Cell (resulting in a very strong subtropical high) prevents virtually all convection and thunderstorms and the moisture layer tends to be shallow enough to mix out any updrafts that do get going (except over the Hijaz-Azir mountains in Yemen).

source: I worked, lived and forecasted weather in this region for a few years and experienced it first hand. It isn't pleasant to experience heat indices in the 130s.

The highest wet bulb temp I experienced there was 31C. I was completely drenched in sweat just walking the few blocks into work in the morning and I was in shape at the time. I'm certain it isn't survivable for more than 6 hours without external cooling. Add 2C and you're talking heat exhaustion and heatstroke in an hour or two.

thanks for the heads-up.

if i understand you correctly, despite the few precipitations in that regions in general, relative humidity (air-humidity) is more on the tropica (very humid) side?

or did you mean the highest humidity in desert regions on earth. i'm making sure beause on my various stays in the region, especially red sea, i never felt as uncomfortable due to humidity like for example in thailand, gambia or florida in summer, so i assume it's the latter.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 30, 2017, 07:10:29 PM »
What does it matter whether it happens within a few hours or a few days? As long as it goes before the freezing season starts again, the satellite sensors will notice.

If you want to discuss how ice melts exactly, and how fast, you need to open a different thread. There's a lot of literature on this stuff.

gonna read it up as suggested and with all due respect, yes it matters, the entire thread is about melting speed and underlaying mechanisms and the interplay between them, else we could await the end of the season and discuss how it went, if it goes soon the end will be different than if it takes another month.

i had a lengthy pm written and a lenghty reply but deleted them, the above is the shortest and best i can come up with, hope it's ok ;)

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 30, 2017, 06:18:35 PM »
Within a few days, probably. Within several hours, no. Natural processes take time. IMHO.

just to make sure i didn't make a lingual mistake, i did not mean withing the next few hours but withing a few hours once the point will be reached which can be any time, in extremis even never.

thanks for the input with a differing opinion but can you also tell me why? or in other words what those natural processes would be once the point of 15% will be reached over a large area?

what always remains is to watch and see, i'm just curious, enjoy the weekend

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 30, 2017, 05:37:21 PM »
Absolutely perfect summer's day at Barrow today. The temperature at the time of this picture was 68F.

San Francisco weather!

i'm curious how much green lawns we gonna see there in a few years, perhaps i'm wrong but it looks a bit like things are getting greener than they were a few years ago. at least i always felt pity for people living in gray and brown sand and gravel and now it's getting almost pretty, relatively though :D

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: July 30, 2017, 05:31:38 PM »
may i suggest to keep the images with north on the top as in any common map?


May I remind you that common maps of the Arctic use a polar projection with the North Pole in the middle?

Here's the link Tor helpfully provided to the original source:

http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#overview/gpstracks

Perhaps you might suggest to the proprietors that they employ McClintock Channel down instead of Greenland down?


you may remind even though i'm aware, only once cuts a small fraction out of this the heading of a trajectory becomes invisible without consulting the bigger version of the same map.

however we settled that over PM and it was a friendly suggestion without any claims from my side, all is good and thanks for mentioning said fact just in case ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 24