Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - nowayout

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 11, 2020, 06:43:21 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.


P.S. From June 4th to June 13th,  the ASI on 2012 dropped 1,130K km2, an average of -126K km2 on 9 days.

Progress in times of climate change: nothing to do here, ice is already gone this year. As it was last year.

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: May 29, 2018, 08:04:19 AM »
Yesterdays article by Ramstorf.

Great, thank you. The next question: what are the effects / impacts. I found this:

Sorry, if this was already discussed in an other thread.

Consequences / Re: CA Drought Emergency Declared
« on: February 12, 2017, 09:22:53 PM »
I'm afraid it is much too early to sum up the damage costs. It could get worse - big time.

This is the latest report I found on youtube:

Bottom line: the amount of water spilling over has increased significantly, and threatens not reinforced parts of the dam. Additionally, more rain is forecast next week.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: February 06, 2017, 05:48:18 AM »

I've done this before but would like to again thank you for your clear, simple and timely tracking of this measure.

With over 1 million views on this thread, I believe I am speaking for others. They're just too shy to say anything.   ;)

Yes, it is one of my first links I visit in the morning - every morning. Thank you.

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: January 13, 2017, 11:12:14 PM »
Slightly hidden in the pdf, but I think this catches it:

In this sense, climate sensitivity can be seen as a distribution that is a local
property of the climate attractor. 

Translation: In the end it's all about tipping points. Even climate sensivity.

On AMOC slowdown or collapse: If it is the freshwater intrusion from Greenland to cause it, we should carefully observe what is going on beneath the central Greeenland glaciers. There is enough space to collect sufficient amounts of freshwater. This would be a smaller tipping point, into the "wrong" direction. See Younger Dryas. The (Our) CO2 dynamics will only be stopped for a short time.

Generally: this (our!) relentless and still accellerating pollution of the earth with CO2 could be (and imho is) so strong that some attractors of the climate past that went effective could simply be overrun.

BAU implies this. Sorry.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 18, 2016, 08:13:55 PM »

a) i know that only land based ice would increas sea-level

Sorry folks, but it seems that something here goes the wrong direction, not only in this statement.

First: a floating iceberg shows only a fraction of its volume above sea level. I don't have the exact number at hand, but let's say it is 10%.

Second: Let us give a crude model of the Antarctic maritime glaciers. A column of 500 meter of frozen ice would support  exactly 50 additional meter of ice above sea level without affecting the global sea level.

Any inch more can (and will) add to the global sea level. And I'm quite sure, on average the ice above sea level in the Antarctic exceeds the assumed 10%.

Third: Now, how will it develop in the Antarctic. The maritime glaciers are melting from underneath as we speak. And the additional volume of ice is being hold by a dome of ice which will eventually fail, collapse, and add additional frozen ice to the ocean volume.

Effectively immediately, to borrow from a different discourse.

I can't resist:

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 26, 2016, 08:21:25 PM »
No, but we have to stop being stupid.  And that is really hard to do.

To quote Emile Cioran : "Homo sapiens: what a pretension."

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 26, 2016, 07:52:22 PM »

I guess, for a short time you will see some coverage in the MSM, marked graphic.

You might like to take a look at (i.e. google) "limits to growth". Short: we are on track.

Barely. They did not account for Climate Change.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: August 19, 2016, 09:22:20 PM »
If the forecasts come true, I think everyone here will be grateful that this is late August and not solstice.... It would have been a complete massacre!

It will be "a complete massacre" a few years from now, and you know, and we know.

Weep, as long as you can.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 17, 2016, 02:20:27 PM »
Take a look at the topography:

and you know where the heat of the north atlantic  ocean current goes. And you know where the heat raking takes places for now.

Maybe next year we'll have the "real drop". It takes it time for the El Nino to propagate through the water.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 12, 2016, 06:54:54 AM »
I guess, this one fits in here:

Britain's Royal Navy warships are breaking down because sea is too hot...

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 26, 2016, 09:52:35 PM »
Let me put it with a simpler wording: we're nuking the climate - so start to imagine what that may mean, to us , for us.

Every paleoclimate record must fail at this point to compare: speed. I'd like to conjecture, that we've just seen the start of an ugly transition. No longer it is about weather, freezing season or melting season, whatever. It is about changing weather patterns. Robert Scribbler does not state it, but he describes it, in his very skillful ways.

We are about 1° C above preindustrial levels. Nice. The point to consider: we lag the equlibrium of ~485 ppm co2e by more than 4° C. And we are still adding, hopefully at a reduced rate, given the state of the world economy. And exactly this temperature difference and lag in change is responsible for the speed of our current climate change.

(Second derivative; 'til the end of my days I'll be amused about the fact, that everyone can handle this one while driving a car - but most stop doing it when having arrived at home. Mankind won't survive, and this is the reason why.)

Prepare for a rough ride. A very rough ride. Regardless of precipitation, or lack thereof. That is, prepare for both. And equally: warm and cold. Don't take an April weather in February for granted, here in Europe.

You may want to (re-)read the Wikipedia entries on Lake Agassiz and the Younger Dryas. And then place a bet, how long it will take for the melted water beneath the Greenland interior to spill out big time. An event for your grandchildren? For your children? For you, happening in your lifetime?

(Tag: Doomerpr0n, fitting my nick; sry)

Thank you for the link. Ruddiman reminds me quite a lot of Alfred Wegeners hypothesis of continental drift. On the way to find facts pro and contra there are lots of worthy results found which stand alone.

Considering numerology and spectral analysis of data sets, my take is: our impact on climate change is much too big, this pattern will probably only be temporary. (I haven't read Jarvis(2014), sorry.)

The paleo-evidence, that the southern hemisphere responded to changes in the north, and then the other way round, will probably not hold this time. Our influence on climate is far to big, the delay observed in the ice cores could collapse. If I understand ASLR correctly, his WAIS collapse scenario is all about this.

Antarctica / Re: Will Antarctica sea ice set a new record in 2014?
« on: September 18, 2014, 08:40:48 PM »
The (year over year increasing) freshwater layer from calving and meltwater runoff, which builds through the austral summer, helps with the sea ice extend records, as well as the (increasing) local wind velocity shears and breaks the winter ice, the rifts quickly refreezing. All be gone next austral summer. Otoh, basal melting and upwelling destroys the freshwater layer.

No surprise so far.

Is it too early for the melting in front of the shelves to start? I guess it is. Are they different places compared to the other years? (Did some currents shift? Could there be effects from an El Nino that did not come? Not yet.)

Just wondering. This year's record won't hold for long, though.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 16, 2014, 12:15:59 PM »
Me thinks one honorable mention is missing, even if included in the Selected Forcing Factors thread: methane from the Arctic sea shelf. The warm currents both from the Atlantic and the Pacific side won't do any good, and even without a Big Burrp it will increasingly contribute to the methane levels.
The melting permafrost on land can refreeze in winter. The inundated permafrost is probably more vulnerable.

Permafrost / Re: This is not good.
« on: September 03, 2014, 08:30:48 PM »

That's the same wording Shakova used about the Arctic findings.

The (next) tipping point, if you like to translate the cautious wording.  And we won't get off the slope.

Consequences / Re: 2014 El Nino?
« on: August 17, 2014, 07:04:11 AM »
The linked reference indicates that for high rates of GHG emissions (such as we have now) "… there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption.  We further demonstrate that most non-volcanic hiatuses across CMIP5 models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase."  As I believe that we are now entering a positive phase of the IPO, this research implies that we may never see another negative phase of the IPO (in the foreseeable future):

Nicola Maher, Alexander Sen Gupta and Matthew H. England, (2014), "Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st Centuries", Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060527

Abstract: "The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories, (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid 20th Century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most non-volcanic hiatuses across CMIP5 models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase."

Tell me I'm wrong - but doesn't this outline the current impact of the chinese smog?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« 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.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 03, 2014, 07:19:27 AM »
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.

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)?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 22, 2014, 10:17:45 AM »
The low concentration gap from Greenland to the Pole in the central ice pack that I noticed yesterday is clearly visible.
Interesting, it looks like there is going to be an atypical gap in the ice off the north coast of Greenland for a few days.

Which is what I would expect as result from the Greenland meltwater these days. Atypical not for long, then.

Pages: [1]