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 - jdallen

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 24, 2017, 07:31:52 PM »
I believe it to be a good possibility that the  Beaufort ice might be the only ice to offer any resistance to disintegration and melt this year. Everything else is ready to go already.


If we are depending on the Beaufort to be the strong ice for the upcoming melt season, we are pretty well screwed.
The Beaufort isn't thick enough.  Most of the ice there is under 2M.

2
And Rob, since you asked this question "I wonder what the authors were thinking when they drew their conclusions(?)", my answer is that they already had the preposterous claim that the disappearance of sea ice is mostly due to natural variability in mind, and just found the models and performed the simulations (which they call "experiments") that would somehow justify their a priori conclusion.

AndrewB - did you bother to read Eric Steig's comment at Stoat's?  What is with this constant character assassination of climate scientists in these threads lately?  I feel like I'm at WUWT.

So, we have a peer-reviewed paper by a plethora of well-respected and leading climate scientists that challenge your beliefs.  OTOH we have a few paragraphs by a non-scientist on a blog.  Occam's razor would lead you to believe the non-scientist's blog post is correct.  Good grief, Charlie Brown.
Careful how you apply that razor - it may be cutting things you want to keep. You've used an ad hominem argument against an ad hominem statement.

Criticism from non-professionals is still relevant when well founded.  The correct take on this should be, how well supported is the critique, and does it raise reasonable questions?

Pertinent to the first statement - a conclusion against paradigm does not necessarily establish any fact regarding the person (s) making it.  Who wrote a paper is fairly irrelevant.  What is relevant is its content.

That is what should be under discussion, not personalities.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 22, 2017, 07:20:28 PM »

Like jdallen and Juan, my larger concern is the state of the ice poleward north of Greenland.  Since the 20th, in addition to the retreat from the Kara, there appears to be a general anti-clockwise rotation that is breaking up all of the ice around the pole from 85 degrees north. This is most evident on the Canadian side of the pole, but also seems to be appearing in the Russian side.

Sam

Welcome to the age of the "whole arctic gyre"

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 22, 2017, 07:38:24 AM »
EOSDIS image, aqua-modis, palette squashed to 230-255K, white to green/black (hottest)

The largest concentration of thickest MYI in the arctic lies in the center of the field of view, mostly between N. Greenland and the Pole.

It is fractured to a faire-the-well, poised to get pushed into the FJL/Svalbard/Fram killing ground, as it is pounded by the strong persistent westerlies roaring around the low pressure systems spinning into the CAB from the N. Atlantic.

Not a good way to start things.  I wouldn't expect to see ice like this until at least June.

(Edit: replaced the original screen shot as it turned the > 255K regions white.  Link:
https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=MODIS_Aqua_Brightness_Temp_Band31_Day(opacity=0.44,palette=green_1,min=228.7,max=256.5,squash),Coastlines&t=2017-03-21&z=3&v=-1178165.0457067718,-1091186.6011562506,1607114.9542932282,338317.3988437494
)

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 22, 2017, 07:20:33 AM »
A couple areas that are noteworthy today.

Indeed.  The Kara is just getting hammered and will continue to be for at least the next 10 days.  The Hudson starting to come apart is a little unexpected, and not at the same time.  Ice there in spite of recent cold temperatures has never had a chance to really set up and is quite a bit less solid and less thick than I've seen previously (which admittedly is only 5 years...).

Both breaking open will increase insolation uptake at a point very early in the melt season.

It implication of that from the Hudson is not that great.  Ice leaving the Kara is much more troublesome, as it will introduce heat at high latitude and eliminate ice which buttresses both the CAB and Laptev.  Admittedly the Barentsz is more important for the CAB, but it all works together, and without some integration we will see albedo reductions in the high arctic even with out melt ponds, as peripheral ice melts, and permits the main pack to disperse.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 20, 2017, 10:04:17 PM »
Still not looking good for a recovery.
The trend is on the downward march I think.
Looks like March 7th was the record low maximum extent on record, at least by this measure.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

I'd agree not - we've pretty much declared max - and I suggest we close this thread for the season.

7
...
Even if it is wrong, the scientific way to find out is publish and be damned. (or not damned)
...
Hi crandles,
Again, I am not even arguing about the scientific value of the Ding paper per se here, or how it was worded, or how many caveats it was filled with.

I am talking about giving the "merchants of doubt" an excellent basis for further delaying the urgent and radical emissions reductions policies that need to be put in place to avoid the worst consequences of global warming - including famines, wars, forced migration, etc, and the suffering and ultimately death that these will bring to hundreds of millions of human beings.

So, are you a moral human being first and (questionable) scientist second, or does your oversized ego take precedence? In the case of Ding and his nine(!) co-authors, it seems the latter.

"Science sans conscience n'est que ruine de l'âme." - Rabelais

Now, of course since they have already been published, they have legitimized the clearly false assertion that the year-round disappearance of Arctic sea ice which will occur over the coming few decades is mostly due to "natural climate variability". You could demonstrate that they are entirely wrong, de-construct all the fallacies in their tortuous reasoning, dissect their various logic mistakes, point to each and every dubious assumption they make in the paper, it wouldn't matter: they cannot be unpublished. And clearly, people with such an oversized ego are not going to retract themselves or even admit that they were wrong and wrote a piss-poor excuse of a climate science paper.
So there you have it.
Arctic sea ice is going to disappear over the coming years but now the takeaway from this man-made disaster is that it's mostly "natural climate variability". Crappy (un)science is the new normal.
Talk about improving communications between climate scientists and the general public!
Actually, I don't think they asserted most of the loss was from natural variation, and I suggest the philosophical discussion get moved to an appropriate thread.

8

Eric Steig, one of the authors of the paper, asks (thank you Jim Hunt for posting the exchange): “[Should we] Not [have] published the paper, lest we inadvertently help the “skeptics”?” The answer, imho, is pretty obvious.

IMHO the answer is pretty obvious that yes they should publish provided they put in appropriate caveats.
...

Hi crandles,
Actually the Ding paper is generously sprinkled with caveats. But that has never prevented the fossil fuel industry propaganda writers from running with whatever argument they could extract from any scientific or opinion paper that would feed their rhetoric. If you don't believe me, just check Jim Hunt's blog for how mainstream media is "reporting" on this Ding et al paper.

So, unfortunately, I don't agree with you. Responsible, intelligent adults don't feed the narrative that Arctic sea ice is melting because of "natural climate variability". This paper should not have been published. And I am not even commenting on its scientific value, which imho is below the temperature (in degrees Celsius) at which ice transitions from solid to liquid.
I think it was appropriate to publish  as long as it passed peer review.  It is dangerous to politicize research.

That said, I think it is behooves us and them to better delineate the source of that natural climate variability, as I expect climate change outside of the Arctic has affected it and shifted it's range of variation.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 20, 2017, 06:11:40 PM »
Before we get too deep into melting season, would some of the more seasoned posters mind giving a handful of things they will be keeping an eye on over the next few months to judge how 'good' or 'bad' the melt is going?

This will be my (and I suspect some others) first melting season so it'd be nice to know what to expect in general, as well as what to watch coming from such an extreme freezing season.
Lots of good suggestions from others.

My favorites:

Sea surface temperatures
General dispersion and concentration
Circulation and transport of ice in the pack
Cloud cover and albedo

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 18, 2017, 10:21:46 AM »
Almost another century break today. We are back to lowest on record!
I think we'll see a few days of this; most of the extent around FJL and Svalbard is little better than slush and the western Kara not much better.  When that clears out the decline may slow... unless heat starts slamming the Bering and Okhotsk, which is similarly fragile.  *Then* (I hope) it will slow down.  Maybe.

D*mn this is bad.

12
As many have reiterated, the observed rapid decline of Arctic Sea Ice is not explained by present understanding of the function of the climate system. New insight is required.  “Influence of high-latitude atmospheric circulation changes on summertime Arctic sea ice” appears to be an interesting contribution to the discussion.
I agree, and admit I haven't digested the paper in detail yet, but am skeptical that some/much of what they attribute to "natural variation" which may actually be driven by climate change outside of the Arctic.  More later after I've done due diligence.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 18, 2017, 01:36:42 AM »
With the sustained heat anomalies predicted by climate reanalyzer, plus the returning sun to the southerly stretches of the Arctic, would have to agree with you. Quite possibly an "emphatic" drop, bad news for later on given the albedo effect of the extra open water.


It's more than just the southernly stretches getting sun. According to http://www.athropolis.com/sun-fr.htm, 24 hour per day sunlight hits the North Pole starting tomorrow.

Indeed, but the incident angle will render it mostly meaningless until we get at least 10 degrees of elevation above the horizon.  Even then, it won't do a lot until/unless we get melt ponds, which above 80 probably won't happen until June.  I hope. :o

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 16, 2017, 08:21:52 AM »
Is there an artefact or is the ice in Kara and Laptev "thickening"? Look at the color change between those days, the 10-15.
I don't see it LMV; at least, I don't see anything that stands out enough to my eye to consider it significant.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 15, 2017, 06:10:41 PM »
Good responses, ktonine.

Jim, I think you are missing the intent of the models; they are not so much used to predict exact behavior as they are to give us a trajectory.  That by itself is actually sufficient for us to derive conclusions as to how we need to change our energy use and economic behavior, and give us yardsticks we can use to compare theory with observed behavior.

As to their relevance, most are run with past data (hindcast) to see how well they match previously observed behavior when given inputs for a past date.

I'm still not understanding what your objection is, beyond your feeling the models are not skillful enough for you taste. Mostly it's seemed semantic.

Lastly, I think a fundamental issue lies in the fact the system is chaotic.  It is possible even in the real world to get different outcomes in system behavior from the same starting conditions; differences will be small, but as with precision in any measurement they will add up such that even with "perfect" mathematics you will not achieve a solution that absolutely matches observed behavior.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 15, 2017, 04:36:02 PM »
Ice drift forecast for tomorrow, Mar 16. Fram export same as today.
Image: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/arctic.html
And there we have 10-15000 KM2/day of MYI getting drop-kicked out of the Arctic.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 14, 2017, 10:51:31 PM »
You have to wonder if the thick ice above the CAA isn't the product of numerous compaction events. It seems to break up if you look at the wrong way. It just doesn't seem dense or homogeneous like MYI should be. If that is the case, there may be even less MYI left than we thought.
No doubt about compaction as the ice has been mobile.

I credit the warmer ice temperatures as responsible for the ice's apparent friable condition.  It loses mechanical strength  rapidly as you get above -30C or so.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 14, 2017, 10:06:15 PM »
... Are we going to have much of the thin ice on the Atlantic side of the Laptev Sea melted out and exposed to peak insolation by around the Summer solstice?
It's quite plausible though far from certain.

What I noted was the rapid melt in the western Kara. That retreat could amplify changes in the Laptev and Barents.

The ice exiting the Fram does appear to be from exactly the densest remaining MYI in the basin aside from that packed along the CAA.  Hard to think of worse ice to have destroyed this early in the season.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 14, 2017, 06:08:14 PM »
That "bomb" is currently giving 30CM of snow to my sister near Boston...

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 14, 2017, 05:59:38 PM »
Let me phrase my stupid question a slightly different way.  What evidence do we have that we are using the right kind of mathematics for predicting what will happen in a discrete discontinuous system over a long period of time?  (Long being over about a month.)
Kinda rhetorical, Jim, but we don't. What we have is the output of the models themselves.

I really don't think the reduction of skill with time is a result of the math. I think it is a result of the inputs, their granularity, and our understanding of the system mechanics.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 14, 2017, 03:32:12 AM »
This is as much ice as we are going to get.

Based on what? It's only mid-March. According to PIOMAS, ice volume typically grows into mid-April - so another month or so.


I think Cid's - and my - point is, we're going to top out a little early, and possibly quite low - right around 20/21K KM3 for max volume.  I'm figuring things to end up at least 2K KM3 below the previous low volume record.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 13, 2017, 10:22:20 PM »
DMI now shows temperatures back up 5-7C above normal (250-255K). It is now too late for cold temperatures to permit a recovery in volume.

In another 10 days we start the sharp spring climb in temperatures as the sun returns.  The current and coming storms pretty much preclude any serious return of cold weather.

What we have is about what we are going to get, ice-wise.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:47:04 AM »
My only thoughts at this point are in regard to the water under the ice, as I do not know much about downward long wave radiation. Could it cause surface melt on the ice without heating the air?
There'd have to be an awful lot of it, and it by nature would raise air temperatures as well, so no, I don't think you'd get surface melt without increasing air temperatures.

Bottom melt is a different issue, and with temperatures above -20c, we're looking at their being enough excess heat flow through the ice that some of it would get captured as phase change.  The ice won't disappear as surface temps are still well below freezing, but the balance of heat flow means any ice much over a meter thick may have to contend with dynamics that prevent enough heat passing through the ice to prevent it from melting.

The balance would get restored as you reduce the thickness and permit greater heat flow.  At this stage any melt would be measured in a handful of CM at most.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 12, 2017, 10:30:03 AM »
Tutored by Neven and others... I've come to understand that variations in the Bremen sea ice concentration numbers needs to be suspicious of short-term changes.  Wait to see if it persists for several days before becoming excite.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 10, 2017, 05:41:53 PM »
[Mod: Your comment has been approved. Welcome to the Arctic Sea ice Forum!]

Hi;

There is a swirl pattern in the sea ice to the east of Zachariae Isstrøm / Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden / North East Greenland on 2016 October 5 shown below:

https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?p=arctic&l=VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,Reference_Labels(hidden),Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&t=2016-10-05&z=3&v=234630.99825409323,-1975932.9367040219,1105030.9982540933,-255612.93670402185&r=-90.0000

(East is Top).  My question: is the current flow that is causing this pattern north to south or south to north? (left to right or right to left).  Or is it wind?

Thanks
Welcome lambertland;

Most likely wind is the primary driver, but current pulls the ice down along the Greenland coast.

You see feathering of the ice like that frequently in melt zones, as the pack breaks up and broken pieces become more vulnerable to getting pushed around by changes in surface movement and wind.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 09, 2017, 10:18:45 PM »
With the caveat that year over year color comparison with Hycom are to be taken with a grain of salt, YIKEs!
Try this on for size.

27
Arctic Background / Re: Barneo 2017
« on: March 09, 2017, 10:01:51 PM »
Slightly earlier than usual, and with thanks for a heads up from Thomas Barlow, Irina Orlova reports via my rendition of Facebook's auto-translation of the original Russian that:

In a few days helicopters will fly from Krasnoyarsk to search for sea ice on which to build Barneo ice camp 2017.


They appear to be having trouble finding ice at least 2M thick, from what I was able to judge.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 09, 2017, 10:00:55 PM »
Here is the latest HYCOM ice thickness forecast Mar 9 - Mar 16. Still losing precious green and yellow (3 - 4 m thick ice) to Fram Strait. Also northern part of Hudson Bay is interesting because of strong winds.
For contrast, I think it is worthwhile to remind everyone what HYCOM thought the ice looked like last year at this time:

https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2016030718_2016030800_041_arcticictn.001.gif

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 09, 2017, 09:54:09 PM »
Also northern part of Hudson Bay is interesting because of strong winds.

The ice on the Bay has been pretty thin all season.  Most striking to me though is the Foxe Basin, which typically gets quite thick, and previously would retain ice year over year.  It seems to me it may melt out early this year.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 08, 2017, 11:48:11 PM »
March 11th looks really bad for the ice.
That's bloody astonishing and fairly high confidence as it is less than three days out.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 07, 2017, 05:47:59 PM »
I made another chart:

NCEP arctic temps, annual average anomaly
vs
PIOMAS annual average volume anomaly

...

I think we are likely to hit -8 thousand km^3 for the annual anomaly, implying a record low Sept minimum around 2.5 thousand km^3.

I find it fascinating that the temperature anomaly hit a record high of about 1.3C on 2005, causing a slightly lower record volume low... then the temperature stayed near that plateau for 11 years while volume plummeted.

Now we have jumped to a new record high temp in 2016 and probably in 2017, too. Will the volume repeat the same pattern? Lower and lower volumes over the next decade even if temps plateau?

...



Interesting chart.  I thjnk the anomaly measure is a proxy for heat flow and to a lesser degree, total system enthalpy.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 07, 2017, 04:35:04 AM »
Well, if we are going to make any claims that GW is going to be a major hazard to human and other life, we need to either model it or point to paleo-records.

Meanwhile, robertscribbler is chiming in on what is happening (or about to) in the Chukchi:

https://robertscribbler.com/2017/03/06/warm-winds-take-aim-at-chukchi-as-arctic-sea-ice-volume-hits-record-lows-during-february-of-2017/

Warm Winds Take Aim at Chukchi as Arctic Sea Ice Volume Hits Record Lows

Time to officially shift my focus from "Refreeze" to "Melt" I think.

Scribbler's got good support from the GFS.  I've been watching the ensemble here, tracking 2M anomalies.

http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/?model=gfs&region=nhem&pkg=T2ma&runtime=2017030618&fh=6&xpos=0&ypos=788

While we can only be reasonably assured of stuff no more than 4-5 days out, what the implication of the later stages of the model suggest is a very high level of instablility in circulation, with major potential intrusions of heat from lower latitudes.

It appears the CAA and nearby CAB will remain colder, but even short term, it looks like these areas - Okhotsk, Barents, Western Kara, Bering, Chukchi and Hudson's Bay - are going to get hammered seriously by heat.  If the long term trend holds, it will continue.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 05, 2017, 08:37:42 PM »
As A-Team is missing, I try to operate with gif's. Latest Hycom forecast Mar 8 - Mar 12. Notice Fram export, Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea. Images from: https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/arctic.html
Notice also, not a lot of thickening, anywhere.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 05, 2017, 07:08:23 PM »
Do we have a new hot-spot forming just west of Novaya Zemlya?
It's been there since last season, Jim.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: March 05, 2017, 06:57:37 PM »
The photovoltaic panels seem to be charging the batteries enough now to keep the buoy running through the hours of darkness. But clear skies also mean heat loss with little downward IR as seen in the temperature readings.
Temperatures that low is good.  If the ice itself is chilled as well, that's 1-2CM/day of growth potential, assuming ice of at least 2M thickness.  The $64 question is how long we'll have these wonderful temperatures, and if we're getting similar elsewhere over large enough stretches of the basin.

Shame it's not October?
YUP.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 05, 2017, 01:36:56 AM »
I'm still uncertain on how much insolation the Arctic actually gets.

Is the plot showing insolation on a horizontal surface? Or on a tracking surface always perpendicular to the sun? (I presume the former.)


More importantly, does it include a model or measurement of the effects of the atmosphere, including the variable moisture content and cloud cover? If it's insolation at the top of the atmosphere then that's much larger than what reaches the ground. That is particularly true in the Arctic, given the typically low solar elevations from the horizon.

  The Arctic was cloudier than usual last summer, so the insolation reaching the ground would also have been less than usual. Will this summer be similar?


So the question of how much insolation reaches the Arctic is not simple and is not fully addressed by a single graph.
It is flat surface, and it is maximum potential unfiltered by other factors that shift albedo and absorbtion.

It is useful because it provides us with a "top end".  If we can reasonably establish albedo, we can extrapolate from that how much energy is reaching the ice, though if we're dealing with large quantities of h20 in the atmosphere, we'd need to factor in down-welling IR as well.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: March 05, 2017, 01:28:43 AM »
The photovoltaic panels seem to be charging the batteries enough now to keep the buoy running through the hours of darkness. But clear skies also mean heat loss with little downward IR as seen in the temperature readings.
Temperatures that low is good.  If the ice itself is chilled as well, that's 1-2CM/day of growth potential, assuming ice of at least 2M thickness.  The $64 question is how long we'll have these wonderful temperatures, and if we're getting similar elsewhere over large enough stretches of the basin.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 05, 2017, 01:24:09 AM »
Beaufort has thickened a bit over the past few weeks.
Hard for it not to, as a lot of the ice was well under 1.5M...

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: 2017 PIOMAS Maximum Monthly Figure
« on: March 05, 2017, 01:23:28 AM »
Wow. Looks like on average nobody has a clue what the maximum will be. A crapshoot....
Actually, I'm pretty confident in my 20.0 - 20.5; we're only at about 18.5, and previous years appear to have rarely had more than 2.0K growth between now and the volume maximum.

I'm also assuming that the weather, which has been warm, will continue to drop us into unknown country vis-a-vis FDD's.  All in all, a pessimistic outlook for our max volume.

40
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 03:02:05 AM »
You will not have unity until you have equality.

You will not have equality until human needs are addressed.

As long as human need fails to be addressed, those in need, and those who obstruct addressing it, will have little interest in any sort of metaphysical truth.

Your arguments smack of the conceit of privilege which neither feels need, nor has the experience of inequality.

Your prideful continuing insistence in repeating them is become tiresome.

Your assumptions are false. I have sacrificed a normal life and many relationships in the search for truth. I have given up almost everything and I make only enough to pay for what I need, plus a couple vices I need to give up. Between 600-800 a month CAD, to be exact, depending on how many days I work.

I am well aware of the causes and effects of inequality.

This "metaphysical truth" will continue to prove itself true until the majority are aware of it. I am certainly not the only person realizing these obscure irrefutable truths - am I?

I'm not prideful. I'm obligated to share and defend the truth. Especially in relation to our circumstances. Since you nor anyone else can logically refute it, and continue to focus mainly on symptoms on the disease rather than the cure, as well as spread deceptive information and commentary on the truth, I feel an obligation to respond.
You had the privilege to choose.
You have the luxury of a first world nation to live in which supports that choice.
You are obligated by nothing.
You have the smug irrefutable certainty of rectitude appropriate for a zealot. That is the epitome of pride.

As I said, you may argue ad nauseum, but will gain no traction.

41
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 02:21:09 AM »
You will not have unity until you have equality.

You will not have equality until human needs are addressed.

As long as human need fails to be addressed, those in need, and those who obstruct addressing it, will have little interest in any sort of metaphysical truth.

Your arguments smack of the conceit of privilege which neither feels need, nor has the experience of inequality.

Your prideful continuing insistence in repeating them is become tiresome.


42
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 03, 2017, 10:28:09 PM »
From day 59 to maximum volume the average gain is 2.103 x  1000km3

Attached is the chart for Max Volume - Volume at day 59.

Average volume gain from day 59 to max is 2.103.
Maximum Volume gained from day 59 to max is 2.707 in 1985
Minimum Volume gained from day 59 to max is 1.266 in 1990

Second graph is that of Max Volume - Min Volume.

The average volume loss is 16.907.
The Max volume loss was 19.693 in 2010
The Min volume loss was 13.925 in 1996




Edit

Worst case scenario: If we are at 18.609 with minimum volume gain from 59 to max of 1.266 we'll have a max of 19.875. If we also get the maximum volume loss then 19.875-19.693=0.182

Under some definitions that's an ice free arctic.
It's very disturbing.  It's worth noting that even with the average loss of the last 7 years or so (about 18.5) that will put us under 2 million KM3.  Unless that ice is all 1M thick, we're flirting with under 1M KM2 of area, and looking at open water pretty much everywhere except hard up against the CAA and northern Greenland.

43
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 10:22:01 PM »
^  ^   ^   ^   ^

And all that is why I miss A-Team.

 8)

Twas stuff like this drove him off.

Glad it's quaranteened here.

Jim Williams - I believe in Physics, which is slightly off from your "no Truth" but close enough for us to get along fine, I'd wager.

5to10 - You're arguing a losing battle here, and semantic philosophical argument about "Truth" and "Unity" are unlikely to get traction, and in fact highlight in part why we need robust political structures in place to deal with dissent.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 02, 2017, 11:04:45 PM »
Something is causing mid and polar latitudes to lag/decouple more from tropical latitudes.
Could be explained by a number of things;

Increased low-latitude exposure to cooler sea surface.
Increased circulatory exchange with the mid/high latitudes.
More H2O entering the atmosphere (sensible heat lost to phase change)

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: March 02, 2017, 03:35:31 AM »
Thought people might find this interesting... Beaufort yesterday vs. this time last year (i.e. mid-crackopalypse)...
Last year, there was actually something to *crack*, and other bits of it which were solid enough to resist.

Everything there is FYI, and most of it less than 1.7M; if it gets stressed, it breaks, and spreads out the force, rather than transmit it.

46
The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 01, 2017, 10:37:33 PM »
I hear you 5to10 like you are in my own head.
If the media miraculously get it and want to get us all onto the right road, do you know what they need to say?

If I was elected dictator of the world tomorrow with a magical wand to make everyone follow me rules, I would decree, with immediate effect:
Shut down all nuclear power and store the toxic wastes as best as possible.
Stop all production.
Stop all transportation.
No more ff generated electricity. Electricity exists only from existing renewable until it breaks.
Eat whatever you can find.
Everyone must plant trees and dig swales.
No cutting down of trees.
There are enough hand tools and clothes and housing etc needed for the foreseeable future.

Even then  there is no guarantee that AGW is reversible and that homo sapiens get to exist longer than the foreseeable future.
So I would kindly ask everyone to pray.
Ooof! And three billion people promptly die from starvation, exposure, disease and fighting. There is a difference between lowering a basket of eggs  to the floor, and simply knocking it off the shelf.  We have the means and time to do the former.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:51:27 AM »
The glaring difference in the record of continuous monthly lows.

That was summer 2012.

This is winter.....I wonder what summer will bring. Also a lot of fracturing is occurring in the Arctic Ocean. The pack is moving a fair amount.
Hey A4R! Welcome back!

Fracturing doesn't begin to cover it.  If we get even an *average* melt season, we are just so much toast....

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:32:26 AM »
My updated prediction for this year's max: 13,839,032  ;D
Cheater  ;D ;D ;D

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:30:43 AM »
Another JAXA SIE drop today. Volume is currently stymied, the PV is split and weakened, and the temp. anomalies are slowly returning to the Arctic. ...
We don't need the anomalies any more.  We are less than 4 weeks from the equinox.  Insolation in the peripheral seas pretty much is putting paid on the Max, and is already starting to shift the dynamic away from creating more ice.  Get ready for the drop.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:27:16 AM »
IJIS Antarctic:

2,152,483 km2(February 27, 2017)completely deranged.
It appears everything that *could* melt out in one year *did* melt out in one year....

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 47