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 - Shared Humanity

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 20, 2017, 03:34:04 PM »
Given the fragmented nature of the ice and the SST anomalies, I am amazed by the compactness and resilience of the Beaufort as compared to last year.

I have to believe that this compactness serves to protect the ice.

2
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: July 19, 2017, 04:30:50 PM »
The linked article indicates that a satellite snafu masked the true rate of increase of SLR:

Jeff Tollefson (17 July 2017), "Satellite snafu masked true sea-level rise for decades", Nature, 547, Pages: 265–266, doi:10.1038/nature.2017.22312

http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312

Extract: "Revised tallies confirm that the rate of sea-level rise is accelerating as the Earth warms and ice sheets thaw.

In an analysis published in Geophysical Research Letters in April, Cazenave’s team tallied up the various contributions to sea-level rise, including expansion resulting from warming ocean waters and from ice melt in places such as Greenland. Their results suggest that the satellite altimetry measurements were too high during the first six years that they were collected; after this point, scientists began using TOPEX/Poseidon's back-up sensor. The error in those early measurements distorted the long-term trend, masking a long-term increase in the rate of sea-level rise."


"Nerem's team calculated that the rate of sea-level rise increased from around 1.8 millimetres per year in 1993 to roughly 3.9 millimetres per year today as a result of global warming."

This rate of increase can be seen as a 2 mm increase in the rate of sea-level rise in the past 2 decades or it can be seen as a doubling in the rate of sea level rise in the past 2 decades. How it is viewed can have dramatic implications on the anticipated increase in sea level by the end of the century.

"If sea-level rise continues to accelerate at the current rate, Nerem says, the world’s oceans could rise by about 75 centimetres over the next century. That is in line with projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013."

And this projection of 75 centimeters by 2100 indicates that the research team believes that the rate of increase is linear, essentially rising by 2 millimeters every 2 decades. I did a back of the envelope calculation (literally back of the envelope calculation with a pencil) and, using a 2 millimeter rate of increase over 2 decades  and starting at 4 millimeter rate in 2020, sea levels will rise an additional 64 centimeters by 2100.

Perhaps the research team is right and the rate of increase is linear. I don't have the annual measures to evaluate but, instinctively, I am troubled by this assumption of a linear rate of increase. All across the planet, we are watching individual processes accelerate at an exponential rate (glacier speeds and melt, ice sheet melt, atmospheric warming, methane increases etc.). It seems counter intuitive to think that sea level rise which, in a sense, is capturing the impact of all of these accelerating trends would result in a linear increase in the rate of sea level rise.

If we, instead, interpret this essentially 2 millimeter increase over 2 decades as a doubling of the rate of increase and project this doubling of the rate of increase to persist, my back of the envelope calculation suggests an additional 178 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100. IMHO, this is a far better projection.

(Feel free to perform your own calculations. I am an old man with declining faculties, using a dirty envelope and a blunt pencil.)

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 17, 2017, 05:19:38 PM »
... what?  This forum's OK with casual racism now?

I don't know if it's racism, but it's certainly a failed attempt at humour.

In the meantime we await that triple century break.  ;)

Edit: Upon further reflection, after reading the complaints people sent me, I've decided to redact the offensive part of Hyperion's post.

Given the current political and social climate in the U.S., I have zero tolerance for these kinds of comments even if only failed attempts at humor.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 17, 2017, 05:16:34 PM »
One of these summers we will have another massive record breaker.  Will it be this one?

No, IMHO. 2nd place in extent and area. Only volume has a chance at 1st which, of course, is the most important metric regarding the state of the ice. This year simply cannot be a "massive record breaker".

This winter should be very interesting.

5
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 17, 2017, 03:09:52 PM »
From the linked article....

"Besides the potential for rapidly forming sinkholes and explosions, these bulges also represent a significant addition to greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The release of methane from Siberian permafrost, a gas more than 25 times more potent than carbon in trapping heat in the atmosphere, rose from 3.8 million tons in 2006 to more than 17 million tons in 2013."

Given the rapid development of these methane bumps, combined with a nearly five fold increase of methane emissions in a mere 7 years, it sure looks like we are on an exponential trajectory for NH methane emissions, likely irreversible.

Any idea of what that would mean for the long term trajectory of earth's temperature?

There are certainly regular contributors here who could provide some insight but I am not one of them. My very layman's fear is that all of the trends related to the chryosphere are growth trends. A five fold increase in methane emissions in 7 years suggests a doubling interval of about 3 years.

We see similar growth trends in the rate of shelf melt in the Antarctic and the expansion of individual methane seeps in the ESS. Once a process is identified and we begin to monitor and measure, we see growth rate increases.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 17, 2017, 04:28:21 AM »
<snip;N.>
... what?  This forum's OK with casual racism now?

That comment earned him a spot on my "Ignore List". He should feel honored. It is a select group, only three others, two of whom no longer post here.

7
For fun: two melt ponds on the Zachariae Isstrøm, one seems to drain into the other.

That is so cool.

8
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:32:48 PM »
Elon Musk: Burning Fossil Fuels Is the 'Dumbest Experiment in History, By Far'

"If we don't find a solution to burning oil for transport, when we then run out of oil, the economy will collapse and society will come to an end.

If we know we have to get off oil no matter what, we know that is an inescapable outcome, why run this crazy experiment of changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere and oceans by adding enormous amounts of CO2 that have been buried since the Precambrian Era?

That's crazy. That's the dumbest experiment in history, by far."

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4x3pmn/elon-musk-burning-fossil-fuels-is-the-dumbest-experiment-in-history-by-far

And burning these fuels in ever increasing amounts is what allowed for the industrial revolution which is the very foundation of the world wide market economy that we know today. And the attendant technologies and benefits of the market economy made available to everyone is what has allowed the dramatic growth of the human population.

9
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:18:31 PM »
It would appear that the ocean currents actually flow north along the peninsula.

10
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:14:03 PM »
Oh. And what the heck is with all of the penguins on this map?

11
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 15, 2017, 05:10:54 PM »
Could the movement of the ice berg be caused by currents in the Weddell Sea? Are there persistent southerly currents down the peninsula toward the Ronne Ice Shelf?

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: July 15, 2017, 04:52:11 PM »
Re various posts about CO2 emissions: in some EU countries Renewable electricity is getting high penetration e.g. Ireland, Germany, Denmark, UK (still EU for now 😉). France dominated by nuclear i.e. Low CO2 intensity. The EU targets for emissions reduction are most likely to be met in power sector.

Transport is more problematic but progress is being made, e.g. EVs, HEVs, PHEVs, fuel cells, electric trains (and of course all EVs then rely on the power sector). HGVs will likely need biogas, fuel cells or some combination to reduce emissions.

But it is space heating where the biggest challenges lie, e.g. In Ireland where targets are being missed. Energy system modelling for least-cost solutions to 2050 and with CO2 emissions constrained to zero show electrification of as many systems as possible, e.g. Incl heat pumps for heating and cooling, are the way to go.

All of which fails to address agriculture, especially meat production. So in Ireland, we could in theory meet all our Energy needs from domestic Renewable energy sources and get to zero emissions. But we'd have to shoot every cow in the country and say bye-bye to our meat and dairy industries. Hobson's choice..

Where's the question? Just a reality check.  ;)

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 14, 2017, 09:06:19 PM »
Laptev declines the invitation.


 ;)

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 13, 2017, 06:13:38 PM »
Wow! Looks like the Laptev is set to join the party.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:47:55 PM »
Off topic but permissible?
Mission Impossible?

"Please, can we drop the endless repetition of this (unusually high snowfall on the Arctic Ocean) until someone can cite physical basin-wide observational data that supports it and provide monthly maps of snow depth and snow condition that are something beyond an unvalidated algorithm?"

This quote from a very recent thread seems to me to ask for that for now and for an indefinite future is impossible. The resources available for for such a huge project are not there and I doubt will ever be. USAF polar satellite number #20 (cost USD 500 million?) has been sent to the junkyard. NSIDC's data record will stop if / when #18 finally gives up. (Already operating beyond its design life with no replacement in site. The US defence department is looking to
private and foreign government satellites for its future needs.)

ps: A clue regarding Arctic Ocean snowfall last winter to spring is Greenland, which accumulated snowfall about 100 gigatonne more than average and just about the maximum in DMI's 30 year record.


What we do know about global warming is there is more water in the atmosphere and more precipitation generally. In fact global warming will result in larger increases of precipitation in the Arctic than in the mid latitudes.

http://jasonbox.net/low-surface-ice-loss-greenland-year-due-heavy-snowfall-consistent-climate-warming/

While this does not prove that more snow fell in the Arctic this past winter, given the cyclone cannon that operated through much of the past winter, it is not outrageous to speculate that more snow than usual fell on the CAB. If not true in this most recent freeze season, it will be true, generally, going forward.

This is the new Arctic. The two most notable changes that we need to understand are increased fragmentation and mobility and increased humidity, storms and precipitation.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:23:19 PM »

To me, this seems quite very much thinner than "usual". You?

Certainly very fragmented but how do you gauge thickness from such an image? We have a mobile, fragmented ice pack which I believe is the new and irreversible state of the Arctic. There was a report from a research vessel a couple of years ago that documented how a huge swath of thick MYI broke up into small floes when subjected to rough seas. Many of the small floes in this image could be rather thick MYI.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:06:18 PM »
Impressive cliff... bigger (steeper for longer) than anything else on this graph?

The 2012 cliff was certainly longer, tho perhaps not as steep (and certainly not as early). Will this plunge to bottom or stall out?

It may stall but the ESS will be ice free by the end of the melt season.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 13, 2017, 05:02:57 PM »
If you look at the large swaths of red adjacent to blues just to the north, the ESS drop in extent was due to both melt and compaction.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 13, 2017, 04:54:58 PM »
Let's keep it on-topic as possible, and as short as possible. And let's try to add images.

People come here for quick info on how the melting season is progressing as we speak. Not to read a book.
It was very on-topic, being logical continuation and explanation of my position about _possibilities_ for this melt season's minimum. I didn't start the talk. I merely joined the conversation....... blah, blah, blah, blah.....

Did you have to write a novel to defend your comment?  :o

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 13, 2017, 04:18:17 AM »
Hyperion....

Those are some frightening images.

21
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 09, 2017, 06:52:34 PM »
Given the very fractured nature of the ice shelf near the Gipps ice rise, I would be surprised if, once calved, the Delaware sized ice berg does not quickly fracture into many pieces.

22
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 09, 2017, 04:31:16 PM »
Nice article.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/09/climate/antarctica-rift-update.html

Scientists fear that two crucial anchor points will be lost.

According to Dr. Rignot, the stability of the whole ice shelf is threatened.

“You have these two anchors on the side of Larsen C that play a critical role in holding the ice shelf where it is,” he said. “If the shelf is getting thinner, it will be more breakable, and it will lose contact with the ice rises.”

If the shelf front disconnects from the ice rises, a rapid retreat will be triggered.

Ice rises are islands overridden by the ice shelf, allowing them to shoulder more of the weight of the shelf. Scientists have yet to determine the extent of thinning around the Bawden and Gipps ice rises, though Dr. Rignot noted that the Bawden ice rise was much more vulnerable.

“We’re not even sure how it’s hanging on there,” he said. “But if you take away Bawden, the whole shelf will feel it.”

23
Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: July 09, 2017, 04:26:27 PM »
I finally found names for the two islands that serve to define the length of the new iceberg. The Bawden Ice Rise to the north and the Gipps Ice rise to the south. These two ice covered islands stabilize the shelf and are worth keeping track of.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 08, 2017, 09:37:56 PM »
We should not forget the cyclone cannon that persisted throughout the winter, a progression of moisture laden storms formed in the North Atlantic and moving up through the Barents and into the CAB. These had to have resulted in high snowfall amounts on the Atlantic side of the CAB.

25
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: July 08, 2017, 09:15:27 PM »
1) advancements in genetics and biology will likely allow us to grow infants entirely outside the womb in 10-25 years time

Ever read Aldous Huxley's Brave New World?

Just because it is technically possible does not mean society will actually implement the technology. In 25 years, science will be far more focused on desperate geoengineering in an ultimately futile attempt to halt accelerating global warming.

26
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 08, 2017, 08:52:58 PM »
From the linked article....

"Besides the potential for rapidly forming sinkholes and explosions, these bulges also represent a significant addition to greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. The release of methane from Siberian permafrost, a gas more than 25 times more potent than carbon in trapping heat in the atmosphere, rose from 3.8 million tons in 2006 to more than 17 million tons in 2013."

Given the rapid development of these methane bumps, combined with a nearly five fold increase of methane emissions in a mere 7 years, it sure looks like we are on an exponential trajectory for NH methane emissions, likely irreversible.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 08, 2017, 08:41:13 PM »
The Pacific side of the CAB looks weak all the way to the pole. The Atlantic side looks relatively strong due to the migration of the thicker ice. What are the chances we'll see an alarming end state for this melt season with the Pacific side of the CAB nearly ice free?

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 08, 2017, 08:35:17 PM »
This melting season looks to me like a recovery year. Compared to 2016 there seems to be a lot less energy accumulated in the atmosphere and the Atlantic ocean side. The Pacific Ocean side looks worse than last year inside the basin, but the Pacific Ocean looks a little cooler. According to nullschool, the atmosphere above the ice seems also colder than last year by a significant margin. 

Yet the arctic is at near record low levels. I think that is due to the mild winter and subsequent thinner, younger ice. I think that to reach record low levels in extent double and triple century drops must happen in the next 3 weeks. That's unlikely but the thin ice is a big uncertainty.  I think that if the big drops happen or not, this melting season will finish early, grow strongly for a little then back to the new normal timid growth.

I am reading all of the varied opinions about the current melt and the projected end result and can only say that, just like the previous freeze season, this is a strange melt season. The Arctic has gotten very weird in the past few years (the new normal?). I don't really know where we will end up regarding extent, unlikely a new record though.

If the melt slows considerably, resulting in a rebound from last year, I am still doubtful that the melt season will end early nor do I think we will see a vigorous early freeze. Vigorous freezing is a thing of the past, I fear. The fall will be relatively warm, humid and overcast, not conducive to rapid freezing.

29
Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: July 07, 2017, 04:39:12 PM »
But that's where the problem is, right? The temperatures will not lower in the foreseeable future.

My point is not that this is not happening today -- it is that the mechanism resulting in increasing fall/wintertime snowcover will soon overwhelm spring/summer snowcover as well, even if it may take another 5-10 years to kick into gear.

The mechanism, ie global warming via CO2 forcing, is going to continue to increase as well and overwhelm fall/wintertime snowcover. At some point snow will turn into rain.

A decades long trend in Chicago as more and more precipitation is rain and the snow that does fall melts out in a matter of days.

30
Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: July 07, 2017, 04:27:26 PM »
For those of you who haven't heard about it, you may be interested in reading about the Ewing-Donn theory (Wikipedia) from the 1950's,  which posited that ice ages were caused by this negative feedback of snowfall anomalies. Also read this excellent summary on Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming website that places the theory in historical context.


Thank you for this link to the "Discovery of Global Warming" website. A very good read.

31
Permafrost / Re: Negative Feedback of Positive Snowfall Anomalies
« on: July 07, 2017, 04:05:11 PM »
The air in the Arctic was dry in the past, but not anymore. There seems to be so much moisture now that it cannot be contained. I am no expert on that subject, and am sure there are others that can clarify.
Correct! But I am not talking about the Arctic re: decreasing/stable moisture, as it is definitely warming & moistening (also due to the loss of albedo); I am referencing land areas that are newly-covered by snow when they usually aren't.

The simple fact is that a warmer world results in an increased moisture load across the planet. Yes, this is contributing to a trend of increased snowfall in the northern hemisphere, something I would expect to continue.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 07, 2017, 03:46:00 PM »
IMHO, these are the things we need to start accounting for and work to understand the impacts.

1. A generally warmer Arctic
2. A generally stormier Arctic
3. Increased snowfall across the northern hemisphere, particularly in the Fall.
4. Frequent cold air intrusions into the lower latitudes
5. Frequent warm air intrusions into the Arctic

I am sure there are other system wide perturbations that we need to consider.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 07, 2017, 03:31:58 PM »

Again this year's theme emerges: A warm wet winter leaving more snow but thinner ice. So, which will dominate: late snow melt or thin ice? We are on the verge of learning.


I believe we are going to get a very clear answer to this question and it is going to surprise us. Not only this but we may have to explore the ongoing impact of a stormy, moist Arctic, very unlike the kind of Arctic we have been looking at.

34
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: July 05, 2017, 04:51:52 PM »
It's interesting to me that fire actually seems to have been involved. What would the ignition source have been?

I had the same question pop up when I read this a couple of days ago. I simply cannot understand what the source of ignition would be.

Perhaps, it was some bored Yamal teenagers, out of school for the summer, playing with matches. ;)

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 05, 2017, 02:53:55 PM »
There seems to be a substantial number of people on here that, almost pathologically, ignore the difference in the condition of the ice, as well as the volume.

Not seeing it. Yes, we do have a few who regularly comment in ways that suggest they have denialist tendencies. Most of the regulars absolutely understand the complexities and those commenting here can be found on other threads talking about the woeful conditions of the ice.

36
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: July 05, 2017, 02:44:33 PM »
Yes. That sure seems to be a hopelessly inaccurate chart.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 05, 2017, 02:26:00 PM »
Sorry to be a grump, but this whole horse race strikes me as a bit silly.  Arctic SIE is bumping bottom along with several other recent years within the error of the measurement system, no?

Yes and tracking it and comparing it to previous years is was this particular thread is about.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:19:25 PM »


Unless the condition of the ice this year is fundamentally, dramatically, different then it still looks like a case of the slow-motion train wreck continuing.

Given the impossibly warm winter, the resulting anomalously low volume and the increasingly fractured and mobile nature of the sea ice, I believe that is exactly what we have.

That being said, I agree that a 2nd place finish in extent is most likely.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:00:36 PM »
I have posted this before on another thread and do not want to derail this one but these pictures of very unusual pack ice are simply dramatic examples of a decades long trend in the Arctic caused by the fracturing and increased mobility of the Arctic Sea ice. This is captured in a graph that tracks the increased dispersion at minimum. This new fractured, increasingly mobile state is irreversible IMHO resulting in this pack ice but other phenomena like the "Garlic Press" in the CAA last melt season.

It makes sense that this increased dispersion will include some of the thickest MYI.

40
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: July 02, 2017, 05:31:28 PM »
Nice works Bairgs. 8)
+1
Armchair science at its finest

Agreed.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 02, 2017, 05:29:45 PM »
I agree - data must be tested. "Question all assumptions " is always a good motto. However, the response was to a post that suggested that the data was bent through malicious intent. I felt that would not do.

If the data is being manipulated in order to convince us there is no problem with melting ice, they need to do a better job.    ::) ;) 8)

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 02, 2017, 03:35:39 PM »
An interesting tidbit that means nothing.

I am still surprised by the season not having already degraded into a hot mess but long term 1 day comparisons mean????

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 01, 2017, 07:48:33 PM »
The dramatic drop in area in the CAB must be a sign of extensive melt ponds forming.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 01, 2017, 07:45:12 PM »
Thank you for this.

Given the weak freeze this past winter and the resulting thin ice, I can't imagine that the remainder of the melt season will not be more than the average over the past 10 years. I also would be surprised if it melts like 2012. So it looks like 2nd place is most likely.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 30, 2017, 07:22:56 PM »
And the rest of that ice looks like hell.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 30, 2017, 07:19:58 PM »

This is the thread on which is posted the numeric data from JAXA. "It is what it is". Elsewhere are images and data from images and weather / SSTs , volume etc on what is now and may be in the near future. From that one might make interpretations on the future.
But data is just data. It does not express an opinion. It just is.

Thank you.

We are following extent here. As such, the discussion needs to center on, by golly, extent. No one, and I mean no one, should be chastised about any comment on the current extent numbers or trends or any other relevant comment about specific regions and the nature of that extent. I get tired of reading comments like this.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northwest Passage thread
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:45:50 PM »
Lot of water and sun. Not a good combination.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:42:47 PM »
Hudson and Baffin continue to be 50% of SIE loss.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:35:23 PM »
A century in extent, in area only one half. Hudson and Baffin still account for half of the extent decrease.

Update 20170629.

Extent: -100.6 (-18k vs 2016, -575k vs 2015, -54k vs 2014, -660k vs 2013, +56k vs 2012)
Area: -52.9 (+10k vs 2016, -579k vs 2015, -161k vs 2014, -612k vs 2013, -167k vs 2012)
 
The details (in 1000 km2):


Extent:
   Central Arctic Basin       East Siberian Sea              Laptev Sea
                   -1.9                    -5.7                    -9.3
               Kara Sea             Barents Sea           Greenland Sea
                   -1.3                    -7.5                     0.0
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay            St. Lawrence              Hudson Bay
                  -16.0                     0.5                   -39.6
   Canadian Archipelago            Beaufort Sea             Chukchi Sea
                   -0.6                   -11.5                    -8.1
             Bering Sea          Sea of Okhotsk            Total Extent
                    0.2                     0.2                  -100.6

Area:
   Central Arctic Basin       East Siberian Sea              Laptev Sea
                   43.4                   -21.4                   -13.3
               Kara Sea             Barents Sea           Greenland Sea
                    7.3                    -4.7                    -4.5
Baffin/Newfoundland Bay            St. Lawrence              Hudson Bay
                  -14.5                     0.3                   -22.1
   Canadian Archipelago            Beaufort Sea             Chukchi Sea
                  -15.3                    -1.4                    -7.0
             Bering Sea          Sea of Okhotsk              Total Area
                    0.0                     0.1                   -52.9


Delta map attached: red/blue means the concentration went below/over the 15% cut-off. Reddish/bluish means the concentration decreased/increased by more than 7%.

Looking at the changes in area for the CAB and ESS, there is clearly a lot of compaction going on.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 30, 2017, 05:33:42 PM »
The Beaufort gyre compared with 2016. Reduced block size is apparent. The closeness of the main pack is another difference.

Needs a click to start.

Kind of forgot how bad the Beaufort looked last year. By comparison, it is much stronger this year. Maybe we can dodge the bullet after all.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 39