Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2020)  (Read 1191127 times)

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #350 on: October 08, 2014, 06:53:57 PM »
And here is the August-to-September thickness change difference (2013/2014). Red means more thickening or less thinning than last year (which gives some headaches in areas that are open water in one year and ice covered in the other).

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #351 on: October 08, 2014, 07:16:23 PM »
Here are the different regressions of the PIOMAS September minimums.

None of the curves, except "linear", looks very convincing now. For now I just like to see how it plays out.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 01:35:12 PM by Wipneus »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #352 on: October 08, 2014, 07:25:22 PM »
Great graphs, Wipneus!

I think there's no doubt 2015 will be considerably lower in September than 2014, so don't go all linear just yet :)
[]

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #353 on: October 08, 2014, 10:30:34 PM »

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7625
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 999
  • Likes Given: 501
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #354 on: October 09, 2014, 12:50:06 AM »
I have also published the latest PIOMAS update on the ASIB.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2124
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 178
  • Likes Given: 99
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #355 on: October 09, 2014, 06:40:27 AM »
looks like a large part of transport out of the Arctic via East Greenland Current, and the late breakup of the Nares block helped the ice to grow wrt the recent years. Could this be a (temporary) new normal that the Arctic circulation is changed so it won't throw up ice so easily anymore? Not that it much matters as we get nearer 2050s (guessing this is where the extinction of sea ice is currently located by them linear models.).  Can't believe this 2-year-trend (oxymoron) continues for much longer.
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

iceman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #356 on: October 09, 2014, 01:17:33 PM »
Here are the different regressions of the PIOMAS September minimums.

None of the curves, except "linear", looks very convincing now. For now I just like to see how it plays out.

I expect the Gompertz fit will eventually assert itself, though with such large variations it might be the end of the decade before we can say so with much confidence.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #357 on: October 09, 2014, 01:41:34 PM »
None of the curves, except "linear", looks very convincing now. For now I just like to see how it plays out.

Hmm, maybe. For linear, the residuals still seem a bit patchy. If it is linear then there would have to be considerable autocorrelation. If so perhaps we should now expect several years above the linear trend before a crash when it changes again to going below linear trend? Ice ages have come down, so can there be such long memory in the system? Not sure this seems physically based.

The residuals are reduced with some curve built in, but no longer by a convincing amounts. The last two years is quite eye catching, but is this likely to just be noise?

I don't think the curve fitting is very convincing and in the absence of anything else then linear might be the most sensible expectation. However we have models! All models either show a gompertz like shape or at least have a hint of such a shape.

So I don't see any reason to expect any shape other than a gompertz like shape.

For people who expected a rapid crash, this looks like yet another win for the models to me. I was certainly concerned there wasn't much time for a slow down in rate of ice loss to appear. It seems I needn't have been so concerned as there now seems plenty of time for a slow approach towards no Arctic sea ice.

Iceman posted while I was typing the same thing (probably excessively long winded).

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #358 on: October 09, 2014, 02:08:06 PM »
IMO there's simply no reason for there to be a gompertz like shape. Remember we're talking about the heat potential of the Arctic seas here, and not some population or resource being depleted. I think way too much meaning is read into these two above trend years. Any trendline will have up years and down years. And the melt doesn't stop at 100%, as I've pointed out, it continues through August, October, July etc, after September finally melts out.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 02:46:48 PM by viddaloo »
[]

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #359 on: October 09, 2014, 07:14:12 PM »
Not sure about a gompertz-like shape to the curve.

Viddaloo, Not sure your rather disturbing curve is correct either.

Not sure the ice behavior is the correct mechanism to use for predicting the future.

I Do think the outcome will be dictated by two things - system enthalpy and net heat transfer.

Our inflection point is the freezing point of sea water.  I say inflection point because it determines a binary state; whether ice exists, or it does not.

Ice coverage will be predictable to the degree we can track heat, and determine how much sea surface will remain at a temperature which exceeds that inflection point. To my mind there now follows three questions.

1) What reservoir of oceanic heat is required to maintain a minimum SST at freezing?

2) What level of heat transfer is necessary to reach it?

3) If the current rate of heat transfer is increasing oceanic enthalpy, how soon will we reach the level indicated by question (1) above?

Sort those, and we will likely have a rather precise answer to our question.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2014, 07:34:09 PM by jdallen »
This space for Rent.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #360 on: October 09, 2014, 08:11:10 PM »
Enthalpy was just awarded the Word of the Day prize. And yeah, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism that would ensure a slowdown towards the end of the era of September sea ice. But maybe some Gompertz will kick in on the way to melting out March and April? Some of us may actually live to see that happening, even though net, electricity etc will be long gone.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 01:34:52 PM by viddaloo »
[]

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3037
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 486
  • Likes Given: 344
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #361 on: October 09, 2014, 08:13:05 PM »
But in spite of all those factors, won't there be some ice on the Arctic Ocean for a long, long time, since the Canadian Archipelago and GIS will be calving into it, probably at increasing rates?

So I would think the something like gompertz is exactly what we would expect--a very long tail, even if that represents something different that what we traditionally think of as Arctic sea ice.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #362 on: October 09, 2014, 08:19:08 PM »
But in spite of all those factors, won't there be some ice on the Arctic Ocean for a long, long time, since the Canadian Archipelago and GIS will be calving into it, probably at increasing rates?

So I would think the something like gompertz is exactly what we would expect--a very long tail, even if that represents something different that what we traditionally think of as Arctic sea ice.

Absolutely.  The dynamics of the system won't distribute heat evenly. The coverage will oscillate wildly until high enough enthalpy is reached.
This space for Rent.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #363 on: October 09, 2014, 08:25:52 PM »
...And yeah, there doesn't seem to be any mechanism that would ensure a slowdown towards the end of the era of September sea ice.

Yes there is; the thickness/growth feedback.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #364 on: October 09, 2014, 08:38:30 PM »
But in spite of all those factors, won't there be some ice on the Arctic Ocean for a long, long time, since the Canadian Archipelago and GIS will be calving into it, probably at increasing rates?

I'm no expert on Greenland ice, but won't these glacier withdraw inland and then only contribute meltwater in the foreseeable future? The trend, anyway, seems to be towards withdrawal.
[]

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #365 on: October 09, 2014, 09:13:29 PM »
But in spite of all those factors, won't there be some ice on the Arctic Ocean for a long, long time, since the Canadian Archipelago and GIS will be calving into it, probably at increasing rates?

I'm no expert on Greenland ice, but won't these glacier withdraw inland and then only contribute meltwater in the foreseeable future? The trend, anyway, seems to be towards withdrawal.
The powerful feedback for Greenland is the consistent heat loss - it will likely be the strongest cold center in the northern hemisphere for quite a while.  In fact, it could start picking up more snow, which would be a somewhat positive feedback. I don't see calving slowing down until the sheet turns stagnant from reduced snowfall, and the existing flow pressure drops off.
This space for Rent.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #366 on: October 09, 2014, 09:22:13 PM »
IMO there's simply no reason for there to be a gompertz like shape. Remember we're talking about the heat potential of the Arctic seas here, and not some population or resource being depleted.


How many models have to produce a gompertz like shape before you will admit that maybe there is reason for a gompertz like shape?

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #367 on: October 09, 2014, 09:38:22 PM »
If you're asking me to trust silly IPCC models that laughably predict ice-free September for the first time in 2100, the answer is Never. I just won't ever do that. It is stupid and silly.
[]

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 597
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 179
  • Likes Given: 17
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #368 on: October 09, 2014, 09:45:12 PM »
Here are the September 2013 /2014 thickness maps, as well as the differences.

Thanks for these maps.  The third map in your post (Reply #349) seems to be for the wrong month: it shows the thickness difference for August rather than September?

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #369 on: October 09, 2014, 10:05:41 PM »
If you're asking me to trust silly IPCC models that laughably predict ice-free September for the first time in 2100, the answer is Never. I just won't ever do that. It is stupid and silly.

They are the models that we have got. While we can all wish that they were better, it is what we have got. They are a lot better physically based than simple silly curve fitting exercises.

All models are wrong but some are useful. Even if these models are not very useful for predicting the date of ice free conditions, if they all predict a gompertz like shape then it is highly likely there are physical reasons for expecting gompertz like shape.

If you want to be seen to be being silly by ignoring the best information we have, then so be it.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #370 on: October 09, 2014, 10:23:56 PM »
Out in IPCC land there is still a 'pause', and no less than 10 all-time low September minimum volume records have happened during this 'pause'. I'm not a climate change denialist, so obviously I don't trust the IPCC or any other bought and sold government agency.
[]

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #371 on: October 10, 2014, 06:09:57 AM »
Out in IPCC land there is still a 'pause', and no less than 10 all-time low September minimum volume records have happened during this 'pause'. I'm not a climate change denialist, so obviously I don't trust the IPCC or any other bought and sold government agency.

Sounds to me like you're anti-science. These are not 'IPCC models' they are the best mathematical implmentation of the understanding of the scientific community.

When run as a projection into the future PIOMAS shows a long tail (from Zhang et al 2010 "Arctic sea ice response to atmospheric forcings with varying levels of anthropogenic warming and climate variability"). The dashed lines are September volume, the full lines are annual average volume, four IPCC SRES scenarios shown.


So to be consistent you really need to drop use of all PIOMAS data.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 06:20:45 AM by ChrisReynolds »

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #372 on: October 10, 2014, 06:49:50 AM »
IPCC is wisely conservative in their estimations of the rate of change. They cannot speculate on feed backs which have as yet not been fully plumbed, or extrapolate from sudden variations which could just be noise in the signal.

On fact I had overlooked earlier; there is a diminishing return one the forcing applied by continuing increases in CO2.  We still have a ways to go, but at some level - 500PPM? 750PPM? - the effect of it on radiative forcing itself begins to tail off into a much shallower curve.

I will go back to my enthalpy comment.  That heat reservoir works two ways, even without ice.  The ocean still has huge capacity for heat uptake, and that will buffer melt for quite a while to come.
This space for Rent.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #373 on: October 10, 2014, 07:26:02 AM »
JD Allen,

I might have said this before: Using BP Statistical Review of Energy 2014 data, I have taken proven fossil fuel reserves. There is enough to drive atmos CO2 above 1000ppm, that's roughly two doublings of CO2 which implies around 6degC of global warming at equilibrium. However that does not include other GHGs and other feedbacks, most of which look likely to be positive.

The significance being that when the Arctic was last ice free all year round, CO2 levels were of the order of 1000ppm (with large uncertainty around that figure).

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #374 on: October 10, 2014, 07:39:46 AM »
a gompertz like shape?

I think you should better define what exactly you think is a "gompertz like shape".
To me a gompertz like shape, is one where the tailing of lasts indefinitely, the lasts bits of ice get progressively harder to melt until the point that the last square kilometer of ices takes a zillion of years before (not) melting completely. That is not what (at least I) expect and therefore I think a "gompertz like shape" is not helping much to describe what be are observing.
(a somewhat extreme example, I hope you can see the point)

Just having a tail is not at odds with sudden and progressive melting:

- remember the model I made with each PIOMAS grid cell fitted to an exponential decline? The resulting volume/area/extent graphs got a tail, but zeroed when the last grid cell reached zero. Not gompertz like.;
- model each month volume to an exponential decline and calculate average annual volume. Yet the result gets a tail but will reach zero when the last month reaches zero. Not "gompertz like".
- model anything to a exponential decline, but add some stochastic noise with a limited amplitude to the result. The results will get a tail and will reach  zero when the noise is not big enough;
- Plot the ensemble of some "IPCC model" runs that individually more or less suddenly melt out. The ensemble will get a tail but will reach zero when the last run reaches zero. Not "gompertz like".

So yes, I think the reality will have some tail. And no, I have trouble with calling it "gompertz like", and doubt if fitting with such function will give much insight in predicting the length of the "tail".

« Last Edit: October 10, 2014, 08:25:23 AM by Wipneus »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #375 on: October 10, 2014, 07:47:57 AM »
I'm against "science" that is clearly compromized by criminal corporate elites and polluticians. If that makes me "anti-science", so be it! We need to know what happens in the real world.
[]

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #376 on: October 10, 2014, 08:31:59 AM »
None of the curves, except "linear", looks very convincing now. For now I just like to see how it plays out.
(...)
I don't think the curve fitting is very convincing and in the absence of anything else then linear might be the most sensible expectation.
(...)

Yes, that is exactly what I meant.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #377 on: October 10, 2014, 09:29:14 AM »
That's giving far too much weight to two slow years IMO. The September trend is NOT linear :)
[]

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #378 on: October 10, 2014, 12:26:42 PM »

I think you should better define what exactly you think is a "gompertz like shape".
To me a gompertz like shape, is one where the tailing of lasts indefinitely, the lasts bits of ice get progressively harder to melt until the point that the last square kilometer of ices takes a zillion of years before (not) melting completely. That is not what (at least I) expect and therefore I think a "gompertz like shape" is not helping much to describe what be are observing.
(a somewhat extreme example, I hope you can see the point)

Yes that probably isn't clear. There are several shapes that I would consider to be gompertz like. The main feature being a back to front s pulled out so there is only one y value for each x value.

1. There is the infinite tail you mention.
2. There is a 4 parameter gompertz which just moves the curve down (or up). This could crash to zero before starting the slow down in rate or it might not reach zero until some time after the inflection.
3. Instead of tending to a horizontal level, it might tend to a shallow slope. So instead of adding a constant as in 2 above, a constant*x is added.
4. There may be other reverse s like shapes that are not strictly gompertz shapes.
Perhaps there are others that I haven't yet mentioned.

.

I like the idea of 3 above for maximum winter volume. The rapid slope being where thick MYI is being reduced towards 2m thick. Once that has happened there is still the effect of GHGs, ocean upward heat flux ... reducing the thickness of FYI.

Other things being equal, the lower the maximum volume, the higher the melt volume (until it all melts).

If the melt volume was particularly sensitive to a certain range of maximum volume, then the minimum curve could have two periods of rapid decline. I doubt this as we don't see it in the models. However another possibility is that this results in a trend (after the slowdown in rate) that slowly increases the downward trend tending towards some limit.

I think this possibility is sufficiently far from a gompertz shape that I wouldn't call it a gompertz like shape.

Wipneus

  • Citizen scientist
  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4070
    • View Profile
    • Arctische Pinguin
  • Liked: 791
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #379 on: October 10, 2014, 04:04:53 PM »
Here are the September 2013 /2014 thickness maps, as well as the differences.

Thanks for these maps.  The third map in your post (Reply #349) seems to be for the wrong month: it shows the thickness difference for August rather than September?

You are completely right, I have corrected it now.

Thank you for spotting this.

Phil.

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #380 on: October 10, 2014, 11:29:42 PM »
IPCC is wisely conservative in their estimations of the rate of change. They cannot speculate on feed backs which have as yet not been fully plumbed, or extrapolate from sudden variations which could just be noise in the signal.

On fact I had overlooked earlier; there is a diminishing return one the forcing applied by continuing increases in CO2.  We still have a ways to go, but at some level - 500PPM? 750PPM? - the effect of it on radiative forcing itself begins to tail off into a much shallower curve.

I will go back to my enthalpy comment.  That heat reservoir works two ways, even without ice.  The ocean still has huge capacity for heat uptake, and that will buffer melt for quite a while to come.

Actually there is the expectation that at some point the CO2 forcing will transition to a square root dependence and therefore increase.  see Curve of growth.

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #381 on: October 11, 2014, 12:42:21 AM »
When run as a projection into the future PIOMAS shows a long tail (from Zhang et al 2010 "Arctic sea ice response to atmospheric forcings with varying levels of anthropogenic warming and climate variability"). The dashed lines are September volume, the full lines are annual average volume, four IPCC SRES scenarios shown.


So to be consistent you really need to drop use of all PIOMAS data.
I agree that viddaloo is one of the several anti-science folks we have here (guess it's an occupational hazard).  However in fairness I should point out that if I recall that paper correctly, only the red and black lines on that graph are remotely plausible, and both show a September collapse to very low levels by about 2025. 

The green and blue lines were forced based on the assumption that _all_ variability in the historical record is random noise - i.e. that there is no genuine trend towards sea ice loss, that AGW isn't happening, and that global temperatures / Arctic weather will consequently return to the "historical average" (i.e. the average of all the figures from 1978 to the present day, roughly a return to mid 90's conditions).  You can see the effect of this as the sea ice volumes immediately take an unphysical jump upward to ~1995 levels as soon as the forecast is initialised.

To forestall viddaloo's inevitable comment about corruption, fake science etc., this is because those two lines are in effect acting as a negative control - an essential part of any good science.  This negative control has obviously already been falsified by the data from the last couple of years (even including the recent mini-recovery)

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #382 on: October 11, 2014, 01:00:05 AM »
Forgot the conclusion:

So no, I don't think PIOMAS predicts a long tail.  When you use realistic forcings that actually accept the existence of AGW, it predicts a more or less linear drop to a September volume of ~1-2 x 10^12 m^3 by 2025.  This is less than 1/3 of the 2012 record, and would presumably therefore correspond to a similar fraction of the 2012 minimum extent - which puts it around the 1 million km^2 threshold for "ice free".

It does then seem to bounce along at around that minimum for a very long time though without dropping to a "true" zero. That's not to say PIOMAS is right!

I'm intrigued by the way the Tietsche et al models show two "plateau phases" in the drop - one at around 4.5 million km^2 September minimum and another at around 2 million km^2.  The reason I find this quite plausible is that it roughly corresponds to the bathymetric features of the Arctic ocean basin.  4.5 million km^2 just about covers the "deep bits" of the Arctic Ocean, with the surrounding shallower seas melting out (which is close to the status quo since 2007), while 2km^2 represents the last bastion in the Lincoln sea and north of Greenland/CA.

I do very much like the implication that there will be several successive "regimes" on the way down, since the heat transfer processes operating in different regions of the Arctic basin will be quite different and thus different parts of the basin will be inherently more or less resilient to AGW.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #383 on: October 11, 2014, 01:00:54 AM »
Enough! with the name–calling, OK? How on Earth can my view that science should be fact–based and pure and free of the compromizing and lobbying efforts of vested interests, be remotely anti–science? You're just calling me anti–science because I love science, which is really childish and ignorant.

To give you an analogy to make you see my valid point, what you're thoughtlessly saying is like telling a guy who loves football but can't stand all the advertisments and talk about buying and selling of players, that he is anti–football. When all he wants is for sports to be about sports.

Stop being stupid and making ad hominem attacks. Thanks.
[]

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #384 on: October 11, 2014, 06:02:46 AM »
Out in IPCC land there is still a 'pause', and no less than 10 all-time low September minimum volume records have happened during this 'pause'. I'm not a climate change denialist, so obviously I don't trust the IPCC or any other bought and sold government agency.

Sounds to me like you're anti-science. These are not 'IPCC models' they are the best mathematical implmentation of the understanding of the scientific community.

When run as a projection into the future PIOMAS shows a long tail (from Zhang et al 2010 "Arctic sea ice response to atmospheric forcings with varying levels of anthropogenic warming and climate variability"). The dashed lines are September volume, the full lines are annual average volume, four IPCC SRES scenarios shown.


So to be consistent you really need to drop use of all PIOMAS data.

Let's dispense from the ad hominem attacks.  While we can be proud of the collective body of work, I think that we should all remember that the inherent negative feedbacks in the world of policy cause the IPCC to be greatly, fantastically, even -dare I say it- GENOCIDALLY conservative in their estimations.

The known biases are
1.  Established to show science and refrain from policy implications/interpretations
2. Relying on full consensus for findings (leads to Type I Avoidance Bias)
3.  Dominant Type I error avoidance bias (more fearful of losing credibility in the now than being wrong in the future)
4.  Allowing government agents to lobby for corrections to the final draft and synthesis report
5.  A simple temporal lag in the development process, the AR5 is 5 years too late.

If I may interject.  The above graph, as shocking and terrible as it may seem, does not include the following:

1.  Increasing and significant albedo changes due to increasing spring snow cover anomalies and late melt season open oceans. (chart above shows AR4 inputs)
2.  Carbon cycle and permafrost emission feedbacks becoming severe around the mid 2020's
3.  The new work by Paul Durack at LLL showing that the Top of Atmosphere energy imbalance is growing at a much faster rate than we have previously modeled, (even beyond the projected measurement error).

These are fatal flaws and can only be attributed to a kind of collective "capture" of the scientific work.  As though it was doomed to fail from the onset.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 06:12:54 AM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #385 on: October 11, 2014, 09:05:16 AM »
Peter,

Thanks for pointing that out.

A1 (A2) uses an increase of regional average temperature of 4degC (2degC) by 2050 onto which is superimposed variability taken from NCEP/NCAR forcings for 1948 to 2009.

B1 (B2) uses an increase of regional average temperature of 2degC (2degC) by 2050 onto which is superimposed variability taken from NCEP/NCAR forcings for 1948 to 2009.

So A2 and B2 are the scenarios to consider, I should have pointed that out.

However I still see a tail, by 'long tail, I do not think 2050s, rather into the 2030s. Those claiming a fast crash seem to be claiming one this decade, PIOMAS in the Zhang et al 2010 paper shows a continuation until the mid 2020s, with a tail of remnant summer volume thereafter. This tail of remnant summer volume is due to the long term survival of winter sea ice volume, this survival of winter ice volume means a crash to zero ice will not happen. Zhang et al note that: "Because of enhanced winter ice growth, arctic winter ice extent remains nearly stable and therefore appears to be a less sensitive climate indicator."

This survival of winter ice volume also means that there will be no rapid ransition to a sea ice free state. Years with weather like 2013 and 2014 will pull volume (thickness) up and lead to large variations in summer extent for some time, I suspect into the 2030s. Arctic warming seems to be happening faster than the scenarios in Zhang et al 2010, this will bring winter volume down faster than in the graphic I posted.

The survival of winter ice is significant because Viddaloo has also posted a graph up thread.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,119.msg37908.html#msg37908

This shows no ice by the 2050s year round, and over 6 months ice free by the 2030s. That stands against the findings of Zhang et al 2010.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #386 on: October 11, 2014, 09:31:00 AM »
Viddaloo, Jai Mitchell,

An ad-hom is an attack is "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion." That is not what is happening here. The anti-science element on this forum are something I see (and it seems Peter does too). That is seperate from the issue of whether arguments are flawed. I have alledged an anti science bias, then gone on to address the argument.

Jai,

Your final three points.

1) That doesn't affect winter ice growth which is the key issue in maintaining winter volume.
2) That seems rather early and precise for such an issue, I'm not convinced.
3) Got a cite for that paper?

In any case: Armour et al, 2011, "The reversibility of sea ice loss in a state-of-the-art climate
model" Figure 2c shows NH sea ice extent in March as a function of NH annual mean average temperature anomaly. Between 4 degC and 6 degC the selected GCMS show a crash of March extent to extremely low levels that would imply many months of the year being totally ice free in summer.

Even allowing for bias in the models, and further warming factors, we are some way from a NH annual mean average temperature anomaly of 4 to 6 degC.



EDIT - forgot to add: Show me one example where political interests have been involved in the design or running of a climate model.

Viddaloo,

IMO there's simply no reason for there to be a gompertz like shape. Remember we're talking about the heat potential of the Arctic seas here, and not some population or resource being depleted. I think way too much meaning is read into these two above trend years. Any trendline will have up years and down years. And the melt doesn't stop at 100%, as I've pointed out, it continues through August, October, July etc, after September finally melts out.

Can you direct me to where you explained that graph. When I first saw it I thought "I must look at that, I don't believe it", but was too busy, then forgot.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 09:41:28 AM by ChrisReynolds »

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #387 on: October 11, 2014, 10:55:51 AM »
I've shown (previously) how Winter refreeze mirrors Summer melt, but less so the other way around: Maximum Winter ice is less indicative of what the Summer melt will achieve. I've also asked all of you what the (physical mechanism or) reason would be for the expectation of a Gompertz like shape to the graphs that go into the future.

So far the only such suggested reason I've seen here is Winter refreeze. Is that correct? If so, I think your argument is wrong. The next 2007 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012 will go dramatically low because of extreme melting, not because of a low starting point. At least, that is what the data tells me. (Of course, a low starting point helps, but the force of the melting season is more important IMO.)
[]

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 313
  • Likes Given: 190
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #388 on: October 11, 2014, 11:07:42 AM »
This space for Rent.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #389 on: October 11, 2014, 12:23:17 PM »
These are fatal flaws and can only be attributed to a kind of collective "capture" of the scientific work.  As though it was doomed to fail from the onset.
It is very much a design for scientific and political failure, whether or not the choice of that specific design was intentional or not.
[]

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #390 on: October 11, 2014, 12:57:23 PM »
I've shown (previously) how Winter refreeze mirrors Summer melt, but less so the other way around: Maximum Winter ice is less indicative of what the Summer melt will achieve. I've also asked all of you what the (physical mechanism or) reason would be for the expectation of a Gompertz like shape to the graphs that go into the future.

So far the only such suggested reason I've seen here is Winter refreeze. Is that correct? If so, I think your argument is wrong. The next 2007 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012 will go dramatically low because of extreme melting, not because of a low starting point. At least, that is what the data tells me. (Of course, a low starting point helps, but the force of the melting season is more important IMO.)

>So far the only such suggested reason I've seen here is Winter refreeze. Is that correct?
Yes

>The next 2007 or 2010 or 2011 or 2012 will go dramatically low because of extreme melting, not because of a low starting point.

That is right too, because the maximum volumes are not getting much lower any more.

What you seem to me to be missing is that the main reason for increasing summer melt is that the declining maximum volume is allowing lower albedo through more open water formation and thinner ice. Take away the declining maximum volume and there isn't much reason left for increasing summer melt.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #391 on: October 11, 2014, 01:05:34 PM »
Then you forget the tiny detail element of global warming, of course. Easy to forget in this context.
[]

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2679
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 149
  • Likes Given: 53
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #392 on: October 11, 2014, 01:12:00 PM »
Albedo effects are huge. GW not so much.

Like I said, there isn't much reason left for increasing summer melt.

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #393 on: October 11, 2014, 01:26:47 PM »
Albedo effects are huge. GW not so much.

Like I said, there isn't much reason left for increasing summer melt.
All right. So let me get this straight: You're saying, on a Saturday in October 2014, that increased radiative forcing, increased ocean enthalpy, increased release of permafrost methane etc etc, somehow will not melt any more sea ice than in 2010-2012?

Sir, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't see no room for educated discussion here.
[]

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #394 on: October 11, 2014, 07:09:50 PM »

Your final three points.

1) That doesn't affect winter ice growth which is the key issue in maintaining winter volume.
2) That seems rather early and precise for such an issue, I'm not convinced.
3) Got a cite for that paper?

--------------
Even allowing for bias in the models, and further warming factors, we are some way from a NH annual mean average temperature anomaly of 4 to 6 degC.
--------------

Re: Durack et. al we have a thread going here:  I have done comparative analysis to Nuccitelli et. al 2013 (and Hansen & Soto 2010) and shown the comparative deviation from previous projections.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1011.0.html

Re winter ice growth:  I do not expect that tietsche et. al. accurately portrayed the atmospheric dynamics in her projections for winter ice recovery post summer ice loss.  This is especially true when one considers the enthalpy increase due to a june 1st ice free condition.  I believe that we will see a large change in Maislowski's intrusive pacific and that albedo-driven ocean enthalpy will ensure a much thinner winter ice cover.

Re: NH 4-6 C'  The Zhang 2010 paper projected ice free conditions with regional arctic ambient temperatures of 4C by 2050 not NH temperatures.

Models are run all the time with many (any!) inputs.  Where the internal bias comes in is in the design of the results, what is considered to be aligned with the consensus, what is left on the cutting room floor.

The AR5 report was only recently published.  At the Royal Society ARCTIC 14 presentation an unofficial poll was taken that asked when the arctic would be ice free.  The vast majority of the respondents stated within 10-30 years.

How do you suppose then that the AR5 still holds that there will be perennial sea ice through 2050 under a high emissions scenario?

RE: political findings, I am surprised you do not know this -

Quote
Government representatives propose authors and contributors, participate in the review process, and help reach a consensus on the report’s major findings. This can result (especially in the SPMs) in language that is sometimes weaker than it otherwise might be.

union of concerned scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#bf-toc-9

Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #395 on: October 11, 2014, 07:15:40 PM »
Albedo effects are huge. GW not so much.

Like I said, there isn't much reason left for increasing summer melt.
All right. So let me get this straight: You're saying, on a Saturday in October 2014, that increased radiative forcing, increased ocean enthalpy, increased release of permafrost methane etc etc, somehow will not melt any more sea ice than in 2010-2012?

Sir, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that one. I don't see no room for educated discussion here.

Don't just walk away. Provide us with the calculations that show interannual variability, intra-annual range of forcing (mainly solar) vs the annual increment of forcing due to AGW.

Once you've done that you will be able to claim you're approaching this in an educated manner.

Once you've done that you will see that the AGW forcing (EDIT - change in forcing over short periods) is dwarfed by interannual variability and intra-annual range of forcing (mainly solar).

Sheesh!
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 08:20:36 PM by ChrisReynolds »

mark

  • New ice
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #396 on: October 11, 2014, 07:52:33 PM »
How does a thread degenerate into this. I thought it was a very interesting interpretation of the resuts to fit a single curve to them as this does mostly fit very neatly with the recent Data. However the results over longer periods or shorter periods (it doesnt seem to matter) have a habit of going off trend - I mean any trend -linear, curved ,gompertz etc modeled or otherwise. They are all conjecture if recent data doesnt fit predicted. I say each to their own, perhaps someone will be right.

Viddaloo - there are so many different forcings and negative and positive feedbacks I dont see how you expect all the people here to see things as you do, I think its safe to say we all research and read, some are very well trained and knowledgeable others are very well read and knowledgeable. That you are passionate is undeniable and your postings are stimulating up to the point where you get upset and make a stand.

For myself I believe the ocean currents hold the key as they hold the most energy. As we currently dont record the deep and bottom water flows with enough regular accuracy it is hard to form an opinion on what effect these massive flows are having on climate variation so I dont believe the future is even slightly more predicatble than it was 18 years ago. I dipped a finger in this debate before and now have just 9 left, so I tread much more carefully with passionate opinion! But I read and then reread different papers and try to keep opinions to a minimum. Perhaps when I understand more about the whole atmospheric and oceanographic make up I will post my findings here and take on the comment hopefully without getting upset again.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #397 on: October 11, 2014, 08:19:43 PM »

Your final three points.

1) That doesn't affect winter ice growth which is the key issue in maintaining winter volume.
2) That seems rather early and precise for such an issue, I'm not convinced.
3) Got a cite for that paper?

--------------
Even allowing for bias in the models, and further warming factors, we are some way from a NH annual mean average temperature anomaly of 4 to 6 degC.
--------------

Re: Durack et. al we have a thread going here:  I have done comparative analysis to Nuccitelli et. al 2013 (and Hansen & Soto 2010) and shown the comparative deviation from previous projections.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1011.0.html

Quote
The full paper is here:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf
The result doesn't seem so significant as to affect the 1.5 to 4.5degC confidence interval for climate sensitivity, which is based on multiple lines of evidence.

Re winter ice growth:  I do not expect that tietsche et. al. accurately portrayed the atmospheric dynamics in her projections for winter ice recovery post summer ice loss.  This is especially true when one considers the enthalpy increase due to a june 1st ice free condition.  I believe that we will see a large change in Maislowski's intrusive pacific and that albedo-driven ocean enthalpy will ensure a much thinner winter ice cover.

Quote
Both Tietsche et al and Schroeder & Connelly used coupled atmopshere runs.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030253/abstract

Tietsche removed the ice on 1 July, near enough to the solstice to make little difference from 1 June. Schroeder & Connelly removed the ice on, 1 December, 1 March, 1 June, and 1 September, they found a very similar result.

"Sensitivity experiments with a fully coupled general
circulation model show a complete recovery from a total
removal or strong increase of sea ice after four years. These
are extreme anomalies and more realistic perturbations
would show even faster recovery. Thus, errors in initial
sea ice conditions seem to be unimportant for climate
modelling on decadal or longer timescales....

...The impact is stronger when ocean temperature is
adjusted to ice-free conditions, but even then the differences
appearing between the sensitivity and Ctrl runs are clearly
smaller after a few years than the differences between
modelled and observed sea ice area."

Note that different models were used in each study: Tietsche et al used ECHAM5/MPI-OM, Schroeder & Connelly used HADCM3.

Re: NH 4-6 C'  The Zhang 2010 paper projected ice free conditions with regional arctic ambient temperatures of 4C by 2050 not NH temperatures.

Quote
Sorry I don't get your point here. Armour et al examine GCMs and find 4 to 6degC NH avg temperature increase is the period where the models considered show a crash of winter cover.

Models are run all the time with many (any!) inputs.  Where the internal bias comes in is in the design of the results, what is considered to be aligned with the consensus, what is left on the cutting room floor.

Quote
The results are emergent phenomena from the mathematical model. Leaving out results because the scientist doesn't like them would be considered highly unethical. Is that really what you think of the scientists?

The AR5 report was only recently published.  At the Royal Society ARCTIC 14 presentation an unofficial poll was taken that asked when the arctic would be ice free.  The vast majority of the respondents stated within 10-30 years.

Quote
Overland & Wang, 2013, "A sea ice free summer Arctic within 30 years: An update
from CMIP5 models"

"Three years ago we proposed that the summer Arctic
would be nearly sea ice free by the 2030s; “nearly” is
interpreted as sea ice extent less than 1.0 million km2. We
consider this estimate to be still valid based on projections of
updated climate models (CMIP5) and observational data...

...Applying the same technique of
model selection and extrapolation approach to CMIP5 as we
used in our previous paper, the interval range for a nearly sea
ice free Arctic is 14 to 36 years, with a median value of
28 years. Relative to a 2007 baseline, this suggests a nearly
sea ice free Arctic in the 2030s."

When one uses models selected because they reproduce the seasonal cycle well the models say within 30 years.

How do you suppose then that the AR5 still holds that there will be perennial sea ice through 2050 under a high emissions scenario?

Quote
What does AR5 actually say?

Page 995 of this doc:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_Chapter11_FINAL.pdf

The IPCC clearly do not hold that there will be perennial ice. WG1 concludes that it is "likely that the Arctic Ocean will become nearly ice-free in September before the middle of the century for high GHG emissions such as those corresponding to RCP8.5 (medium confidence)."

They note Maslowski's aggressive 2016 prediction. But note that "such an approach not only neglects the effect of year-to-year or longer-term variability (Overland and Wang, 2013) but also ignores the negative feedbacks that can occur when the sea ice cover becomes thin (Notz, 2009)."

RE: political findings, I am surprised you do not know this -

Government representatives propose authors and contributors, participate in the review process, and help reach a consensus on the report’s major findings. This can result (especially in the SPMs) in language that is sometimes weaker than it otherwise might be.


union of concerned scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ipcc-backgrounder.html#bf-toc-9


Quote
Sorry, the SPM is not the main IPCC report, it's the dumbed down version. You need to refer to IPCC AR5 WG1. I have never bothered with the SPM, politicians have a hand in it.

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #398 on: October 11, 2014, 09:42:36 PM »
The full paper is here:
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/about/staff/Durack/dump/oceanwarming/140926a_Duracketal_UpperOceanWarming.pdf
The result doesn't seem so significant as to affect the 1.5 to 4.5degC confidence interval for climate sensitivity, which is based on multiple lines of evidence.

I would expect you to take a closer look at the data and contemplate more fully its implications.  This is very shallow thinking of you.  You must consider that if the total 35 year accumulation of heat energy is (at the high end) 30% more than was previously understood, then the total forcing is much higher, the ECS is much higher and the TOA will continue to grow at a much higher rate for a given rate of emissions.

In addition, since the models appear to be correct for the ocean heat accumulation in the NORTHERN hemisphere, this also poses significant implications to the impacts of NH aerosols (being severely underestimated in Trenberths' balance calculation).

THEN you must consider the compounding feedback and tipping points that are inherently affected by the reanalysis of ECS and TOA energy imbalance growth rates.  These are all compounding effects.

The simple fact is that, this one study alone, indicates that our current radiative forcing from 402% PPMV is actually acting like 460 PPMV according to our previous models.

These are the IMPLICATIONS from the results of the paper.

Quote
Both Tietsche et al and Schroeder & Connelly used coupled atmopshere runs.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL030253/abstract

Tietsche removed the ice on 1 July, near enough to the solstice to make little difference from 1 June.

Stating that a July 1 and June 1 ice free condition is quantitatively similar is simply not true:  http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/insolation_latitude.gif
Schroeder & Connelly removed the ice on, 1 December, 1 March, 1 June, and 1 September, they found a very similar result.

Quote
"Sensitivity experiments with a fully coupled general
circulation model show a complete recovery from a total
removal or strong increase of sea ice after four years.

...The impact is stronger when ocean temperature is
adjusted to ice-free conditions, but even then the differences
appearing between the sensitivity and Ctrl runs are clearly
smaller after a few years than the differences between
modelled and observed sea ice area."

Note that different models were used in each study: Tietsche et al used ECHAM5/MPI-OM, Schroeder & Connelly used HADCM3.

How do you reconcile this with the ZHANG 2010 paper that states a largely summer ice free state with 4C regional (not NH) warming?

Neither of these adequately addressed the 40 meter depth warm pool effects after june 1 ice free conditions and the increase of saline atlantic water from the Alaskan Shoreline Eddy, as documented in Maislowski's recent work.   They both predicted rapid heat loss to the atmosphere but this is inconsistent with the production of surface ice with a warm pool contained below the halocline that will likely (between 2020 and 2040) be holding between 2 and 8 times the total enthalpy than current values.

You said that it would take a 4C NH warming and that is simply not true.  .5C maybe. . not 4C  I expect we will see this warming rate within the next 5 years.
 

Quote
The results are emergent phenomena from the mathematical model. Leaving out results because the scientist doesn't like them would be considered highly unethical. Is that really what you think of the scientists?


Government representatives propose authors and contributors

Quote
Sorry, the SPM is not the main IPCC report, it's the dumbed down version. You need to refer to IPCC AR5 WG1. I have never bothered with the SPM, politicians have a hand in it.
[/quote]

This is not just the synthesis report it is the lead authorship roles as well, for the working groups.  Why would we allow governments to appoint authors and select contributors???
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today

jai mitchell

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2076
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 114
  • Likes Given: 24
Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October)
« Reply #399 on: October 11, 2014, 09:55:09 PM »
Finally, and much more importantly, and in hopes of returning to the topic, Wipneus's AMAZING work!

<img width="580" height="435" class="bbc_img resized" style="width: auto; height: auto; cursor: pointer;" alt="" src="https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd4.png"></img>



I would like to see a statistical analysis of this data with a trend analysis for cumulative loss between June 1st and August 1st.  Then the deviation from the trend for 2014 can be more adequately addressed.

just by looking at the graph I am certain it surpasses the 2 sigma deviation from the trend (possibly 3!)

It would be absolutely foolhardy to imply that this extreme event can be anything indicative of a long-term trend.

however, it does indicate some kind of larger systemic shift, a "not-seen-before" event.  Either natural or unnatural it indicates a significant loss of boundary between the Ferrel and Arctic Cells  And/or some form of conscious manipulation of the atmospheric regimes.

At this point, all bets are out the window.  The world has NEVER witnessed a climatic shift to this degree at this rate.  The PETM took 10,000 years to develop, we are on track to overshoot the PETM within 300 years.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 10:02:57 PM by jai mitchell »
Haiku of Past Futures
My "burning embers"
are not tri-color bar graphs
+3C today