Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: The 2014 Melting Season  (Read 1413342 times)

Metamemesis

  • New ice
  • Posts: 38
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2700 on: August 02, 2014, 06:53:44 PM »
And methane IS cleaner. When you burn it, you get CO2 and water vapor. You get less CO2 than burning gasoline, and you don't get all the other pollutants that gasoline produces.

Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it better than what we have now? Yes.


Whilst the burning of methane may be technically cleaner than burning of coal or oil, when you factor in incidental releases of methane during the extraction process, fracking-based methane is almost certainly not cleaner. Provided incidental methane releases from extraction are less than 3%, it remains cleaner. But there is mounting evidence to suggest that incidental release may be closer to 17%.

There's an interesting summary here: http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/10/14/flaws-university-texas-methane-study-draw-criticism-scientists
And a summary of the study by Jeff Peischl, an associate scientist at NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, which appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, can be found here: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-case-of-californias-extra-machine/

Slightly OT, but given the large shift in US gas production towards fracking, and similar moves here in the UK and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, this is an AGW aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating step as has been sold to us. Since methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period, this has profound short- to mid-term implications for, well, everything we're discussing on this forum. In particular, this means that we are probably accelerating, rather than delaying, an ice-free Arctic during the summer season.

zworld

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2701 on: August 02, 2014, 07:25:57 PM »

Slightly OT, but given the large shift in US gas production towards fracking, and similar moves here in the UK and elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere, this is an AGW aggravating factor, rather than a mitigating step as has been sold to us. Since methane is 86 times more powerful than CO2 over a 20-year period, this has profound short- to mid-term implications for, well, everything we're discussing on this forum. In particular, this means that we are probably accelerating, rather than delaying, an ice-free Arctic during the summer season.

That has been my concern for some time. The problem is that we have never added fugitive methane emissions to the global register, and it indeed looks like leakage rates from drilling, storage and transporting natural gas is in the 10% to 20% range, and not the 2% to 3% needed to make methane an alternative fuel.

If it is indeed in the upper range as you say of 17%, then natural gas is much worse than coal as far as GHGs go, and we are committing harakiri.

As far as amounts in the Arctic go, the latest Shakhova interview seems to say that dissociation is still on the increase. When you add this to that which is coming from land, things look dangerous indeed.

Another question for youze guys. When we talk about permafrost on land, isn't a portion of this in hydrate form. If it is, could the big cavities that are popping up (no pun intended) in Siberia be the result of warming that is going deep enough to melt these hydrates, which in turn builds up pressure until......boom. Not an explosion, just a pressure release.

jdallen

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3182
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 394
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2702 on: August 02, 2014, 08:01:05 PM »
I agree with that.  But, as you see from Geoff's post, even the climate scientists who write articles on the "Worst case" of Methane release have simply not thought about what it would mean, purely locally, for a large scale release.

In fact the RC article I linked talked about 100 times background being a "worst case" and yet we see from Oden that we are already getting up to 50 times background.  OK he talked about 100 times for 100 years.  But only for the lakes.  So if we get 20 from the lakes and 80 from the clathrates, what then?

If it then doubles, or triples?  What then?  Nobody knows because nobody has seen how it destabilises in the current environment.

Part of what is going on here is a conversation that has occurred frequently in the history of science, and described as a conflict of paradigms - Uniformitarianism vs Catastrophism.

During the emergence of Geology as a clearly separate natural science in the 18th century, this first played out as a conflict between theologically driven presumptions of time frame (universe built in 7 days, the world only ~8000 years old), and the calculations of James Hutton, who by studying sedimentation rates in Scottish watersheds made the astonishing assertion the world may be 100's of millions of years old.

We now live in an age where Uniformitarianism is the dominant paradigm, but not rigidly so.  Some events - like early 20th century Geologists J Harlan Bretz describing massive glacial outbreak flood events such as created the terranes in the Pacific Northwest - have challenged how we think about events and timeframes again.

We are moving into a more balanced Paradigm; one that is more dynamic and accepts that data may take us to unusual conclusions, which are driven by greater understanding of chaos and probability in systems.

So, actually, I think I can disagree with one assertion you make here - that science hasn't been thinking about sudden changes in various GHG concentrations.  I'd say over the last decade or so its been rather obsessed with it.  That a "catastrophic" hypothesis for methane release hasn't emerged isn't the result of a systemic oversight on the part of science.  Rather, that catastrophic hypothesis hasn't emerged, because our understanding of systems and the data we are gathering doesn't support it.

Now, let's also put "catastrophic" in quotes here, because that perception is driven by time frame; in Uniformitarian, Geological terms, Everything going on with the Arctic and GHG is catastrophic.

Nobody is talking about "clathrate gun hypotheses" or runaway impacts.  What we are talking about is strictly short term, local, impacts to a system which is already under stress.  It does not need 1C extra warming or 2C extra warming to have a massive impact.  The system is already seeing >10C warming in winter and, roughly, >3C warming in summer.
Actually, without putting too fine a point on it, you just did previously in this comment; you are suggesting sudden catastrophic change to the system via localized releases of methane.

Breaking down your argument a bit here, looking at your citation of the climate changes across latitude, you over look a key factor.  Those thermal changes are the result of energy budget changes across the entire globe as a system, not localized changes in GHG concentration.

All we are postulating is the knock on impact, locally, of a local hot spot of warming, which may generate methane which will rapidly destabilise the ice under threat.

I'm sure that is not something we want to ignore by looking at decadal "global" patterns of methane emissions.
Let's start by putting that "hot spot" warming into perspective, as I think that might put the over all argument to rest with a thought experiment.

Relying on the specific articles and discussion you cited earlier, the most generous estimates of the forcing from Methane runs to about 5 watts/M2/Second; this is the current number, at our current levels of concentration.  Using this as our base, let's be similarly generous and presume a prompt local tripling of concentration of Methane to give us an additional 10 watts/M2/Second.

The first challenge applying this heat to the ice is the challenge of transport.  During the melt season far and away the driving force is insolation, applied indirectly via heating of sea and melt water, and directly via energy which bypasses albedo and gets picked up by the ice.

Conductive heating via transported energy, either from currents or overturn in the water column is the second most prominent force.

Transfer via direct atmospheric transfer is a distant third.

Most of the immediate impact of the Methane would be atmospheric, by way of heating the gas itself, and a significant portion of that would be in the mid to upper troposphere.  The fraction which would most directly affect ice (or surrounding water) would be re-radiation of that fraction of heat directed down towards it from the atmosphere.

Being generous again, and presuming all of that 10W/M2/S went the right way, the net prompt increase in heat applied to ice only increases the total energy budget by less than 2 percent (10W/M2/S of Methane forcing vs 400W/M2/S from sunlight).

Now, don't get me wrong, over annual scales, this would be a huge additional load on a system which already is approaching forcing limits.  However short term - days to weeks - which is the longest the time frame the effects on concentration a "prompt" release of methane would last, the impact would be trivial, amounting to only enough energy to melt a few CM of ice at most.

In fact, my thinking more and more is, that if we want to examine what the most significant impacts of GHG are on the arctic, we need to look at the refreeze rather than the melt.  By definition, GHG's are inhibiting the export of energy from the system, not applying more energy to it.  We put more blankets on the bed, less heat gets out of it.  QED, the increased energy budget in the system makes the release of heat (via crystallization) more difficult, reducing the rate at which the ice forms, and reducing the maximum thickness it can achieve without ridging.

So in summary, my conclusion is that while sudden release might be dramatic, even in the idealized conditions you are imagining, the prompt effect of massive methane release on ice would not be significant.
This space for Rent.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2703 on: August 02, 2014, 08:29:02 PM »
The 12z GFS is  nasty.

The 12z Euro is coming in nasty.

-99K area drop.

I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

NeilT

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1825
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 175
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2704 on: August 02, 2014, 08:42:51 PM »
So, actually, I think I can disagree with one assertion you make here - that science hasn't been thinking about sudden changes in various GHG concentrations.  I'd say over the last decade or so its been rather obsessed with it.

I think the timefrane for sudden is different for different people.  So whilst I think it sudden in 10-15 year timelines; the majority of the scientific community, I believe, is obsessed with the difference between thousands of years and hundreds of years.  Anyone who talks in decades, for rapid change, is on the very outside of the outside.  But I'll take your point.

Actually, without putting too fine a point on it, you just did previously in this comment; you are suggesting sudden catastrophic change to the system via localized releases of methane.

Not really.  I believe the sudden catastrophic change is already under way.  I was just wondering how much methane would push it over the edge and how much it would keep it there.


So in summary, my conclusion is that while sudden release might be dramatic, even in the idealized conditions you are imagining, the prompt effect of massive methane release on ice would not be significant.

That, with your reasoning, is really all I wanted to know.  I don't think it totally covers what Geoff said, but then I'm not really up for in depth maths.  I take what you are saying about winter.  Where a massive change is already in progress.  But it would tend to be mitigated by the cooling of the sea post summer and global air mixing.  I assume.
Being right too soon is socially unacceptable.

Robert A. Heinlein

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2705 on: August 02, 2014, 08:50:18 PM »
The 12z Euro is epic. 

No other way to say it.
I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2706 on: August 02, 2014, 09:10:56 PM »
HOLY SHIT!



I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2707 on: August 02, 2014, 09:27:16 PM »
Quote from: Frivolousz21
The 12z Euro is epic. 

No other way to say it.
Quote from: Frivolousz21
HOLY SHIT!
Looks like you found another way to say it.  ;)
This week should be interesting.
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2708 on: August 02, 2014, 09:46:39 PM »
Methane?

We have AIRS retrievals of methane (IIRC in gridded format). We have Cryosat 2 thickness (surely this is gridded somewhere?) and NSIDC gridded extent. Those of you that think there is a local effect should perhaps demonstrate it rather than asserting/guessing.

For what it's worth I don't think it's a major issue compared to variability in winter cloud cover and type, also temperate air intrusions from outside the Arctic.

Here's a model: Modtran, at David Archer's website.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/

400ppm CO2
1.7ppm CH4
Trop Ozone 28ppb, Strat Ozone Scale 1, WV Scale 1,
SubArctic Winter - no Arctic winter option
No clouds or rain - to keep it simple.

Try looking down from 20km.
1.7ppm CH4, 197.6W/m^2, 257.2K gnd temp
3.4ppm CH4, 197.223W/m^2, 257.2K gnd temp
A small decrease in outgoing longwave.

EDIT - forgot to add, using above settings and CH4 = 1.7ppm, but selecting Cumulus Cloud Base .66km top 2.7km.
187.521W/m^2, with clouds a much greater decrease in outward longwave from clear sky than for doubling CH4 under clear sky.

Trying mid latitude summer.
current
Upward IR Heat Flux   280.339   W/m2
Ground Temperature   294.2   K

doubled CH4
Upward IR Heat Flux   279.523   W/m2
Ground Temperature   294.2   K

doubled CO2 (with CH4 at 1.7ppm)
Upward IR Heat Flux   278.549   W/m2
Ground Temperature   294.2   K

So a doubling of CO2 has more effect on outgoing infra-red than a doubling of CH4. But I'm puzzled as to why I cannot get surface temperature to change - I am no expert at using the model.

Anyway IPCC
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/pdf/tar-06.pdf
Radiative forcing equations on page 356, table 6.2, but the CH4 equation is a real pain to work out. Table 6.1 shows increases in RF from 1750 to 1998, which saves me the work to give a comparison set of figures. For the 249% increase of CH4 over that period its RF increased 0.48W/m^2. For the 130% increase of CO2 its RF increased 1.46W/m^2.

Note that's from the third assesment, RF numbers have changed in AR5, but IIRC that's mainly due to clouds and the general increase of GHGs since then, as far as I know the equations given there are still OK.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 09:59:58 PM by ChrisReynolds »

mdoliner

  • New ice
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2709 on: August 02, 2014, 11:01:37 PM »
Methane

As a lazy former mathematician who doesn't like numbers I usually feel that I am better off just lurking. However, I think that the appearance of a big picture guy every now and then does some good. So take what follows as you will.

I Am a firm believer in AGW and would call myself a catastrophist. That said, the only science I see in it is what shows that greenhouse gasses absorb infra-red radiation and then radiate it back in all directions. This fact convinces me that AGW is real.

Accepting AGW I also accept that the effect of the greenhouse gasses we have already released will only be fully felt some 30 years or so from now. So the earth will continue to get warmer like a pot of water on a slow burner.

Therefore, if there is a release of methane from clathrates as a result of water warming, the warming we have set off will continue after the effect of what we have already released is done. That in turn will cause more clathrate release and more warming.

This will only end when the clathrates that can be released “continuously” in this way are all released.

This sounds like runaway global warming to me.

zworld

  • New ice
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2710 on: August 02, 2014, 11:12:46 PM »
Methane?

We have AIRS retrievals of methane (IIRC in gridded format). We have Cryosat 2 thickness (surely this is gridded somewhere?) and NSIDC gridded extent. Those of you that think there is a local effect should perhaps demonstrate it rather than asserting/guessing.

That's the rub. It's kinda like trying to prove cigarettes caused lung cancer when the person worked in a plastic recycling plant. It can't really be done. And if there ever was a time when it could be done it would have been last summer when the plumes went from isolated to massive and yet we still saw the August melt not happen, and since fall of 2012 the ESS has been the quickest to recover ice during the freeze, followed by the Laptev, and Im assuming those are the areas that have been experiencing the most dissociation.

So no, ground truthing doesn't turn up a smoking gun here. But it's important I think to look at it all cumulatively with the thought that methane may be having a greater influence than we currently consider.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2711 on: August 03, 2014, 12:59:03 AM »
Quote from: Frivolousz21
The 12z Euro is epic. 

No other way to say it.
Quote from: Frivolousz21
HOLY SHIT!
Looks like you found another way to say it.  ;)
This week should be interesting.

We will see.  I have been burned a lot this summer.  But everything in the NPAC/NATL/CANADA/RUSSIA is in place for a mega-ridge.


I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2712 on: August 03, 2014, 02:01:33 AM »
Friv,

The very fact that the models seem so often wrong (not just this year) says something important, imho. Are these not the same models that are used to predict long-term outcomes? Perhaps this is normal in meteorological circles, but on the other hand consistent errors may point to something important, perhaps the invalidation of (a) key assumption(s)?

Regardless, I for one very much appreciate your updates on the forecasts, and especially your colourful presentation. No one (who matters to me) blames you that the models are often carp. After all, you didn't make them, you are just reporting them.

And I'm sure that I'm not alone in this, having been (and perhaps soon to be again) a long-time lurker. There are a ton of people who are vehemently interested in this topic, who are not as detached as some are (or at least pretend to be), and who are watching with keen interest. Keep up the good work!

Looking forward to your next post...
-- d

P.S. Not to blame the modellers. Do we honestly expect them to see into the future better than anyone else?

Edit: Not that it has anything to do with the post above (it doesn't), but having been chastised earlier today for making multiple consecutive posts, allow me to add:

It has been >10 C in Alert, Nunavut for almost 24 hours now, not to mention that it was nearly as warm yesterday, judging by Environment Canada reports. (Alert is on the far northern tip of the CAA (Ellesmere Island), next to the northern tip of Greenland.) Weather stations a bit to the south are reporting temps about 5 C cooler, which I don't understand and for which I have not seen any explanation. There is a lot of ice nearby (on land and off), so perhaps this is important? And I realize that insolation may be more important than air temps, but could the air temp be so high in such a place without sunshine? (Yesterday they recorded sunshine, but apparently even people stationed in the arctic get Saturdays off, as they aren't recording that information today.)

http://weather.gc.ca/forecast/trends_graph_e.html?ylt&unit=m

Edit 2: Also the wind is fairly strong (~30 km/h) and the relative humidity kinda low (~65%). Anyone have a clue why and what it means for the ice, if anything? Tx.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 02:32:35 AM by greatdying2 »
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 34
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2713 on: August 03, 2014, 02:47:32 AM »
The very fact that the models seem so often wrong (not just this year) says something important, imho. Are these not the same models that are used to predict long-term outcomes?
No.  They're weather models, not climate models.  As with pretty much any weather model anywhere in the world, you can't really believe much of what they say beyond ~5 days or so - as you'll be familiar with from your own local weather reports.  They're a bit worse for the Arctic than for temperate latitudes, but the central issue is that weather is _not_ predictable more than a few days in advance.  Chaos theory and all that.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2714 on: August 03, 2014, 02:56:14 AM »
Thanks greatdying2,

I am most excited because it appears we are going to get to see what August is capable of with a moderate or even good June and July.

The models have this already set in motion.  This is todays Euro ensemble mean.  It's by far the most nasty it has been this summer. 

The NPAC is aligned for major ridging in the basin for the foreseeable future






I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

Buddy

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
  • Go DUCKS!!
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 34
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2715 on: August 03, 2014, 04:34:40 AM »
Heat continues to ramp.  If I look at the 3rd graph from the top.....I can notice the changes just from yesterday.

The warm anomaly off the north-central coast of Russia continues to intensify......as well as the warm SST anomaly's from the Pacific and Atlantic that continue to push further into the Arctic Ocean...

http://climatechangegraphs.blogspot.com/2013/02/sea-surface-temperature-anomaly-weekly.html
FOX (RT) News....."The Trump Channel.....where truth and journalism are dead."

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2716 on: August 03, 2014, 05:31:32 AM »
The very fact that the models seem so often wrong (not just this year) says something important, imho. Are these not the same models that are used to predict long-term outcomes?
No.  They're weather models, not climate models.  As with pretty much any weather model anywhere in the world, you can't really believe much of what they say beyond ~5 days or so - as you'll be familiar with from your own local weather reports.  They're a bit worse for the Arctic than for temperate latitudes, but the central issue is that weather is _not_ predictable more than a few days in advance.  Chaos theory and all that.
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this so different from our inability to predict what will happen in say 20, 50, or 100 years?
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2717 on: August 03, 2014, 05:43:07 AM »
I am most excited because it appears we are going to get to see what August is capable of with a moderate or even good June and July.
Yeah. August surprise?
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Rick Aster

  • New ice
  • Posts: 71
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2718 on: August 03, 2014, 05:57:48 AM »
... the central issue is that weather is _not_ predictable more than a few days in advance....
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this so different from our inability to predict what will happen in say 20, 50, or 100 years?
At the risk of oversimplifying, weather is difficult because it is computationally hard to predict where the winds will blow on a particular day. For climate, you don’t care about that question, but to predict climate you have to speculate as to the effects of changes in the heat budget.

6roucho

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 296
  • Finance geek
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2719 on: August 03, 2014, 06:03:18 AM »
The very fact that the models seem so often wrong (not just this year) says something important, imho. Are these not the same models that are used to predict long-term outcomes?
No.  They're weather models, not climate models.  As with pretty much any weather model anywhere in the world, you can't really believe much of what they say beyond ~5 days or so - as you'll be familiar with from your own local weather reports.  They're a bit worse for the Arctic than for temperate latitudes, but the central issue is that weather is _not_ predictable more than a few days in advance.  Chaos theory and all that.
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this so different from our inability to predict what will happen in say 20, 50, or 100 years?

Weather models  predict the evolution of the atmosphere, given information about its initial state. (In predictability theory this is called predictability of the first kind.) This is primarily an initial value problem, and is mainly dependent on detailed observations. Climate models predict the evolution of the statistical properties of the climate system in response to changes in external forcings over time. (This is called predictability of the second kind.) It is essentially a boundary value problem, and is more dependent on the modeling of the factors influencing the system.

Glenn Tamblyn

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 128
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2720 on: August 03, 2014, 06:08:15 AM »
Just a follow on to NeilT's questions about methane. The statements about methane's greater 'potency' can be confusing.

There are around 220 CO2 molecules for every methane molecule in the atmosphere. And roughly speaking the GH effect contribution is logarithmic for each gas so it is a warming per doubling. So (again roughly) adding 1 methane molecule has the same impact as adding 220 CO2 molecules since it is the contribution to doubling for that species that matters.

In fact the warming impact of methane is still given as less than this multiple because methane absorbs in a part of the earth's long-wave spectrum where there is less energy available to work with - CO2 and H2O are active at the high point in the spectrum.

If CO2 and Methane were both at 400 ppm then adding a methane molecule would have less effect than adding a CO2 molecule because of where they work in the spectrum.



Bruce

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 132
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2721 on: August 03, 2014, 06:44:46 AM »
Forgive my ignorance, but why is this so different from our inability to predict what will happen in say 20, 50, or 100 years?
Others have answered, but a simple way to think about it: put a pot of water on a stove. It would be very hard to predict the specifics of the convection currents within the water even if you knew everything about the initial conditions and the heat input. But you could pretty easily calculate about how long it would take to boil.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2722 on: August 03, 2014, 06:52:45 AM »
The Euro has been running at 90% verification recently at day 5.

It's pretty likely this event is going to happen.

I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2723 on: August 03, 2014, 07:06:52 AM »
00z GFS:  The ESS gets the boot.

Nasty wind field.

I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

nowayout

  • New ice
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2724 on: August 03, 2014, 07:19:27 AM »
Quote
Weather models  predict the evolution of the atmosphere, given information about its initial state. (In predictability theory this is called predictability of the first kind.) This is primarily an initial value problem, and is mainly dependent on detailed observations. Climate models predict the evolution of the statistical properties of the climate system in response to changes in external forcings over time. (This is called predictability of the second kind.) It is essentially a boundary value problem, and is more dependent on the modeling of the factors influencing the system.

Quote
Others have answered, but a simple way to think about it: put a pot of water on a stove. It would be very hard to predict the specifics of the convection currents within the water even if you knew everything about the initial conditions and the heat input. But you could pretty easily calculate about how long it would take to boil.

First - don't put the example too far: the oceans won't start to boil from man made climate chance.

Second - on a geological time frame we are 'nuking the climate'. I'm quite convinced it may going to be catastrophic even on a smaller time frame. The ice cores show show 20 m sea level rise within 400 year - so faster than that.

I don't know anything about the climate models used, but how well do they behave when the boundaries of the boundary value problem are blown up (going from elliptic to hyperbolic)?

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2725 on: August 03, 2014, 07:27:47 AM »
I'm not convinced that weather models suffer only from a lack of knowledge of initial conditions and certainly not because we are approaching physical limits of predictability (chaos).

Has weather forecasting not improved over recent years and is it likely to continue to improve? If so, is that just because there are better measurements, or are the models themselves also improving? If models can be improved, then they must not yet be perfect. So then they must suffer from flaws, such as oversimplifications, false assumptions, overfitting, and just a basic lack of knowledge of all the important factors (not to mention such things as the limits of computational capacity and programming errors...).

Furthermore, does the skill of weather forecasting not vary, and do we understand why? Although I am barely a novice let alone an expert, based on comments on this board, it seems that the answer is no. For instance, and most relevant here, it seems that forecasting is particularly difficult over the Arctic and is becoming even more difficult there, at least if this year is any indication. Why might that be?

Pat answers about our flawless understanding of the weather or climate miss the chief point. Obviously the particular difficulties in modelling short vs. long-term climate processes are not identical. Some factors critical to the former may be utterly irrelevant to the latter and vice versa. But undercutting both is a gaping void in our knowledge of much of the complex underlying physics, especially about how changes and feedbacks may affect the system.

I hardly would have thought that the limits of modelling poorly understood systems ought to be controversial on a forum dedicated to Arctic sea ice... Anyways, that's how it seems to me.


The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2726 on: August 03, 2014, 07:31:14 AM »
The Euro has been running at 90% verification recently at day 5.

It's pretty likely this event is going to happen.


The image doesn't show for me, and when I put the URL in the browser I get an "Access forbidden" error. Any chance you could attach it instead, especially if it's juicy? :)
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2727 on: August 03, 2014, 08:05:21 AM »
It just shows that recently the euro has been doing much better with 500mb height verification at hour 120 of the forecast.  During June and July verification dropped hard into the 70-80% range a lot.


I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

nowayout

  • New ice
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2728 on: August 03, 2014, 08:12:43 AM »
I'm not convinced that weather models suffer only from a lack of knowledge of initial conditions and certainly not because we are approaching physical limits of predictability (chaos).

Has weather forecasting not improved over recent years and is it likely to continue to improve? If so, is that just because there are better measurements, or are the models themselves also improving? If models can be improved, then they must not yet be perfect. So then they must suffer from flaws, such as oversimplifications, false assumptions, overfitting, and just a basic lack of knowledge of all the important factors (not to mention such things as the limits of computational capacity and programming errors...).

Furthermore, does the skill of weather forecasting not vary, and do we understand why? Although I am barely a novice let alone an expert, based on comments on this board, it seems that the answer is no. For instance, and most relevant here, it seems that forecasting is particularly difficult over the Arctic and is becoming even more difficult there, at least if this year is any indication. Why might that be?

Pat answers about our flawless understanding of the weather or climate miss the chief point. Obviously the particular difficulties in modelling short vs. long-term climate processes are not identical. Some factors critical to the former may be utterly irrelevant to the latter and vice versa. But undercutting both is a gaping void in our knowledge of much of the complex underlying physics, especially about how changes and feedbacks may affect the system.

I hardly would have thought that the limits of modelling poorly understood systems ought to be controversial on a forum dedicated to Arctic sea ice... Anyways, that's how it seems to me.


What is your point? Besides ranting? Modelling is not a topic on this forum.

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2729 on: August 03, 2014, 08:21:36 AM »
I was responding to several direct objections to an earlier post I made. What is your point?

Edit: One of which was made by you, it seems. About climate modelling. Now you tell me to shut up?  :o
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2730 on: August 03, 2014, 08:24:22 AM »
This is going to be really hard on the ice over the ESS, Laptev, and Canadian Basin(Especially the North Western part)

We could reasonably see a good meter of bottom melt over a large region of the Pacific side thru August even without a pattern like this. 

While the ice in the ESS side is mostly intact it's not that thick.  It hasn't been assaulted that much by winds.  These 2D snapshots can be highly deceiving because of ice thickness.

At some point even if the ice is solid thickness lowers to where the sensor can detect a lot of water in the ice or water beneath it and it lowers concentration.

But ice that is 1M or 1.5M thick will look the same as 3-4M thick ice concentration wise if the ice isn't broken up. 

The simple fact of the matter is the ESS has only been torched one time post 2007 in the first 1/3rd of August and that was 2008. 

The ESS is not a heat sink.  It's very shallow and easy to get big melt rates on the bottom.  Hobbyists in 2008 severely over estimated the ice retention going into August with the belief that some hold today that it's to late for large ice loss.

Peak bottom ice melt comes to the ESS region in late August.  A torch during the first 1/3rd or half of August would surely exasperate the bottom ice melt. 

I can't wait to find out what happens.  The ice will certainly be on the move as well with such a stable long fetch over mostly the same areas.



I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2731 on: August 03, 2014, 08:38:04 AM »
Whoa!


« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 08:43:36 AM by greatdying2 »
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2732 on: August 03, 2014, 08:54:04 AM »
The biggest difference with this one is the loading pattern is pretty perfect for a mega ridge.

The NPAC aligns perfectly and has a massive cut off.  While another massive cut off sits over Western Russia/Kara.  And another weaker cut off over Northern Canada.  Between these three beasts a mega ridge will explode over a large portion of the arctic basin on the Pacific side that migrates from the NA side towards the ESS overtime.  But there is nothing in the short to medium range to move this ridge. 



Thanks to the more transient ridge and push of heat at the end of July there is already a very warm air mass parked over the 70-75N corridor on the Pacific side.  This allows very powerful WAA to be ready to roll right off the bat. 





Also on the Atlantic side the remnants of the first pulse of heat are there and a ridge with the vortex over Canada brings Southerly downsloping winds that heat up the airmass regionally and the left over cool air is eradicated on both sides.

This also helps form for a while an elongated HP so a long fetch develops moving the ice from the Pacific to Atlantic side but also plowing the much warmer air mass from the NPAC/NE Russia thru the pole all the way to North of GIS.




By 96 hours the low to mid level cold air is pretty much pushed out of the arctic basin.  By now I am sure everyone can see the ESS is getting plowed.  By Southerly winds, land warmth, heat in the water, compaction, compression, you name it, solar.  Heating at the surface won't be as good as a month ago. But the air mass is very warm and will compensate quite well.




By day 5-6 the warm low level air mass is pretty much all over the arctic basin.  Again not everywhere will be above 0C at the surface all day but quite a bit of the arctic basin will be having strong melt.  Obviously the ESS/Laptev are taking the biggest pounding.



By day 8 on the GFS(which is way out there) heights have lowered over the far Atlantic a bit and some cool air is pooling in the low to mid levels there where its stormy versus the sunny Pacific side.

However two arms of fresh heat are pumping into the basin once again thru Alaska and Russia.  The ridge is actually blowing up again as another major WNPAC vortex explodes and slowly crawls thru the NPAC.  This is an extra tropical bomb IIRC.  That triggers vigrous ridging over the Pacific basin based in the ESS and another huge thermal ribbon is being ripped thru the arctic looking like it's coming right thru the Laptev towards the central basin again.




This could be special.
I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2733 on: August 03, 2014, 08:58:46 AM »
Methane?

We have AIRS retrievals of methane (IIRC in gridded format). We have Cryosat 2 thickness (surely this is gridded somewhere?) and NSIDC gridded extent. Those of you that think there is a local effect should perhaps demonstrate it rather than asserting/guessing.

That's the rub. It's kinda like trying to prove cigarettes caused lung cancer when the person worked in a plastic recycling plant. It can't really be done. And if there ever was a time when it could be done it would have been last summer when the plumes went from isolated to massive and yet we still saw the August melt not happen, and since fall of 2012 the ESS has been the quickest to recover ice during the freeze, followed by the Laptev, and Im assuming those are the areas that have been experiencing the most dissociation.

So no, ground truthing doesn't turn up a smoking gun here. But it's important I think to look at it all cumulatively with the thought that methane may be having a greater influence than we currently consider.

But that late refreeze can more easily be explained by the ocean gaining heat through large amounts of open water during the melt season.

Anyway, you don't just have one person. You have numerous grid boxes and several years.

Frivolousz21

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1813
  • Live in Belleville, IL..15 miles SE of St. Louis.
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 517
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2734 on: August 03, 2014, 09:09:10 AM »
Quote
Whoa!

There will be a lot of heat pumped into the waters of the ESS, Chukchi, Beaufort(in time), and Laptev from this that with the anti-cyclonic flow will go right into the nearby ice.


With steady 10-20kt winds most of the time out of a Southerly/Easterly direction most of the time the ice will be pushed poleward or in a grinder motion together.  Which will quickly advance the ice edge North allowing warm water to quickly move with that ice edge. 

With solar being above 350w/m2 or higher for the next 2 weeks and over 400w/m2 the next 5-6 days still that is still plenty of heat with the low open water albedo which will be sunny for the most part under the ridge to cause SSTS to get really warm and stay there during this  pattern.



New Euro gives the ice in the CAB a break at the end by moving the HP into the Eastern Laptev.  :)

But not the ice between the Laptev and pole.  How bad would it be for the ice if that large body of warm water reinforced by the sun and massive land heat pump being blitzed into the poleward ice like that?



If this is anywhere near reality.  Crahhhazzyyyy



I got a nickname for all my guns
a Desert Eagle that I call Big Pun
a two shot that I call Tupac
and a dirty pistol that love to crew hop
my TEC 9 Imma call T-Pain
my 3-8 snub Imma call Lil Wayne
machine gun named Missy so loud
it go e-e-e-e-ow e-e-e-e-e-e-blaow

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2735 on: August 03, 2014, 09:38:49 AM »
If this is anywhere near reality.  Crahhhazzyyyy
Great play-by-play!

Looks like a lot of thick ice has been getting pushed out the Fram especially over the last few days.

The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

Jim Hunt

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4647
  • Stay Home, Save Lives
    • View Profile
    • The Arctic sea ice Great White Con
  • Liked: 515
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2736 on: August 03, 2014, 10:22:40 AM »
In his absence (stuck in a blizzard in Oz?) I just thought I'd mention that Andrew Slater's SPIE predicition looks to have called the minimum. Note that he's using the NASA Team algo, unlike the standard NSIDC extent numbers:
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 12:25:02 PM by Jim Hunt »
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one - Albert Einstein

cesium62

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2737 on: August 03, 2014, 10:33:07 AM »
I'm not convinced that weather models suffer only from a lack of knowledge of initial conditions and certainly not because we are approaching physical limits of predictability (chaos).

Has weather forecasting not improved over recent years and is it likely to continue to improve? If so, is that just because there are better measurements, or are the models themselves also improving? If models can be improved, then they must not yet be perfect. So then they must suffer from flaws, such as oversimplifications, false assumptions, overfitting, and just a basic lack of knowledge of all the important factors (not to mention such things as the limits of computational capacity and programming errors...).

Furthermore, does the skill of weather forecasting not vary, and do we understand why? Although I am barely a novice let alone an expert, based on comments on this board, it seems that the answer is no. For instance, and most relevant here, it seems that forecasting is particularly difficult over the Arctic and is becoming even more difficult there, at least if this year is any indication. Why might that be?

Pat answers about our flawless understanding of the weather or climate miss the chief point. Obviously the particular difficulties in modelling short vs. long-term climate processes are not identical. Some factors critical to the former may be utterly irrelevant to the latter and vice versa. But undercutting both is a gaping void in our knowledge of much of the complex underlying physics, especially about how changes and feedbacks may affect the system.

I hardly would have thought that the limits of modelling poorly understood systems ought to be controversial on a forum dedicated to Arctic sea ice... Anyways, that's how it seems to me.


http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/models.asp
discusses this in more detail.


cesium62

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 286
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2738 on: August 03, 2014, 10:37:14 AM »
After looking at this ... I just don't understand why the ice has held up so well this year. I was really thinking that this year would easily beat 2013, but I think at this point it would be a minor miracle. Looks like, despite the recent warmth, the ice is going to make it though this summer in decent shape.  Who knows if an El Nino will form and shake things up for next year.

I think you're asking the wrong question.  2014 is in the same ballpark as 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2013.  2014 is well below the average for the 2000's.  2007 and 2012 stand out as the odd years that need explaining.

BornFromTheVoid

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1067
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2739 on: August 03, 2014, 11:25:15 AM »
I think we can be reasonably certain of some strong melt conditions coming up. Not only is the worst of the weather predicted within the next 5 days, but there is also very strong cross-model agreement between the GFS and ECM, but even some of the lesser known model like the GEM are also in agreement.

Combined a lot of warmth getting pulled into the Pacific side of the Arctic, the wind will also be pushing the ice toward the Atlantic side. This will result in a lot of compaction, with when combined with melt, should cause some very large area and extent drops, especially in Chukchi, Beaufort, ESS and the Pacific side of the CAB.

At a quick glance, the 2008 weather looks the most similar to what's forecast, and that lost just over 900k in extent between the 3rd and the 12th of August.
I recently joined the twitter thing, where I post more analysis, pics and animations: @Icy_Samuel

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2740 on: August 03, 2014, 01:22:43 PM »
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

GeoffBeacon

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2741 on: August 03, 2014, 02:20:18 PM »
Chris Reynolds,

Chris, thanks for your calculations using David Archer's model earlier. They certainly helped me understand more but you say

Quote
Those of you that think there is a local effect should perhaps demonstrate it rather than asserting/guessing

I'm not asserting that there is much of a local effect either currently or in the future. I am asking what are the bounds to the issue that will allow us to judge  whether this will be a mechanism that has much impact in the near or medium term.  Although the your numbers suggest that it will not - doubling CH4 gives an extra 0.8 W/m2 but doubling CO2 gives an extra 1.8 W/m2.

A mental model I use of the atmosphere is to imagine it as a column of air height 10 kms high at constant pressure of 1 atmosphere. In this particular case this counterfactual model may help with some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

If we could separate the gasses we would get 4 metres depth of CO2 and 18 mms of CH4. Doubling the CO2 in a locality requires adding to the column of CO2 by roughly 4000 litres for every square metre. Doubling CH4 requires less then 2 litres or 1.8 mms of depth.

Burning about 2 tonnes/m2 of carbon could double the CO2 in the atmospheric column but the heat from burning would generate convective dispersion and anyway dwarf the 1.8 W/m2. Large scale wildfires would be very bad news (btw changes in wildfires are not in the CMIP5 models).

But back to methane. Mysterious Siberian crater attributed to methane (http://www.nature.com/news/mysterious-siberian-crater-attributed-to-methane-1.15649) suggests that the crater the authors found was "probably caused by methane released". Thay also report methane levels at the bottom of the crater to be 9.6% by volume - that's over 50,000 times current atmospheric methane levels.

If this concentration were only in the bottom 1m of my 10,000m atmospheric column of just over 4 W/m2. 

Of course, some of the methane may have migrated from neighbouring permafrost but whilst your calculations are an advance on anthing I've seen they don't settle the matter.

The matter? Will the local heating effect of out gassing methane always remain vanishlingly small? The image of possibility that I have in my mind is a hot, sunny, stable weather pattern in Siberia with heating causing methane release and that methane causing extra warming of 0.46 W/m2 for every 1mm of methane released into the atmospheric column. (How much methane outgassing before it's not vanishingly small?)

I do suspect your skepticism is correct and this isn't a big issue but it's been up to you "an amateur reader of Arctic sea ice science" to begin to answer this.  That's what worries me.

The Nature piece says "To confirm what caused the crater, Plekhanov says that another visit is needed to check the methane concentration in air trapped in its walls." That will be interesting for many reasons.



Il faut cultiver notre cité-jardin
The Sustainable Plotlands Association

domen_

  • New ice
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2742 on: August 03, 2014, 02:24:26 PM »
If this is anywhere near reality.  Crahhhazzyyyy
Great play-by-play!

Looks like a lot of thick ice has been getting pushed out the Fram especially over the last few days.


Does this melting of thick ice in Canadian archipelago happen every year?

iceman

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2743 on: August 03, 2014, 02:46:15 PM »
Combined a lot of warmth getting pulled into the Pacific side of the Arctic, the wind will also be pushing the ice toward the Atlantic side. This will result in a lot of compaction, with when combined with melt, should cause some very large area and extent drops, especially in Chukchi, Beaufort, ESS and the Pacific side of the CAB.
The next ~5 days will be a big test of the "protective arm" effect of the MYI extending toward New Siberian Islands.  My guess is that it will mostly hold, as measured by:
- much faster decline of area/extent in ESS than Central Arctic (which might be expected anyway this time of year, but I'm referring to anomaly comparison);
- faster decline of volume than area/extent in that part of the grid - which will have to await later release of PIOMAS daily values.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 03:34:07 PM by iceman »

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2744 on: August 03, 2014, 02:47:36 PM »
Domen,

Although you say the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (CAA), I've also covered the Central Arctic.

In PIOMAS July and August see the greatest loss of thickness in both the CAA and the Central regions. All thicknesses in m, average thickness in region, and the thickness change from month to month.

CAA Arctic Thickness               
   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014
Jan   1.646   1.343   1.484   1.391   1.568
Feb   1.842   1.559   1.699   1.626   1.773
Mar   1.967   1.734   1.874   1.806   1.932
Apr   2.018   1.860   1.997   1.916   2.054
May   1.932   1.817   1.954   1.925   1.952
Jun   1.674   1.315   1.388   1.458   1.518
Jul   1.182   0.637   0.725   0.823   
Aug   0.576   0.554   0.434   0.673   
Sep   0.758   0.538   0.394   0.734   
Oct   0.536   0.372   0.320   0.618   
Nov   0.718   0.771   0.676   0.875   
Dec   1.128   1.175   1.113   1.286   
CAA Arctic Thickness               
   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014
Jan   0.263   0.215   0.309   0.278   0.282
Feb   0.196   0.216   0.215   0.234   0.205
Mar   0.125   0.175   0.175   0.180   0.158
Apr   0.051   0.126   0.123   0.110   0.123
May   -0.086   -0.042   -0.043   0.009   -0.102
Jun   -0.258   -0.503   -0.566   -0.467   -0.434
Jul   -0.492   -0.678   -0.663   -0.635   
Aug   -0.606   -0.083   -0.291   -0.150   
Sep   0.182   -0.016   -0.040   0.061   
Oct   -0.222   -0.166   -0.075   -0.117   
Nov   0.182   0.399   0.356   0.258   
Dec   0.410   0.404   0.438   0.411   


Central Arctic Thickness               
   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014
Jan   1.988   1.842   1.815   1.699   1.921
Feb   2.164   2.067   2.000   1.938   2.085
Mar   2.247   2.287   2.180   2.140   2.265
Apr   2.319   2.447   2.340   2.261   2.452
May   2.324   2.450   2.384   2.294   2.531
Jun   2.127   2.218   2.159   2.151   2.404
Jul   1.562   1.618   1.588   1.669   
Aug   1.155   1.144   1.112   1.289   
Sep   1.074   1.089   1.164   1.212   
Oct   1.182   1.170   1.113   1.296   
Nov   1.424   1.388   1.286   1.509   
Dec   1.650   1.612   1.508   1.727   
Central Arctic thinning from month to month               
   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014
Jan   0.219   0.192   0.204   0.191   0.193
Feb   0.176   0.225   0.184   0.239   0.164
Mar   0.083   0.219   0.180   0.202   0.180
Apr   0.072   0.161   0.161   0.122   0.187
May   0.006   0.003   0.044   0.033   0.078
Jun   -0.197   -0.232   -0.225   -0.143   -0.127
Jul   -0.566   -0.601   -0.571   -0.482   
Aug   -0.407   -0.474   -0.475   -0.380   
Sep   -0.081   -0.055   0.052   -0.077   
Oct   0.108   0.081   -0.051   0.084   
Nov   0.242   0.219   0.173   0.214   
Dec   0.226   0.223   0.221   0.218   

jonthed

  • New ice
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2745 on: August 03, 2014, 03:01:58 PM »
domen:

I'm not too sure about previous years, I'd expect it wasn't common pre 2000, but here are the HYCOM thickness charts for near the end of melt season for 2012 and 2013 for comparison with this years CAA break up/melt:

2013:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2013083018_2013083100_153_arcticictn.001.gif

2012:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2012083018_2012083100_035_arcticictn.001.gif

The rest of the archive is available here:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arc_list_arcticictn.html

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2746 on: August 03, 2014, 03:02:48 PM »
CAA Arctic Thickness               
   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014
Jun   -0.258   -0.503   -0.566   -0.467   -0.434
Jul   -0.492   -0.678   -0.663   -0.635   
Aug   -0.606   -0.083   -0.291   -0.150   
Nice table! So I guess since 2010 at least it has (although 2010 was a tad late).

Also keep in mind that there are differences between thickness models. E.g., compare this to the one above these two:

« Last Edit: August 03, 2014, 03:46:50 PM by greatdying2 »
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

jonthed

  • New ice
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2747 on: August 03, 2014, 03:08:07 PM »
domen:

indeed, for an appropriate comparison with the first graphic you responded to the snap shot for end of august 2013 using that model is this one:

http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictn/nowcast/ictn2013083012_2013083100_502_arcticictn.001.gif

Although the others still illustrated that there has been significant melt/breakup of the CAA thick ice in the past few years at least.

EDIT:

That can't be right! The sea ice edges of the two models' graphics for the same date don't match up at all?!

greatdying2

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2748 on: August 03, 2014, 03:32:25 PM »
 In other news, the Chukchi SSTs have shot up over the last few days, especially today.

3 days ago vs. today:

.
.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php
The Permian–Triassic extinction event, a.k.a. the Great Dying, occurred about 250 million years ago and is the most severe known extinction event. Up to 96% of all marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species became extinct; it is also the only known mass extinction of insects.

ChrisReynolds

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1714
    • View Profile
    • Dosbat
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« Reply #2749 on: August 03, 2014, 03:38:45 PM »
Geoff,

Right above a pockmark* type crater if concentrations were 96,000ppm you might have a blanketing effect. Although you would have to consider the temperature of the surface (the strongest upward emitting layer) and the resultant overlap between the absorption spectrum of methane and the emission spectrum of the ground.

Planck's law tells us how much energy is emitted from a backbody radiator at a given temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_law

Going back to ModTran this is seen in the emission curves on that page (middle panel graphic).
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Note that the actual spectrum is the jagged blue, while idealised spectra for various emission temperatures are also provided (light blue, purple, green etc) and the temperatures of emission for those ideal spectra are given in Kelvin (0degC = 273.15K).

Here is the spectrum of methane absorption.
http://senseair.se/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/methane_senseair.gif
Note the dips in the blue plot, they show that methane is absorbing at about 3000 and 1300 cycles per centimetre (wavenumber).

Now going back to the page for ModTran, the only band that covers the graph there is the 1300 cycles/cm band, and this is at the low end of the power spectrum (right end of the graph, but the peak power is at the left end of the graph). On a global basis an increase in methane benefits from the same water vapour amplification that CO2 does - the dip in emission around 700 cycles/cm. This could not be guaranteed at a local level. So whatever the methane does it must do on its own for the local emission above a pockmark.

I can't actually put my hands on a proper graph, this one is from an exam question.
http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~folkins/Cloud-LWspectrum.jpg
Now I check the owning page I was right anyway
http://www.mathstat.dal.ca/~folkins/introas.chap4.html
The thick black line of the lowest trace on that plot to save my typing I quote what that page says:
Quote
The LW emission shown as the thick line was taken when a cloud was present. The cloud is acting like a grey body (or close to a black body). There seems to be no trace of the warm LW emission from the surface. The cloud top is clearly significantly colder than 240 K, since it lies significantly below the 240 K dashed black body curve. Clearly, high cold clouds can dramatically reduce the LW emission to space, and be powerful greenhouse agents (acting like emergency blankets).

The peaks in the cloud spectra refer to LW emission from CO2 and ozone in the stratosphere. This emission is coming from a height range in the stratosphere which is warmer than the cloud top, so that CO2 and O3 are increasing the LW emission to space (functioning as anti-greenhouse gases in this instance).

If I've not lost you with all this then you can now appreciate why I am saying random variations in cloud will probably overwhelm local emissions of methane. Yes a persistent emission of large amounts of methane such as you outline may have an effect similar to a tendency for more clouds over that spot. But consider the rapid formation of a pockmark with local bursts of emission as the pockmark forms, take any one week and cloud variations will likely swamp the effect of even 96,000ppm of methane because cloud blocks IR (and emits back to the surface) at the peak of surface emission temperatures, whereas methane's effect is on the declining upward end of the emission spectrum.

If I've not been clear here, just ask me to explain.

*pockmark is the term often used for methane emission relics in regions such as Nyegga.
e.g. http://folk.uio.no/hensven/Hovland_Svensen_MarGeol_06.pdf