Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask  (Read 670917 times)

grixm

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 337
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 202
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3300 on: June 21, 2020, 07:53:17 AM »
I just noticed that on Wipneus's PIOMAS maps, the map template and data seems to be drawn using a radial coordinate system since every line is slightly curved instead of straight. However, the origo does not seem to be on the geographic pole. Instead it seems to be somewhere in northern greenland. Why is this?

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3301 on: June 21, 2020, 08:35:54 AM »
This is the PIOMAS grid.  IIRC it has more resolution where the ice is thicker (north of Greenland and the CAA). I believe an explanation of this grid can be found somewhere online.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3302 on: June 21, 2020, 02:19:48 PM »

I presented my theory to Tom’s question, and presented evidence in support of that theory.  No one else has given any explanation, except to state short term (120 yr?) noise.  I am a retired environmental chemist, who has studied exhaust gases for years.  Show me some other explanation for the data.

Well, the problem is that the evidence does not support the theory.

This is a clearcut case of circular reasoning - the data shows an anomaly, you put on your thinking cap and come up with a hypothesis as a possible explanation, and then voila! The data anomaly itself  becomes proof of the hypothesis which then rapitdly becomes a theory, proven by the existence of the very question it was meant to answer.

You claim that the lack of warming in some areas of the continous United States is due to net insolation having a negative correlation with increased GHG concentration, but only when insolation is at maximum. But you have neither shown that this is a real phenomenon (i.e. lack of warming in the continental US has not been shown as being a proxy for the rest of the globe), nor shown whether this negative correlation is big enough to explain the supposed effect, nor  forwarded any evidence specifically supporting your claim.

And please note that if this were a real phenomenon (which I am not denying could be, by the way), then somebody should have written about it, modelled it and measured it. But nobody seems to be able to find anything along those lines, I've tried myself and I assume that you have also.

So perhaps it's time to put this to rest - and take a look at Tamino's speculations on the same subject (i.e. apparent lack of warming in the continuous United States), which I linked to as an answer to Tom's question.

Perhaps we need to delve deeper into science.  I was hesitant to do so, based on the title of this thread, but here goes.  I will reference the following websites from Caltech.

http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture2.pdf

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/wien.html

First, note figure 2.4 on page 5.  Only 50% of the incoming radiation reaches the surface, with water vapor and clouds being the largest absorbers, followed by CO2, oxygen and ozone.  The absorption spectrum is presented in figure 2.6 on page 3.  There are multiple absorption bands, with greater absorption occurring at higher wavelength.  Now refer to the two references to blackbody radiation.  The emission wavelength is defined by temperature alone; cooler bodies emit radiation at higher wavelengths.  According to Wien's displacement law, the peak radiation emission occurs at the following wavelengths for the given temperatures:

-40C   12.4 microns
   0C   10.6
 20C     9.9
 35C     9.4

The infrared absorption bands of the various atmospheric gases is shown in the following reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_band#/media/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

As you can see from the absorption bands, the major absorption band from carbon dioxide occurs at 15 microns.  At colder temperatures (-40C), CO2 absorbs a higher fraction of the emitted radiation than at higher temperatures, whereby the peak is shifter to a lower wavelength.  The dip in the water absorption spectrum occurs between wavelengths of 8 and 12 microns.  At the higher surface temperatures, water vapor and carbon dioxide absorb much less infrared radiation.  Atmospheric absorption is lowest during the hottest days.

While the fraction of incoming radiation absorbed remains relatively fixed at ~50%, the increased day length results in a greater total absorption of radiation during the longer summer days, than the shorter winter days.  During the winter, the absorption rate increases, as the temperature decreases towards greater absorption of the emitted infrared radiation.  Combined with the longer nights, the total energy absorbed by these gases is much higher than during the summer. 

This is the difference between discreet and average values (like Tamino's).  Hopefully, I have not exceeded the realm of this thread title by too much.  I am not even going to discuss the 'odd' greenhouse explanation, which does belong under this title.

Does this help clear up any confusion?

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3303 on: June 21, 2020, 02:38:57 PM »
The few percent of incoming solar radiation absorbed by the GHGs in the atmosphere still enters the Earth system. It is not lost and partially contributes to warming.
You claim that increasing GHG concentration will lead to less total incoming energy during long summer days, or at least that is my understanding. Why not find a source that actually says so, rather than hand-waving? This is not hard to quantify I think, for a climate scientist.

Note: The diagram is old (CO2 was 370ppm) but still interesting.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 02:44:17 PM by oren »

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 682
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 95
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3304 on: June 21, 2020, 03:16:17 PM »
Hand waving?  You call solid physics “hand waving?”  If you do not believe the physics, there is little more I can do.

Comradez

  • New ice
  • Posts: 76
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3305 on: June 21, 2020, 04:56:53 PM »
That's an interesting diagram, oren!  The one thing that isn't intuitive for me, though, is why the initial longwave energy emitted from the surface is 110 units.  Where does that come from?  Why wouldn't it be 50 units + whatever fraction of the 17 and 3 in the troposphere and stratosphere (respectively) that get re-radiated down to the surface?  Also, what do SH and LE stand for under "non-radiative"? 

Also, the blackbody spectrum posted by oren in post #3254 shows that The Walrus might have more of a point if we were talking about H20 having an ambiguous relationship with peak summer daytime temperatures since H20 absorbs a lot of radiation in the near-infrared (900 nm) range, as well as in the 1150 nm range, which will comprise more of the total first-pass radiative forcing coming from the sun compared to, say, the tail-end stuff CO2 blocks at 2000 nm.  And yes, while some of that can be re-radiated down to the surface, it will be some fraction of what would have reached the surface on the first-pass if H20 hadn't been there to absorb it.  Someone would still need to do the math to compare what's lost from this vs. how much is absorbed and re-radiated from H2O to the surface from the greenhouse effect. 

But in any case, it seems clear to me from that diagram that CO2 is blocking very little first-pass solar radiation from getting to the surface, and probably more than making up for that by what it re-radiates.  So even if we are talking about peak daytime temperatures north of the Arctic circle around the summer soltice, it seems like CO2 only heightens those temperatures.

interstitial

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 596
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 209
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3306 on: June 21, 2020, 05:34:52 PM »
Hand waving?  You call solid physics “hand waving?”  If you do not believe the physics, there is little more I can do.
You cite data which does not say what you claim it says. That is the hand wavy part. Many of the people on this forum understand the highly technical science just fine. Many of the people here are scientists in other fields. When you give a citation if it does not say what you claim it does we will call you on it. Unfortunately your tactic of citing technical data that is roughly about the topic but does not say what you claim works in many circles.  If you provide evidence that I am wrong I will admit it. I have in the past and will continue to do so. If you do not have/ can not find evidence to support your assertion either admit you were wrong, stop writing about it or hold to your convictions but admit you do not have the evidence and stop writing about it.
 

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3307 on: June 21, 2020, 05:44:02 PM »
That's an interesting diagram, oren!  The one thing that isn't intuitive for me, though, is why the initial longwave energy emitted from the surface is 110 units.  Where does that come from?  Why wouldn't it be 50 units + whatever fraction of the 17 and 3 in the troposphere and stratosphere (respectively) that get re-radiated down to the surface?  Also, what do SH and LE stand for under "non-radiative"? 
I had a hard time following this diagram myself, but note the atmosphere emits much more than 17 and 3. There are some circular energy flows.
Outgoing from surface is 110 but emitted downward from troposphere is 89, thus net is -21 (minus means outgoing).

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3308 on: June 21, 2020, 05:52:59 PM »
Quote
Only 50% of the incoming radiation reaches the surface
No Walrus, 50% is absorbed. Note the little arrow of reflection coming from the surface back to space. Total of 30% is reflected, but the diagram doesn't specify which part does which reflection.

Quote
Hand waving?  You call solid physics “hand waving?”  If you do not believe the physics, there is little more I can do.
And yes, I call that hand waving, you have a pet theory that borders on denial as it claims GHGs cause cooling at some times and seasons, this need major support, and yet you do not have actual articles or links to back it up directly. Do GHGs cool the Earth on long summer days? I have a feeling they do not, but maybe they do, I know very little climate science. Please do supply the links and articles saying so directly. If not, you would do better to retract this claim and be done with it.

Glen Koehler

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 350
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 757
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3309 on: June 21, 2020, 07:01:06 PM »
That's an interesting diagram, oren!  The one thing that isn't intuitive for me, though, is why the initial longwave energy emitted from the surface is 110 units.  Where does that come from? 
      Way outside my lane and just my understanding, but in case it's useful:  It is counterintuitive to see 110 emitted when only 89 were supplied, and thus a -29 deficit.  Everything has to balance in the end, so who makes up for those -29?  My guess is that shortwave energy that reaches the surface, is absorbed and converted to longwave (infrared), and then reemitted upward from the surface, makes up that difference. 

      That means that the Earth receives more shortwave than it emits, and emits more longwave than it receives.  The net energy has to balance, but within the total energy budget, energy from one wavelength bucket can translate into energy in another wavelength bucket, i.e. from shortwave to longwave. 

      A black tar road receives a lot of downward shortwave and a lesser amount of downward longwave radiation.  The shortwave is absorbed and converted to longwave, and the tar road emits a lot of longwave back up (the road gets hot in the sunshine).

      My objection to Walrus' statements is not so much about the unsupported statements about a specific mechanism that this discussion has evolved into, but conflating the "warmest temperatures of the year" to overall cooling, and using the comparison of 1986-2015 vs 1900--1960 observations to conclude that the current change is towards cooling, esp. when the projections looking forward show increased warming for all measures, including for warmest day of the year. 

      The original question was about why a specific location would be warming less than the rest of the planet.  The Tamino article addresses that very question with his usual superb skill, including a discussion of and links to recent peer-reviewed studies for anybody who wants to go into it at depth.  I assume that if Walrus' hypothesis had any credence, then the articles that investigated the southeastern U.S. "warmhole" would have included discussion of that as a factor, and that it would have thus shown up in Tamino's summary of the findings of those studies.  But it does not appear in that discussion, which is not surprising because if it were true it would apply everywhere and would not be a localized regional influence.

       I have not confirmed that assumption and not interested enough to do so.  But if somebody wants to, that would one way to close the book on Walrus' hypothesis.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2020, 08:30:35 PM by Glen Koehler »

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3310 on: June 21, 2020, 08:40:32 PM »
Is there any historical empirical evidence of high volume of export from the CAB to the Atlantic during the second half of the melting season?

I have looked at Wipneus' charts in the PIOMAS thread and the last three years shows very low volumes moving through Fram Strait during the summer months in general and especially in comparison to the rest of the year.

I am trying to determine if there is any precedent which supports the idea of potential high summer export volumes or if this is an argument based solely on anecdotal evidence.


Rod

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3311 on: June 21, 2020, 10:13:58 PM »
Is there any historical empirical evidence of high volume of export from the CAB to the Atlantic during the second half of the melting season?

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/65/2017/tc-11-65-2017.pdf

“A new long-term data record of Fram Strait sea ice area export from 1935 to 2014 is developed using a combination of satellite radar images and station observations of surface pressure across Fram Strait. This data record shows that the long-term annual mean export is about 880 000 km2, representing 10 % of the sea-ice-covered area inside the basin. The time series has large interannual and multi-decadal variability but no long-term trend. However, during the last decades, the amount of ice exported has increased, with several years having annual ice exports that exceeded 1 million km2 . This increase is a result of faster southward ice drift speeds due to stronger southward geostrophic winds, largely explained by increasing surface pressure over Greenland. Evaluating the trend onwards from 1979 reveals an increase in annual ice export of about +6 % per decade, with spring and summer showing larger changes in ice export (+11 % per decade) compared to autumn and winter (+2.6 % per decade). Increased ice export during winter will generally result in new ice growth and contributes to thinning inside the Arctic Basin. Increased ice export during summer or spring will, in contrast, contribute directly to open water further north and a reduced summer sea ice extent through the ice–albedo feedback.”

This study looks at extent, because that is what we can measure. The PIOMAS model attempts to predict volume. 

The PIOMAS model is currently predicting that the ice that is on its way to export through the Fram is thicker than usual. 

The point that Friv is making that you seem to be taking issue with is that it does not matter because that ice is doomed.  The ice might start melting in situ north of Svalbard which will decrease volume as it exits the Fram, or it will be blown out through the Fram without melting taking all of its volume with it. 

Either way, that ice can’t move “upstream.” At least not for very long.  The only thing controlling how long it lasts is the strength of the high pressure systems over Greenland. 

If we have strong high pressure over Greenland during the remainder of the melt season, the ice will export faster.  If not, the ice will export slower.  However, it is on its way out one way or another.   

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3312 on: June 21, 2020, 11:14:08 PM »
I think 2007 had a particularly strong summer export. Try to look it up, maybe an animation could help, or a paper has quantified it.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3313 on: June 21, 2020, 11:23:29 PM »
Is there any historical empirical evidence of high volume of export from the CAB to the Atlantic during the second half of the melting season?

https://www.the-cryosphere.net/11/65/2017/tc-11-65-2017.pdf

“A new long-term data record of Fram Strait sea ice area export from 1935 to 2014 is developed using a combination of satellite radar images and station observations of surface pressure across Fram Strait. This data record shows that the long-term annual mean export is about 880 000 km2,
.....

the point that Friv is making that you seem to be taking issue with is that it does not matter because that ice is doomed. 
 

That's a nice resource Rod, thanks for sharing.

I don't take any issue with the point that a certain amount of ice is doomed. I agree with that. The question is how much ice is doomed in a normal summer and this paper here gives some good guidance in the form of the 880k km2 and the figure 4 in the body of the paper which provides seasonal trend information.

If we use a ballbark assumption that this ice would have melted down to 1m depth in situ (had it not been exported), then we could say that 880 km3 per year is lost from the minimum per year as a result of export or 220km3 per average 3 month period. Figure 4 shows that the summer months have a much lower export rate than the annual average, so maybe ~ 100 km3 is effectively from the minimum in a typical year through Fram in the summer. This doesn't includes Barents export which is likely much smaller than Fram export.

Now, let's consider what 2020 needs to do to set a record.

Let's say 2020 has ~ 500 km3 more ice than 2012 and 2012 also lost 500 km3 more from mid-June to the minimum than an otherwise solid year like 2019.

That means 2020 has to beat 2012 by 500 km3 down the stretch or 2019 by 1000 km3 to catch 2012.

My point is that the average summer export loss (as established by your paper) is not close to enough to make up the gap with 2012, a year which had a truly freak happening with the Mackenzie River deferred discharge.

Rod

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3314 on: June 21, 2020, 11:32:56 PM »
I think you are confusing volume, area and extent.

If you look at their Data and Methods section, they are using a gridded extent product from NSIDC.

You are looking at PIOMAS volume data.  Aside from the fact that PIOMAS is a model, volume will always be lower in the summer because of surface melt prior to export. 

I am scratching my head trying to figure out what you are fighting about on this one.  Friv used the often used analogy of moving the goal posts.  But it seems to me that is what you are doing.

The thick ice on its way to export (if PIOMAS is right and it is thick) won’t help the ice next season.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5684
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 788
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3315 on: June 21, 2020, 11:36:41 PM »
Is there a reference for that nice diagram in message #3303 by Mr. Oren ?

sidd

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3316 on: June 21, 2020, 11:42:48 PM »
The diagram actually came from the Caltech link supplied by Walrus. I took a screenshot from the pdf.
http://web.gps.caltech.edu/classes/ese148a/lecture2.pdf

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3317 on: June 21, 2020, 11:58:07 PM »
I think you are confusing volume, area and extent.

If you look at their Data and Methods section, they are using a gridded extent product from NSIDC.

You are looking at PIOMAS volume data.  Aside from the fact that PIOMAS is a model, volume will always be lower in the summer because of surface melt prior to export. 

I am scratching my head trying to figure out what you are fighting about on this one.  Friv used the often used analogy of moving the goal posts.  But it seems to me that is what you are doing.

The thick ice on its way to export (if PIOMAS is right and it is thick) won’t help the ice next season.

I don't feel like i'm confusing anything. I see that 2020 has ~ 500 km3 more ice in the CAB than 2012 at mid-June and I want to determine how many km3 are lost via export in a typical summer from mid-June to the minimum.

Algebra takes us from 2D to 3D.

880,000 annual km2 export (per your paper)
 * 1m  / 1000 km2              (my assumption of in-situ minimum depth)

= 880 km3 annual export impact on minimum

* 3 / 12 of the year remaining to minimum

= 220 km3 for an average 3 months

* ~45% (to reflect lower rate of summer loss per figure 4 of your paper)

= 100 km3 impact on minimum of average 6.15 - 9.15 summer losses thru Fram.

My goal here is to quantify the average volume loss due to export over time. Your paper provided some information which helps with that. Thank you. Someone can criticize the findings of the paper or my ballparking of 1 meter depth or 45%, but the algebra to convert km2 to km3 is pretty straightforward.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3318 on: June 22, 2020, 12:07:17 AM »
Your 1m is too low, especially for a tear with anomalously thick ice in the export staging region. 2m would make much more sense. Plus you fail to take Barents into account, a year with extra ice at the Barents opening is not a normal year.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3319 on: June 22, 2020, 12:35:28 AM »
Your 1m is too low, especially for a tear with anomalously thick ice in the export staging region. 2m would make much more sense. Plus you fail to take Barents into account, a year with extra ice at the Barents opening is not a normal year.

Personally, I think 2m for ice at the edge of the open water is too thick, but for arguments sake, let's say you are right.

We would still have to assume that the average comparison year is losing ice that is at least 1m thick due to export. So, the math works out the same. 2m super thick-1m avg thick =1m extra lost.

You pointed out a problem with my original math, but the correction still brings us back to 100km3.

As for how much to figure for Barents, I think 50% of Fram is quite generous. Svalbard and FJL are blocking and there is no comparable current.  So let's say 150 km3 ??
« Last Edit: June 22, 2020, 12:40:45 AM by Phoenix »

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5684
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 788
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3320 on: June 22, 2020, 07:48:14 AM »
Thanks for the link.

sidd

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3321 on: June 22, 2020, 08:49:44 AM »
Your 1m is too low, especially for a tear with anomalously thick ice in the export staging region. 2m would make much more sense. Plus you fail to take Barents into account, a year with extra ice at the Barents opening is not a normal year.

Personally, I think 2m for ice at the edge of the open water is too thick, but for arguments sake, let's say you are right.

We would still have to assume that the average comparison year is losing ice that is at least 1m thick due to export. So, the math works out the same. 2m super thick-1m avg thick =1m extra lost.

You pointed out a problem with my original math, but the correction still brings us back to 100km3.

As for how much to figure for Barents, I think 50% of Fram is quite generous. Svalbard and FJL are blocking and there is no comparable current.  So let's say 150 km3 ??
Take a good look at the latest PIOMAS map (June 15th). It shows ice of ~3m at the Fram export line, and ~2m at the Barents export line. Now compare to other years, where there was less ice - and thinner - in that region. Those years lose far less to export because there is less ice there. Less area times less thickness. I estimate the added thickness as 2m, and there should also be an estimate for added area above a normal year. So let's take 150 k km2 (above the 100 you calculated for an average year), times 2m extra thickness, and you get 300 km3 just for Fram. Add 100 km3 for Barents, and you get 400 km3 above a normal year.
Why is that? Because there is lots of extra ice in that vulnerable region. I am not saying this is what will happen, but the potential is certainly there and the probability not low at all.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3322 on: June 22, 2020, 09:24:25 AM »
I don't disagree about the thickness of the ice we see today. If you say that there is ice which is 3m thick today at the Fram export line, then I'm ok with that.

For the purposes of figuring out the impact of export on the minimum, we need to project the thickness of that ice in mid-September. If the ice wasn't exported, it would melt in situ and be thinner at the minimum.

At the end of a given season, the average ice thickness is in the ballpark of 1 meter. (4M km2 and 4k km3 ==> 1meter thickness).

I think we are already being quite generous in saying that 2020 exported ice would be on average 1m thicker at the minimum than an average year. 

You have shown color coded anomaly graphs. The only ice that has a greater than 1.0m thickness anomaly and is also in prime  export territory is immediately north of Svalbard. The ice which is west of the northern tip of Greenland is not a good candidate for Fram export this year.

Going back to my math upstream which calculates 100 km3 through Fram in an average year. If we assume that the ice will be twice as thick (2m) in September, that's an extra 100 km3. Are you trying to say that the exported ice year would be average 3m thick at the minimum? I can't buy that.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3323 on: June 22, 2020, 09:42:39 AM »
I am getting tired of this discussion. To be honest, I don't expect you to change your mind, but here are a few points for you to consider..

You are saying: first melt, then export at min. And you are saying melt is constant every year. Thus low chance of catching up.
I am saying: first export now, then melt what is left. Different model.

You have a gross error in calculating average thickness at minimum. You've used extent instead of area. Average thickness at min will be ~1.5m.

You assume we will have average ice at the minimum, completely ignoring that there is extra ice of extra thickness at the export gates. This is the main issue.

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3324 on: June 22, 2020, 10:13:43 AM »
Addendum: what you are really missing, maybe in an attempt to minimze effort, is using actual PIOMAS output rather than averages. Wipneus has been kind enough to post thickness animations in the PIOMAS thread since a long time ago. He also provides map images and differences from previous years every month. Browse through it. Find the actual maps of several years on June 15th and in early September. Post links to them somewhere (maybe in you DHACSOO thread or some other appropriate thread).Then you can see what ice was there now and at min. Not averages, actual modelled thicknesses. This way you can be better equipped to discuss this issue.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3325 on: June 22, 2020, 10:44:07 AM »
The analysis I presented in the melting season thread uses Wipneus' Fram export graph information.  My analysis there came up with a similar range as my analysis here. (There I arrived at 25km3 / month...here I arrived at 100km3 for 3 months).

I think it's pretty clear that Wipneus is using actual PIOMAS modeled data to come up with HIS Fram export calculations.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3621
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3326 on: June 22, 2020, 03:56:41 PM »
Here’s another one:
How much AGW is “built in” now? If everyone dropped dead today, for how many decades would warming continue and how many degrees would it go?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2452
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1171
  • Likes Given: 1018
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3327 on: June 22, 2020, 05:58:05 PM »
Since that is the scientific main question that might just be out of scope of this thread Tom.  ;)
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

sidd

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5684
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 788
  • Likes Given: 0

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3621
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3329 on: June 22, 2020, 11:10:29 PM »
0.6 degrees, eh sidd
So we are already past 1.5 degrees!
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3330 on: June 23, 2020, 08:03:40 AM »
Limiting warming to 1.5C is impossible.
2C is improbable.
GISTEMPv4c 1990 to 2020 Trend: 0.220 ±0.063 °C/decade (2σ)
Barring massive change or volcanic event We should see the first year with an average temperature over 1.5C by 2030 over 2C some time in the 2050's.
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

bluice

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3331 on: June 23, 2020, 09:19:53 AM »
1.5C warming limit was a politically motivated target from the Paris conference that never had any real chance to be accomplished.

IMHO it should be considered as an academic what-if exercise, a scenario what should happen if warming was to be limited to 1.5C. The outcome was a sudden drop in emissions that obviously never materialized, followed by steep negative emissions by some non-existent imaginary technology.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9296
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3708
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3332 on: June 23, 2020, 11:17:51 PM »
0.6 degrees, eh sidd
So we are already past 1.5 degrees!

The NASA article was posted on Monday, July 2nd, 2007, so 0.6 is already history.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 831
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 416
  • Likes Given: 147
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3333 on: June 24, 2020, 12:00:32 AM »
The point of discussion highlighted .  ;)
Quote
If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop?
Not right away. The Earth’s surface temperature does not react instantaneously to the energy imbalance created by rising carbon dioxide levels. This delayed reaction occurs because a great deal of the excess energy is stored in the ocean, which has a tremendous heat capacity. Because of this lag (which scientists call “thermal inertia”), even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century is not the full amount of warming we can expect from the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. Even if all emissions were to stop today, the Earth’s average surface temperature would climb another 0.6 degrees or so over the next several decades before temperatures stopped rising.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/would-gw-stop-with-greenhouse-gases/

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9296
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 3708
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3334 on: June 24, 2020, 12:21:54 AM »
The point of discussion highlighted .  ;)
Quote
If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop?
Not right away. The Earth’s surface temperature does not react instantaneously to the energy imbalance created by rising carbon dioxide levels. This delayed reaction occurs because a great deal of the excess energy is stored in the ocean, which has a tremendous heat capacity. Because of this lag (which scientists call “thermal inertia”), even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century is not the full amount of warming we can expect from the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. Even if all emissions were to stop today, the Earth’s average surface temperature would climb another 0.6 degrees or so over the next several decades before temperatures stopped rising.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/would-gw-stop-with-greenhouse-gases/
I was looking at "even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century" which certainly needs an update. We are so much further along the road to ruin.

Just think if the sort of heat anomalies that has happened this year over Siberia (and in the Aussie fire season) hits the densely populated mid-latitudes in the USA or Europe for several months. We  are already in the frame for some real nasty surprises.
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6289
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2309
  • Likes Given: 1939
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3335 on: June 24, 2020, 12:55:11 AM »
I read a news article about the record heat in Siberia. The article cited a climate scientist that said if we stopped all emissions today we would still get roughly 1C of warming . So 0.6C is not necessarily a consensus.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2020, 07:54:29 AM by oren »

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3621
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 622
  • Likes Given: 308
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3336 on: June 24, 2020, 01:40:51 AM »
Quote
We  are already in the frame for some real nasty surprises.
We need some really nasty surprises if we are ever going to tackle this problem.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2372
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 20058
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3337 on: June 24, 2020, 04:57:22 AM »
Quote from: Tom_mazanec
If everyone dropped dead today, for how many decades would warming continue and how many degrees would it go?
Re: +0.6°C warming in the pipeline

I think that tipping points might be throwing a spanner in the works of that expectation. The permafrost is not going to stop outgassing and it will accelerate. Sea level will keep rising. There will be more wildfires and hurricanes they will become more severe. AMOC slowing will not stop in a couple of decades. Sealevel rise will continue to accelerate. There's the risk of large methane bursts. The arctic ice keeps melting faster. There is still a lot of extra energy in the oceans' huge currents; a charged battery, discharging in the atmosphere.
From paleoclimate records we know that at equilibrium of 420 ppm CO₂, the temperature anomaly was +3°C and SLR >20m (Miocene).

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm  <explaining a myth because it's the other way around>

What humans have been doing to the atmosphere is unprecedented and so extraordinarily fast (an extreme spike-burst on the geological timescale) that I think that the Earth will go to a hothouse state, whether we stop emissions or not. We will never know because we won't be able to measure it once our technology doesn't work anymore.

edit: added to the link that the link debunks a myth
« Last Edit: June 24, 2020, 07:30:11 AM by nanning »
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1601
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3338 on: June 24, 2020, 05:37:08 AM »
That's why it's critical we find a way to get all the CO2 back out of the system ASAP, and Olivine weathering it the best solution I've seen so far.
If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.
-The Dalai Lama

Bruce Steele

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1857
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 489
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3339 on: June 24, 2020, 06:08:53 AM »
Freegrass, In the long run weathering will rebalance CO2 levels but trying to compress the tens of thousands of years required into human timeframes is an enormous hurtle.
 I think the rain required can only happen with time.
 Here is my far fetched idea.
 Find a location where ground olivine can flow naturally downhill into rivers that carry it to sea. Make thousands of small autonomous robots that run on solar and chew up rocks. Turn them lose . High rainfall areas ideal.


 

Sebastian Jones

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 417
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 105
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3340 on: June 24, 2020, 06:50:18 AM »
If everybody dropped dead tomorrow, GHGs would increase until all those leaky fracked wells ran out of methane. But that might be balanced out by dozens of nuclear power stations melting down and the ensuing nuclear winter.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2372
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 20058
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3341 on: June 24, 2020, 07:34:56 AM »
Sebastian, why would a 'nuclear winter' ensue from a nuclear powerstation melt down?
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3342 on: June 24, 2020, 08:36:03 AM »
Sebastian, why would a 'nuclear winter' ensue from a nuclear powerstation melt down?
Seems I was reading the definition only a few weeks ago - can't remember the context. But a nuclear winter would be a result of the vast amounts of dust pushed up into the upper stratosphere by thermonuclear warheads exploding at or in the surface.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3343 on: June 24, 2020, 08:44:34 AM »

 Here is my far fetched idea.
 Find a location where ground olivine can flow naturally downhill into rivers that carry it to sea. Make thousands of small autonomous robots that run on solar and chew up rocks. Turn them lose . High rainfall areas ideal.

And make sure to understand the difference between forsterite (high in magnesium) and fayalite (high in iron). Pick the wrong type of olivine and you make things worse.

You'll want those little Wall-E's chewing up the forsterite.

Freegrass

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1601
  • Emancipate yourself from mental slavery
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 509
  • Likes Given: 747
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3344 on: June 24, 2020, 12:05:03 PM »
Freegrass, In the long run weathering will rebalance CO2 levels but trying to compress the tens of thousands of years required into human timeframes is an enormous hurtle.
 I think the rain required can only happen with time.
 Here is my far fetched idea.
 Find a location where ground olivine can flow naturally downhill into rivers that carry it to sea. Make thousands of small autonomous robots that run on solar and chew up rocks. Turn them lose . High rainfall areas ideal.
Or just dump Olivine on a beach and let the waves take care of it. Have you read my thread about Project Vesta?
If every 8 year old in the world is taught meditation, we will eliminate violence from the world within one generation.
-The Dalai Lama

igs

  • Guest
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3345 on: June 24, 2020, 06:38:13 PM »
Sebastian, why would a 'nuclear winter' ensue from a nuclear powerstation melt down?
Seems I was reading the definition only a few weeks ago - can't remember the context. But a nuclear winter would be a result of the vast amounts of dust pushed up into the upper stratosphere by thermonuclear warheads exploding at or in the surface.


That's common knowledge while the question was about nuclear power station not nuclear war.

The original poster either meant nuclear war or he jumps to a conclusion that is definitely wrong.
Core melting does realeas a lot of radioactivity but does by no means produdce sufficient "dust" to trigger a nuclear winter.

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2372
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 20058
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3346 on: June 25, 2020, 03:29:43 AM »
Thanks igs. That's what I think and why I asked Sebastian for clarification.
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3347 on: June 25, 2020, 06:44:10 AM »
I'm not sure if it is because of the Atlantic but from my side of the pond it seems that I said exactly what igs said, but which he then calls "common knowledge", goes on to make up a question that was never stated, which he then claims that I hadn't answered, and then he rephrases my comment into americanism, suddenly making it into "uncommon knowledge"?

And then nanning doubles up with a hammer to nail it home.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6

nanning

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2372
  • 0Kg CO₂, 37 KWh/wk,125L H₂O/wk, No offspring
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 20058
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3348 on: June 25, 2020, 10:56:11 AM »
binntho, perhaps you missed this?

That's common knowledge while the question was about nuclear power station not nuclear war.
<snip>
(bolding by me)
"It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly" - Bertrand Russell
"It is preoccupation with what other people from your groups think of you, that prevents you from living freely and nobly" - Nanning
Why do you keep accumulating stuff?

binntho

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1518
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 528
  • Likes Given: 118
Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« Reply #3349 on: June 25, 2020, 11:11:36 AM »
binntho, perhaps you missed this?

That's common knowledge while the question was about nuclear power station not nuclear war.
<snip>
(bolding by me)
No I did not! Of course not! Why do you ask? My comment was about nuclear winter (which was what prompted your original question to Sebastian) and pointed out that nuclear winters are caused when large thermonuclear devices explode at or near the surface of the earth.

I did not see any need to specify that therefore it could not apply to nuclear powerstation meltdown. Why should that have been necessary? Wasn't it clear from the context? I wrote:
Quote
a nuclear winter would be a result of the vast amounts of dust pushed up into the upper stratosphere by thermonuclear warheads exploding at or in the surface.

Which obviously makes the point that a nuclear winter does not result from nuclear powerstation meltout or any other types of disaster. It only results from large thermonuclear explosions.
because a thing is eloquently expressed it should not be taken to be as necessarily true
St. Augustine, Confessions V, 6