Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis  (Read 3601 times)

Wherestheice

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 89
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #50 on: May 31, 2020, 07:32:15 AM »
I've always looked at the volume data. That is a good indicator of what the trends in the health of the ice are.
"When the ice goes..... F***

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #51 on: May 31, 2020, 07:40:16 AM »
In short, WAA can melt snow, reducing its albedo and letting in the real monster, sunlight. So you cannot completely discount it no matter what calculations show regarding total energy transferred.

The fallacy inherent in this WAA discussion is that continental mainland is somehow more effecient at transferring heat to the Arctic than the open ocean.

I'm arguing that we can't get enough incremental WAA to the as yet unconquered ice to melt it out.

It seems you agree with me on that point Binntho since you're representing that WAA doesn't even make a material difference to the ice adjacent to the coast. We disagree on the influence in coastal ice, but it's not necessary to hash it out with reference to the potential durability of the Arctic. We are in agreement that there is no evidence that WAA will push us over the edge. Good!

As far as the ocean is concerned, this is the third time I'm making this point and the last.

The ocean is outstanding at bringing heat to the Arctic....at depth. The ice is at the surface, not at depth.

The density gradient is a traffic cop. This is the last invitation to explain how one should expect the denser ocean water to beat the density gradient and melt out the remaining ice. We saw a major exception with salt free warm river water in 2012, an unpredictable event going forward.

My argument is that there is no clear mechanism being proposed by the near term BOE group which explains how the remaining ice will be conquered. I'm glad you agree that it won't come from the sun to land to ice pathway and think this is not the place to argue over issues which are irrelevant to the future durability of the ice. The Arctic energy thread is a good place for that WAA discussion to continue.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2020, 07:51:23 AM by Phoenix »

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2020, 07:25:33 PM »

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2015GL064373

Geophysical Research Letters
Warm‐air advection, air mass transformation and fog causes rapid ice melt
June 2015

Abstract

Direct observations during intense warm‐air advection over the East Siberian Sea reveal a period of rapid sea‐ice melt. A semistationary, high‐pressure system north of the Bering Strait forced northward advection of warm, moist air from the continent. Air‐mass transformation over melting sea ice formed a strong, surface‐based temperature inversion in which dense fog formed. This induced a positive net longwave radiation at the surface while reducing net solar radiation only marginally; the inversion also resulted in downward turbulent heat flux. The sum of these processes enhanced the surface energy flux by an average of ~15 W m−2 for a week. Satellite images before and after the episode show sea‐ice concentrations decreasing from > 90% to ~50% over a large area affected by the air‐mass transformation. We argue that this rapid melt was triggered by the increased heat flux from the atmosphere due to the warm‐air advection.

(from conclusion - An extra 20 W m−2 surface heating would theoretically melt an additional ~4–5 cm of ice over 7 days)

igs

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2020, 10:07:21 PM »
In short, WAA can melt snow, reducing its albedo and letting in the real monster, sunlight. So you cannot completely discount it no matter what calculations show regarding total energy transferred.

The fallacy inherent in this WAA discussion is that continental mainland is somehow more effecient at transferring heat to the Arctic than the open ocean.

I'm arguing that we can't get enough incremental WAA to the as yet unconquered ice to melt it out.

It seems you agree with me on that point Binntho since you're representing that WAA doesn't even make a material difference to the ice adjacent to the coast. We disagree on the influence in coastal ice, but it's not necessary to hash it out with reference to the potential durability of the Arctic. We are in agreement that there is no evidence that WAA will push us over the edge. Good!

As far as the ocean is concerned, this is the third time I'm making this point and the last.

The ocean is outstanding at bringing heat to the Arctic....at depth. The ice is at the surface, not at depth.

The density gradient is a traffic cop. This is the last invitation to explain how one should expect the denser ocean water to beat the density gradient and melt out the remaining ice. We saw a major exception with salt free warm river water in 2012, an unpredictable event going forward.

My argument is that there is no clear mechanism being proposed by the near term BOE group which explains how the remaining ice will be conquered. I'm glad you agree that it won't come from the sun to land to ice pathway and think this is not the place to argue over issues which are irrelevant to the future durability of the ice. The Arctic energy thread is a good place for that WAA discussion to continue.


I think it was mentioned already that it's not only about directly melting it out but at least if not more importantly about conditioning the ice surface to a condition where it will be vulnarable to other key factors like insolation, albedo and the likes.
Knowledge that does not increase every day will decrease every day !

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #54 on: June 01, 2020, 12:32:49 AM »
I think it was mentioned already that it's not only about directly melting it out but at least if not more importantly about conditioning the ice surface to a condition where it will be vulnarable to other key factors like insolation, albedo and the likes.

Hi igs, Are you referring to WAA?

igs

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #55 on: June 02, 2020, 01:03:29 AM »
I think it was mentioned already that it's not only about directly melting it out but at least if not more importantly about conditioning the ice surface to a condition where it will be vulnarable to other key factors like insolation, albedo and the likes.

Hi igs, Are you referring to WAA?


Basically what @Oren said, at times even the big hammer can only shatter what has been primed, i.e. with a tiny diamond tool.


The pre-conditioning can often not be separated from the main/final event.


Analogies are always limping in some way but one could say; what is a bomb without an ignitor, a rifle without a trigger etc. they belong together to do their respective job.


Insolation alone is not strong and not lasting long enough to melt an intact ice surface and WAA as well is not persistent enough but if the ice is primed in May or early June the Sun can do the 2nd third and GAC the rest.


I'm not confident that I'm able to explain this well enough hence in short, what Oren said.
Knowledge that does not increase every day will decrease every day !

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #56 on: June 02, 2020, 02:44:53 AM »
Hi igs,

Post 52 above is a link to a study conducted by a respected professor of meteorology at a major European university with at least ten co-authors, including from respected institutions in the US and UK. These professionals went to the Arctic with the express intent of measuring the impact of heat waves on ice and took instrumentation with them specifically designed to distinguish levels of radiation from warm air and solar.

Oren hasn't disputed the ability of WAA to cause substantial ice melt or indicated that preconditioning is a precursor to WAA induced melt (as it is with solar). He was only saying that at a minimum, WAA is helpful in triggering the preconditioning process which enhances the impact of solar.

If meteorology scientists are conducting field research which passes the peer review threshold for publication in well respected journals, we should probably just get out of the way and assume they know what they're talking about. Feel free to peruse the study and thanks for your interest and participation in this topic.


oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #57 on: June 02, 2020, 04:50:18 AM »
We are somewhat going round in circles here. Is WAA important? yes. Does it prove DHACSOO? No, IMHO. I can understand how DHACSOO would arise when the basis of the hypothesis was watching the 2019 melting season, and imagining the surviving ice to be away from energy sources. But a look at the ice distribution in 2016 may have given rise to a completely different hypothesis.
Would you care to comment on this image, and what might explain it? What the heck happened at the North Pole? Where did the energy come from, and what's to prevent from it showing up again? And why did the ESS not bow to its proximity to a heat-advecting continent?
Compare to bathymetry and see if fits the SOO part. I think enough years show the perceived correlation to be almost a coincidence (except on the Atlantic border) - 2007 in the shallow Laptev vs. the deep ice-free CAB, 2011 and 2016 in the shallow ESS, most years in the deep but ice-free Beaufort.

My own explanation is that the ice is very mobile, and the shape of its distribution at minimum depends on prevailing winds and currents, with most years following the typical transport pattern from Siberia to Ellesmere/Greenland.



For comparison, here are the same-date images for 2007, 2011, 2012 and 2019:









Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #58 on: June 02, 2020, 07:47:06 AM »
We are somewhat going round in circles here.Is WAA important? yes.

Yes, we are covering some ground repetitively. But at least we're off the main thread. If someone like igs comes in, I would like to be able to respond and point him in the right direction.

Does it prove DHACSOO? No, IMHO.

Some ideas have value even if they can not be proven. I have indicated several times that my goal is not to prove what will happen in the future. So some of the circular element seems to come from repeatedly raising proof as a standard of what is useful.

My goal is to present a logical case regarding the durability of the Arctic which contrasts with (and hopes to be more compelling than) the seemingly default linear assumption. Here, I am shadow boxing because there is no spokesperson for the linear assumption who has any burden of making a logical case that the linear assumption is true.

Compare to bathymetry and see if fits the SOO part. I think enough years show the perceived correlation to be almost a coincidence (except on the Atlantic border) - 2007 in the shallow Laptev vs. the deep ice-free CAB, 2011 and 2016 in the shallow ESS, most years in the deep but ice-free Beaufort.

The recognition of the relatively consistent boundary on the Atlantic side is a good development here IMO. SOO was developed mostly with this boundary and the CAA in mind.

This recognition would seem to favor an approach that says early season results in the Kara and Barents are less relevant than other areas of the "High Arctic" because they are not likely to portend much difference in the final outcome.

It would of course be important to try and iterate to an understanding of the factors enabling the incremental progress in certain years where the deep water boundary has been crossed on the Siberian side and both the land / depth boundary in Beaufort.

Would you care to comment on this image, and what might explain it? What the heck happened at the North Pole? Where did the energy come from, and what's to prevent from it showing up again? And why did the ESS not bow to its proximity to a heat-advecting continent?

Here the nuance of the argument is a little more subtle. We acknowledge that there will be significant variation in the weather in both directions. I try to make a distinction in characterizing future variations in the total ice outcome into two categories.

1. Chronic progression of AGW
2. Unpredictable seasonal variation

'07, '12 and '16 are examples of unpredictable seasonable variation. There is no consistency in the pattern of their progression. I am trying to make the case that getting to a near term BOE is completely dependent upon unpredictable variation.

My own explanation is that the ice is very mobile, and the shape of its distribution at minimum depends on prevailing winds and currents, with most years following the typical transport pattern from Siberia to Ellesmere/Greenland.

I will certainly pay closer attention to these attributes in 2020 and hope you will point out evidence that aims to demonstrate that connection. A big part of the benefit of a hypothesis is that it challenges us to learn and iterate to a better and better understanding.

I think the practical value of this inquiry might be encapsulated in the following hypothetical conversation.

Imagine a 32 year old woman is trying to make a decision about whether or not to have a child. She has a limited window of time to make a decision and is concerned about the prospects of civilization collapse. As part of her investigation she is intelligently investigating climate change and her inquiry includes the following two questions.

1) Is there a chance that we could experience a BOE and not have collateral consequences which make collapse likely? In other words, can we survive a BOE? (Here, I might direct this young woman to follow the work of someone like Jennifer Francis and see where that leads.)

2) The second question would be regarding the likelihood and timing of a potential BOE. Here we don't have voices of equivalent standing to someone like Dr. Francis because there is so much uncertainty.

This hypothetical scenario is reflective of a genuine concern that young people have and i have many connections to people approaching this age in the coming 5-10 years. The way we talk about the future of the ice should bear in mind the decisions that these people will need to make.

i imagine myself presenting the counter argument to anyone telling these young people that a BOE is likely in the near future. i wouldn't dare tell them that BOE isn't possible and I would definitely show them the results from previous decades. I would simply tell them that there isn't a scientific case supporting the likelihood of the trend continuing. I would emphasize the differences between the remaining ice and the already conquered ice as best I could. I would tell them that there is still some possibility that BOE and collapse could be avoided. In the absence of certainty, I would guide them toward hope.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2183
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1181
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #59 on: June 02, 2020, 05:51:33 PM »
i imagine myself presenting the counter argument to anyone telling these young people that a BOE is likely in the near future. i wouldn't dare tell them that BOE isn't possible and I would definitely show them the results from previous decades. I would simply tell them that there isn't a scientific case supporting the likelihood of the trend continuing. I would emphasize the differences between the remaining ice and the already conquered ice as best I could. I would tell them that there is still some possibility that BOE and collapse could be avoided. In the absence of certainty, I would guide them toward hope.

This is some long term movie of arctic ice not the NASA one i wanted but it shows the same.



http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png

You want this to stop because of some theory but it probably wont.

The ice is thinning because it is now melting in areas where it used to grow.

Every year has more risks as we move up the baseline with more CO2 and assorted gasses while all kinds of feedbacks are also kicking in. Arctic permafrost is source now not a sink.

It can float anywhere, early storms in the wrong basin can mix water layers bringing up heat from the deep.

Good luck on making up a good case on the trend not continuing. Or it getting worse because at some point it is not gong to be linear.

Also...there is more then BOE. The soil degredation , the hydrology (losing ice caps which feed river systems), persistent chemical pollution. Locked in CO2 damage in the oceans. Would you like to guestimate how much SLR we already locked into at current CO2 levels. Etc.

Will you tell them about that too or does that interfere with hope?

Also the kids will want to have kids and they want to have kids and it would be great if they could be born into a world that is not broken.



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.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #60 on: June 02, 2020, 08:07:24 PM »
Thanks for the video and your reply Kassy.

In terms of how much to tell a person, I would try to follow the buddhist principle of Right Speech. If telling someone something will increase their suffering, then we should not tell them. In the case of a 32 year old woman considering having a child, we must tell the full truth because we need to also consider the experience of the child over their lifetime.

For a small child or someone who is beyond the years of having children, then we might consider witholding some of the truth according to our judgement of whether it will benefit them.

In terms of presenting a projection of the sea ice outlook, I would show all the data including the last seven years with no new record in volume. The video is a good one, but someone looking at that would not get the impression that volume has flat lined since 2012. I would tell them that I couldn't rule out the possibility of a coordinated international push regarding clean energy and innovation in carbon capture preventing a BOE altogether (however low I might personally feel about those chances).

To simplify, the possible outcomes with respect to salvage are binary and so is the paradigm regarding effort. It is either possible or impossible to meaningfully salvage long term human existence and we either will or will not make an effort to pursue salvage. This is a matrix with four buckets and the one really bad one seems to be the one where salvage is possible and we don't make the effort. So, I think extra care must be taken that we don't take a position that discourages effort even if the probability of success is on the low side (as I believe it is).

There is a fine line in the whole climate messenging business to try and find the sweet spot. That place where you invoke the appropriate fear in order to motivate people to action, but don't overwhelm them into paralysis or giving up. It's not easy and most of us face this struggle internally and many have an impulse to block it out. I am choosing to not block this out. I want to lean into awareness of the experience.


igs

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 201
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 70
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #61 on: June 02, 2020, 09:45:12 PM »
Hi igs,

Oren hasn't disputed the ability of WAA to cause substantial ice melt or indicated that preconditioning is a precursor to WAA induced melt (as it is with solar). He was only saying that at a minimum, WAA is helpful in triggering the preconditioning process which enhances the impact of solar.


Neither did I on the contrary!!


1) I'm of the exact same opinion


2) I said: "What Oren said" so if he didn't dispute neiter do I


So I'm not really getting what the point or the question and the reply are all about.


What you reply is almost to the "T" what I said in other words but some posts before I've been reading other opinions but that were not mine.


However, in case it's still not clear I appologize for whatever went wrong. Even though I'm not really used to be misunderstood, apperently there was reason for it.
Knowledge that does not increase every day will decrease every day !

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #62 on: June 02, 2020, 11:04:25 PM »
Its not linear. I dont consider myself knowledgeable enough to put forward an argument as to why, but I will argue that its not linear
Check out our home-grown ASIF MOSAiC website @ www.mosaic-ice.com:8501

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #63 on: June 02, 2020, 11:37:09 PM »
Quote
volume has flat lined since 2012.
Min volume may have, of course it could be temporary . In any case this is an insufficient measure. Check May volume. Check 365-day moving average.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #64 on: June 03, 2020, 01:30:39 AM »
Quote
volume has flat lined since 2012.
Min volume may have, of course it could be temporary . In any case this is an insufficient measure. Check May volume. Check 365-day moving average.

Summer and winter are completely different animals. I could more easily get on board something approaching a linear trend at the max. The constraint on winter expansion of ice is dominated by AGW and temperature. Simple in comparison to the variables associated with summer contraction.

But look at gerontocrat's extent chart today which compares remaining loss from june 1 to the minimum.

The range from 2013-2019 is 6.36 to 6.81M km2.
The range for 2007-2011    is 6.50 to 7.37M km2 (3/5 years over the top of the last seven years range)

So while I acknowledge winter max may be on a linear decline, we see some evidence that the melting season loss may be shrinking as we hit a core which is more difficult to crack. We can simultaneously have a linear trend at the max and not at the min.


jens

  • New ice
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 39
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #65 on: June 03, 2020, 12:14:11 PM »
It is certainly interesting that ever since 2007 the trend has kind of slowed down and nothing has come close to 2012 so far. So at least from what we know from past experiences, it seems like there has indeed been a "more durable Arctic" than the one that was disappearing more rapidly in the 80's, 90's and well until 2007 at least.

It is probably the matter of tipping points. The next one hasn't been crossed yet, and it takes longer to reach it. It's cold enough in CAB throughout the year that it would take a lot of warming to melt it out. However, I'd wager a guess the next tipping point can't be far away any more. And we pretty much are guaranteed to reach it during the 2020's. Even if not in the beginning of the decade, yet.

kassy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2183
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1181
  • Likes Given: 894
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #66 on: June 03, 2020, 04:10:34 PM »
There is no way to know when we get our next ´2012´or ´2016´. You can´t really look at the outlier in the historical record and then say things slowed down because the long term volume graph just does not show that.

And ice floats.
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.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #67 on: June 03, 2020, 06:13:27 PM »
There is no way to know when we get our next ´2012´or ´2016´. You can´t really look at the outlier in the historical record and then say things slowed down because the long term volume graph just does not show that.

And ice floats.

2012 was really not such a huge outlier in terms of volume. 2010 was a big drop and 2011 was not too much different than 2012 in volume.

From 1979 to 2011 volume went from 17k km3 to 4k km3. 8 years later we are still at the 4k km3 level and this year is not in a good position to break a new record either. From 2002-2012, the record was broken more years than not. Now we have seven years with no record.

If that is not evidence of things slowing down, what would be the criteria to demonstrate that things are slowing down? This is no parallel flat period in the 40 year volume history.

SimonF92

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 91
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #68 on: June 03, 2020, 08:58:20 PM »
It is certainly interesting that ever since 2007 the trend has kind of slowed down and nothing has come close to 2012 so far. So at least from what we know from past experiences, it seems like there has indeed been a "more durable Arctic" than the one that was disappearing more rapidly in the 80's, 90's and well until 2007 at least.

It is probably the matter of tipping points. The next one hasn't been crossed yet, and it takes longer to reach it. It's cold enough in CAB throughout the year that it would take a lot of warming to melt it out. However, I'd wager a guess the next tipping point can't be far away any more. And we pretty much are guaranteed to reach it during the 2020's. Even if not in the beginning of the decade, yet.

I agree, i actually think we are at that tipping point now. The Siberian side is in big trouble and was preconditioned last year for a rapid volume drop. Increasingly poor buffering from the Kara and a lot of continental heat advection from snowless tundra means its going to vanish this year very early- and as a result the CAB proper is going to get hit hard.

ESS/Laptev is the new canary. I wouldnt be surprised if we get a record low volume this year.
Check out our home-grown ASIF MOSAiC website @ www.mosaic-ice.com:8501

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #69 on: June 03, 2020, 09:35:50 PM »
2012 was really not such a huge outlier in terms of volume. 2010 was a big drop and 2011 was not too much different than 2012 in volume.

From 1979 to 2011 volume went from 17k km3 to 4k km3. 8 years later we are still at the 4k km3 level and this year is not in a good position to break a new record either. From 2002-2012, the record was broken more years than not. Now we have seven years with no record.

If that is not evidence of things slowing down, what would be the criteria to demonstrate that things are slowing down? This is no parallel flat period in the 40 year volume history.
Maybe there is a slowdown of sorts, but Chris Reynolds and his Slow Transition predicted it very well already in 2013, while I think DHACSOO does not explain the slowdown well - even though it has more data at its disposal.
Once MYI has been turned mostly to FYI, it is much harder to continue to drop volume at the same rate. However, the 2016-2017 freezing season showed it was not that difficult after all. Had the 2017 melting season not been mediocre, a new volume record would have been made easily.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #70 on: June 04, 2020, 04:18:47 AM »
I feel pretty good that this has been a worthwhile conversation and that there are some things most of us can agree on.

1) There has been a pause in the progression of sea ice volume decline in the neighborhood of 4k km3.

2) There is a pattern of some consistency in the results on the Atlantic side in the 82-83N range which is parallel to the drop off from the shallow Atlantic shelves into the Nansen Basin. There is greater variability in the result on the Pacific and Siberian sides as it pertains to bathymetry.

3) WAA from land is an important factor in ice melt. Both as a facilitator of preconditioning and as a standalone source of melting energy. As WAA attenuates over distance, it is a lesser factor in the Arctic interior than in the regions adjacent to Siberia and NA.


oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #71 on: June 04, 2020, 04:46:02 AM »
Let's agree to agree, as long as statement 1 is specified as September/minimum volume, and as long as it is acknowledged the slowdown is too short to constitute a certain trend.


PIOMAS volume at certain dates of each year. Some see a slowdown, I still see a trend - occurrence of lower results grows, occurrence of higher results diminishes, with high inter-annual variability. To each his/her own.

Rod

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #72 on: June 04, 2020, 05:49:39 AM »
Phoenix, I enjoy your enthusiasm about trying to study the ice.

I don’t agree with everything you say,  but I might be wrong and I appreciate your attempts to bring science into the discussion! 

It is important to note that in the energy thread the know it all guy is absolutely wrong. Conduction only applies to solids. Convection is how energy moves between fluids like water and air.

That guy is making shit up.

Please keep proposing your theories and backing them up with peer review papers. 

The 2015 paper was a good one.  This one is too:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0216.1?mobileUi=0


Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #73 on: June 04, 2020, 09:07:22 AM »
Phoenix, I enjoy your enthusiasm about trying to study the ice.

I don’t agree with everything you say,  but I might be wrong and I appreciate your attempts to bring science into the discussion! 

(snip)

The 2015 paper was a good one.  This one is too:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0216.1?mobileUi=0

Thanks for the supportive note Rod.

If you find some parts of the hypothesis questionable, please feel free to articulate them. We learn via participation and kicking the tires. The goal is not for me to be proven right, but to iterate to the best understanding that we can.

Let's pivot away from negative characterizations of the people in the discussion. Some strident criticism and competitive juices help motivate us to dig deeper in pursuit of the truth.

The research paper you share is based upon the same field study which led to the paper I shared earlier and provides additional corroboration and WAA math. I will post it to the Arctic energy thread. Thanks for finding it and bringing it up.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #74 on: June 04, 2020, 09:39:05 AM »
Let's agree to agree, as long as statement 1 is specified as September/minimum volume, and as long as it is acknowledged the slowdown is too short to constitute a certain trend.


PIOMAS volume at certain dates of each year. Some see a slowdown, I still see a trend - occurrence of lower results grows, occurrence of higher results diminishes, with high inter-annual variability. To each his/her own.

Hooray for any level of agreement we can find :). I don't necessarily think there is a minimum boundary for a trend. There is a simply a longer trend from 1980-2010 and a shorter trend from 2010 until today.

The data you provide in the graph seems to indicate that the flattening of the curve from 2010 onward is also present at the mid season points presented. Not just at the minimum. Draw a line from the 2010 result to the 2019 result in any of those five mid season points and you come away with a relatively flat line.

So I'm good with the agreement, but don't necessarily accept the proposed caveats.

If the last 4k km3 of ice is indeed analagous to Federer and Nadal and a tougher nut to crack, the change in the slope of the line s/b expected.

But let me also be clear that I see Djokovic as the analog for AGW. He does ultimately surpass them
and AGW is clearly on a trajectory to wipe out the ice. The debate is simply about the slope of the downward trajectory.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #75 on: June 04, 2020, 11:38:32 AM »
I share a new observation (for me) which I believe enhances the case for a more durable Arctic and improves the predictive insight into a particular season's outcome.

One of the things that has previously caught my eye is the relative lack of variability in the DMI 80N temperature range during the period of the year when that average temperature is above zero. The DMI 80N data goes back to 1958. While Oren has provided some useful critique of the DMI measure, that critique doesn't take away from the fact there is genuine year to year stability in the surface temperature above this largely ice covered region. The ice is an effective modulator of the surface temperature.

While AGW has raged around the globe and caused accelerated temperature increases around the Arctic at large, it hasn't really budged the surface temps N of 80N from mid-June to early July. Arctic amplification probably occurs in all of the other times and places around the Arctic, but here the ice protects itself.

The new observation comes from the historical CAB volume chart. The chart reveals a similar stability in CAB volume losses from mid-June to end of July. We don't see examples of years zooming ahead relative to others in this period.

The inference (unproven at this point) is that the surface temp is largely governing the rate of CAB volume loss during this interval. If other factors such as ice movement were both variant AND material to the outcome in the CAB during this period, then surely we would see more evidence of this in the form of measurable fluctuations.

Currently, 2020 is in 8th place for date relevant CAB volume and will likely remain close to 8th place on August 1. The opportunity for annual differential performance is before and after the mid-June to end of July interval. 2012 was an example an exceptional late season performer.

A season which is likely to be a distant ~ 8th in CAB volume on 8/1 should not be considered a likely candidate to approach a new record. Despite the impressive Mid-May melting forces, my estimation is that 2020 is set up to be a recovery year for the ice due to the relatively strong winter gains in the CAB.

Obviously, the CAB is critical to the BOE outlook because this is where the overwhelming majority of ice is located at the minimum. 

Previously, we have proposed distance from continents and bathymetry as constraints to AGW defeating the Arctic core. To that, I propose adding the limited time interval for variable performance N of 80N as a limiting factor. AGW doesn't seem to be accelerating ice loss in this time interval and place. The differential performance N of 80N is largely coming from August through May.


















The new observation can be seen in the historical CAB volume charts

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #76 on: June 04, 2020, 02:53:59 PM »
Quote
One of the things that has previously caught my eye is the relative lack of variability in the DMI 80N temperature range during the period of the year when that average temperature is above zero. The DMI 80N data goes back to 1958... there is genuine year to year stability in the surface temperature above this largely ice covered region. The ice is an effective modulator of the surface temperature.
Indeed, temperatures are stable because the ice soaks up any excess energy as long as it exists in mass, pinning the air to somewhere between -1.8o and 0o. Thus stable summer DMI temperatures are not a sign of anything, except that a BOE has not happened yet.

Quote
The inference (unproven at this point) is that the surface temp is largely governing the rate of CAB volume loss during this interval. If other factors such as ice movement were both variant AND material to the outcome in the CAB during this period, then surely we would see more evidence of this in the form of measurable fluctuations.
Ice movements affect the CAB less than they affect other regions, because in June and July the CAB is surrounded on all sides by ice, except for the FJL-Svalbard-Fram line. So when ice exits on one side, typically ice enters on the other side. There is still an effect but it is a second-order one, not necessarily very visible.

Thus I think this new inference is not physically true and largely irrelevant.
I will agree that CAB volume loss rate seems to be quite stable during this period (though 2014 says otherwise), so 2020 will have a very hard time catching up with the leaders, at least until expected losses in adjacent seas (ESS, Laptev) reach the border of the CAB.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #77 on: June 04, 2020, 03:25:25 PM »

Ice movements affect the CAB less than they affect other regions, because in June and July the CAB is surrounded on all sides by ice, except for the FJL-Svalbard-Fram line. So when ice exits on one side, typically ice enters on the other side. There is still an effect but it is a second-order one, not necessarily very visible.

I think Fram export is mostly coming from the CAB? If we suggest turbocharged Fram export as a potential mechanism to contribute to a BOE, then might we expect to see some evidence of the materiality of Fram export in variable CAB volume losses?

The limited variability in CAB volume loss during the peak season is a very interesting detail for me. The 2014 outlier is on the down side.I assume an unusually cold or cloudy summer? No outliers on the upside noted.

If you have some insight as to WHY this interval of low variation exists, please share.



Rod

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 419
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 291
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #78 on: June 05, 2020, 04:22:10 AM »
I was rude last night in my post.  I used inflammatory language that should not be used in a scientific discussion.  I’m sorry.  I live in USA and everyone is on edge right now.

Back to topic. Phoenix, pay attention to how the WAA generates fog. That then seems to change the energy balance for the IR radiation.

Again, convection is the physics that matters.  Conduction is completely irrelevant. 

I don’t agree with your theory, but I like to see discussion that parses out the intricate details of melting. 

Those discussions are why I can’t stop watching this site. 

Good job on trying to delve into the science!

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #79 on: June 05, 2020, 09:02:19 AM »
I was rude last night in my post.  I used inflammatory language that should not be used in a scientific discussion.  I’m sorry.  I live in USA and everyone is on edge right now.

Back to topic. Phoenix, pay attention to how the WAA generates fog. That then seems to change the energy balance for the IR radiation.

Again, convection is the physics that matters.  Conduction is completely irrelevant. 

I don’t agree with your theory, but I like to see discussion that parses out the intricate details of melting. 

Those discussions are why I can’t stop watching this site. 

Good job on trying to delve into the science!

Rod, thanks for your comments and self regulation. Yes, these are indeed stressful times. A gentle reminder that I am not representing anything close to a scientific theory here. The first post in the thread takes care to articulate the definition of hypothesis and where it falls in the process of the scientific method. In order to nudge the overall conversation in a more scientific direction, its good to adopt the scientific terminology in situations where it makes a difference.

I don't want to duplicate the Arctic Energy thread here. I would like to keep this thread discussion at a level which is more accessible to the layperson and let the people who want to talk about things like convection vs. conduction deal with that in more detailed threads. We don't have a unanimous agreement on WAA being important, but I am satisfied that there is a consensus around the topic and think we can let it go.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2020, 02:44:17 PM by Phoenix »

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #80 on: June 05, 2020, 02:47:57 PM »
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/11/arctic-rapidly-gaining-winter-ice/

Research suggests that bathymetry plays an important role in Arctic sea ice formation and extent by controlling the distribution and mixing of warm and cold waters. At its seasonal minimum extent, the ice edge mainly corresponds to the deep-water/shallow-water boundary (approximately 500-meter depth), suggesting that the ocean floor exerts a dominant control on the ice edge position. However, in some cases, ice survives in the shallower continental shelf regions due to water circulation patterns. For example, the shelf area of the East Greenland Sea is almost always covered with sea ice because the southward-flowing cold Arctic surface water helps to limit melt.

I guess I wasn't the first one to come up with this observation.

pleun

  • New ice
  • Posts: 59
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 29
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #81 on: June 07, 2020, 11:51:13 AM »
Phoenix, I have a hypothetical question for you :
What would happen if we were to start the melting season in March with no peripheral sea ice, just the Cab volume.
In your opinion, what would the outcome be in September?

oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #82 on: June 07, 2020, 11:55:13 AM »
I have moved Phorenix's post to the "PIOMAS 2020 September Prediction" thread he started recently.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3117.0.html

pleun feel free to continue the discussion there. Your hypothetical question is excellent, and I think that thread's title is better for answering it.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #83 on: June 07, 2020, 12:41:14 PM »
Phoenix, I have a hypothetical question for you :
What would happen if we were to start the melting season in March with no peripheral sea ice, just the Cab volume.
In your opinion, what would the outcome be in September?

I think we should begin by noting that "melting season" as defined by the agencies or ASIF conforms to the 2D paradigm of ice. The 2D and 3D max do not arrive simultaneously and the core of the Arctic is still gaining volume in Mid-March.

The next question involves whether this hypothetical ice configuration takes place with all other variables being similar to 2020 or are we describing the future where AGW has advanced to arrive at this scenario organically and ocean / surface temperatures are at a much higher baseline than today ?

Your hypothetical scenario is not so hypothetical. It's where we are heading. This thread aims to present the case that the trajectory to your scenario is slower than the linear assumption.

Since your question is off-topic on this thread and I don't want to dilute the message here with a tangential conversation, I would invite you to find a more suitable thread or open a new one.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #84 on: June 22, 2020, 08:56:50 AM »
Just posting a link to a study which helps quantify Atlantic export range.

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

Important takeaways.

880,000 km2 annually
Figure 4 provides seasonal variation (low average export in summer)
Covers Fram only, not Barents

My basic math indicates that 150 km3 as a reasonable estimate for average summer export.

At the moment, I'm left with the question as to why summer export is lower ???

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #85 on: July 17, 2020, 04:56:32 PM »
Been a while since I've posted here and a lot has happened.

First, let's refresh and say that DHACSOO is a hypothesis which revolves around the idea that the remaining ice (~final 4k km3)  is incrementally more resilient than the ice that was conquered from 1979-2011.

It is NEVER suggested that the final 4k km3 is impenetrable. The analogy of Djokovic to AGW is used here many times to reinforce the idea that if humans don't change something fundamental, AGW is on a trajectory to wipe out the ice. The point is all about the RATE of progression.

We have reached the DACHSOO boundary above the dropoff to the Nansen on the Atlantic side two months before the end of the melt season.

This boundary was envisioned to be protected against WAA by distance from land. It has also been protected from the incoming West Spitsbergen current which cools off when it reaches north of Svalbard. It is also been relatively protected historically by typically low summer export through Fram.

This boundary is NOT protected by unlimited high pressure compaction as we are witnessing in July 2020. This year is demonstrating a route by which the boundary can be overcome.

The balance of the season will be a good test for this boundary against all of the other elements if the high pressure subsides. If the high stays away, there is some chance that this boundary will remain relatively static for the final two months of the melting season.


oren

  • Moderator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 5822
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1969
  • Likes Given: 1728
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #86 on: July 17, 2020, 07:52:21 PM »
I think we've also seen, if we examine the evidence, that:
* Lots of heat advection can and did happen through the CAA, showing that under the right atmospheric conditions the CAA is a land mass. Alert and Eureka have reached 20C, and the CAA heat was on almost continuously.
* Reversed transport exposing the CAA-Greenland mega-crack, showing that the survival of thickest ice in that specific location is transport-dependent, not DHACSOO dependent.
* With a high pressure dome, heat is advected from above (high 850 hPa temps, sinking air warming), thus distance from continents and shallow ocean not protecting the ice.
* The main feeder of energy into the Arctic in June and especially July is insolation, as strong or stronger at 90N around the solstice as it is in 60N.

I'll not argue these points further, just advise you to keep an open mind, and learn from the highly knowledgeable people on this forum whose experience of past melting seasons and understanding of atmospheric and oceanic processes is far greater than yours or mine.

Phoenix

  • Guest
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #87 on: July 18, 2020, 12:59:46 AM »
I try to do my best to maintain an open mind. We are all prone to biases.

As I have said many times, DHACSOO is not represented as an impenetrable barrier or comprehensive vision. It is a contrast to the unsupported  suggestion of linear demise.

Regarding the CAA, yes there are a lot of small land masses which are advecting lesser amounts of heat than a large continent. It's difficult to quantify those impacts when there has also been big heat anomalies coming from continental portion of Nunavut province which are arguably much more influential.

There is a trade-off in making a concept compact and accessible to the most people and striving for the most granular understanding. I don't disagree with you here. Heat advection from smaller land masses and the edges of Greenland / Ellesmere is a growing factor. It could be a small factor.

The emerging crack phenomenon is noted. It is certainly possible to imagine this developing into a mechanism which changes the dynamic relating to transport out of the Arctic. At present, it doesn't seem highly influential to the annual minimum.

The phenomenon of heat and the high pressure dome is something I would like to understand better. Much to learn there.  I would also love to see a quantitative energy model which moves us from anecdotal understanding to quantitative understanding.

In second half of June, we saw record volume losses in the CAB before the presence of the GAAC. It appears possible that heating events accompanied by significant amounts of moisture can drive ice losses to a level beyond a dry sunny high pressure system.

For some the way to learn is to passively wait for information from on high, for others knowledge is pursued by continually asking questions and questioning assumptions. I knew absolutely nothing about the Arctic 18 months ago and I'm learning through inquisitiveness and searching for explanatory math. You have been quite helpful in that regard.




ajouis

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #88 on: July 18, 2020, 02:39:42 PM »
Here is quantitative proof of the effect of insolation instead of warming, seems largely enough to me to explain melt with open ocean and insolation, not continental waa
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0%2C5&cites=15249873421211437254&scipsc=&q=arctic+weather+melt&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DNuuFIcY9ME8J
After a thousand steps on the ice, it cracked.
The Man looked down at the infinite blue of the sea.
On the horizon, standing still, the polar bear had just scented his next meal.

 Less than 3000 cubic kilometers this Piomas minimum.

The Walrus

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 516
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 80
  • Likes Given: 23
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #89 on: July 18, 2020, 03:42:51 PM »
For the record, let me say that Phoenix’s hypotheses is plausible, and is support by recent data.  While the declining trend over the past decades supports this hypothesis, it does not necessarily lend any proof thereof.  It may simply be coincidence.  I applaud Phoenix for putting forth a readily verifiable (or refutable) hypothesis regarding future ice melt.  The coming years should determine its validity.

ajouis

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 141
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 47
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« Reply #90 on: July 18, 2020, 04:16:19 PM »
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014JD022608#jgrd52033-fig-0006
High melt months are linked to higher pressure, increased sea of Okhotsk cloud cover in the later part of the melt season, very weakly with increased surface temperatures who trend towards 0, less clouds overall but an increase at the ice edge in august, reduced precipitations overall but higher in the sea of Okhotsk, less arctic cyclones except northern Alaska and northeastern Siberia, also a southward jet shift in the N. Atlantic and increased sea ice export.
I really enjoin everyone to read it, it’s very informative. Obviously correlation isn’t causation, but that punches a hole in the waa necessity, trending instead to more general high pressure. It also talks about a pacific ocean waa, so it doesn’t have to be connected to continents.
« Last Edit: July 18, 2020, 04:34:22 PM by ajouis »
After a thousand steps on the ice, it cracked.
The Man looked down at the infinite blue of the sea.
On the horizon, standing still, the polar bear had just scented his next meal.

 Less than 3000 cubic kilometers this Piomas minimum.