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 - notjonathon

Pages: [1]

After Terry so cruelly forced me to think about what I had written, that was the conclusion I came to, also. But since both draft and freeboard are affected, it would logically put more strain on the ice.

Wouldn't the loss of flotation under the tongue cause downward pressure?
Damn! Now you're forcing me to think. And my last physics class was nearly 60 years ago. But it seems to me that if the floating ice at the front of the glacier were to thin, it would cause upward pressure at the bottom and downward pressure at the top. Go with the old 90% underwater for convenience, and you'd have 90m of ice underwater and 10m above if it were 100m thick; melt it to 80m, and you'd have 72m underwater (pushing upwards) and 8m above water (pulling downwards). Not trying to be exact with my numbers, but as an example. Now what the actual conflicting pressures would do to the ice, I leave to those more learned in the field.

Also, I wasn't really trying to make fun of Espen, for whom I have the highest regard, if not a feeling of awe; but Wiccans, you know.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 24, 2016, 02:41:51 AM »
Svalbard North East Island in the sunshine...

And surrounded by algal blooms?

Although psychical rules sound pretty good (the psychical powers of the full moon spread their aura over the ice, perhaps?), I assume you meant "physical rules." Also, might bottom melt cause the front of the glacier to try to float higher, allowing the high tides to give it the extra push needed to fracture the ice?

Consequences / Re: The 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season
« on: July 04, 2016, 10:07:36 AM »
Meanwhile, July 3 saw the first named Western Pacific storm, not yet a typhoon. Second latest recorded date.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: June 24, 2016, 01:57:01 AM »

It looks like the moving front of the glacier is pivoting the ice island around. That should put some torsional pressure on weaker sections of the island and encourage further breakup.

Also, do the new calving fronts (the cracks further up the ice) actually calve when they reach the present front point, or is there significant retreat going on? I should know, but trying to follow everything that's going on in both the Arctic and Antarctic taxes my memory.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 24, 2016, 01:15:20 AM »
FYI: F.Tnioli is on a 1-month break. Enough is enough.

Thank you,Neven.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 11, 2016, 02:39:20 AM »
In a different time zone, so late in responding:

You are expecting cycles to be a lot longer than 5 years or a lot less than 5 years? or am I misunderstanding that?
No, I meant that two examples does not make a series--you would need many more 5-year cycles to discern a trend.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 10, 2016, 03:15:49 PM »
The ice within the basin is diverging towards Svalbard, it is one of the reasons extent is currently gaining.
And no ice goes beyond the invisible barrier. Either someone built a huge transparent fence to hold it in, or it simply melts in place once it gets there.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 10, 2016, 03:10:43 PM »
I also forgot to say that it's running on 5 year cycles too.

The time frame is way too short to imagine 5-year cycles. What would be the underlying physics of such a cycle?

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 31, 2016, 03:17:34 PM »
Actually, it says, "up again as soon as we get the parts."

Great responses, thanks.

If this phenomenon is repeated all over Greenland (and I realize that each glacier has its own individual topography), what are the chances of catastrophic failures? Is gradual melt, though probably at increasing rates, more likely?

To a retired liberal arts academic like me, this begins to sound a bit like a modernist vs. postmodernist argument, but systems that can withstand one shock cannot always withstand two. In the recent Kumamoto earthquake, there were two large temblors a day apart. Many buildings that survived the first quake with no apparent damage collapsed during the second. Might the sub-ice channels that undermine the calving front (per A-Team, above) be undermining the stability of the entire glacier?


Do you know where all this melt water is going? Will it refreeze in place, drain through the ice or carve channels to flow downhill? In some of the earlier pics, we do see water draining from higher ponds to lower ones, but do any of these make their way to the sea?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Svalbard
« on: April 24, 2016, 01:52:17 AM »

Yes indeed ice floes are formed from salt water and have brine channels and air pockets that they only lose gradually with age and compression incidents. Their temperature profile with thickness follows from the heat equation clamped to constant temperature water on the bottom and weather/radiation history above.

Tabular ice bergs that have broken off a floating glacier shelf such as Petermann's have negligible brine content except for refrozen cracks; however depending on history and snowfall, the upper 100 meters or might be firn, not glacier ice, with greatly lowered density and compressive strength (

The ice in bergs calving from a glacier like Jakobshavn is fresh water but with a complicated stress/strain and recrystallization history and temperature profile ranging from temperate at the bottom to say -29ºC in the middle to warmer above, depending on which part of the 1400 m thickness a given berg originated from and how long it has been afloat. Ice fabric and embedded till have no real counterparts in an ice floe.

Among all your other heroic efforts, such a concise explanation of sea ice floes vs. bergs might seem like a modest achievement, but it is much appreciated.

Of course, floes do not add to or subtract salt or water from the oceans, although I imagine that to some degree they might redistribute it, but because melting glacier ice reduces the salinity of surface water and adds volume to the sea, floes and bergs really are different phenomena, even if their melting is due to a common cause.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Spelling
« on: April 21, 2016, 03:48:16 PM »
You must be thinking of the pre-made stuff.

That's remarkable, Wipneus.

Thanks. So definitely reacting to the added heat in the arctic.


Does this continual calving of Zachariae date back to pre-1900 (or pre-1950--although glaciers seem to have been retreating since the beginning of the last century), or is it a more recent feature of glacial speedup? It is truly amazing to see new cracks continually forming up-glacier as the face calves.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 24, 2015, 01:39:24 AM »
How about not feeding the troll(s)?

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 08, 2015, 05:01:45 PM »
Mr. (s)colding--

I don't think you got Anne's point.

We're not the grammar police.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 03, 2015, 11:44:26 AM »
Grey Wolf--

We've had a dozen Pacific typhoons so far this year. Sometimes these storms wander all the way to the Arctic, bearing fairly warm moisture with them. If one should happen to arrive at the same time an Arctic storm is brewing, we could see some action.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 03, 2015, 02:23:43 AM »
Chris's chart shows a virtual tie with 2012, pixel count notwithstanding. It's clear that the long slow march to summer ice oblivion continues.
By the way (this from a "newbie" who is really an oldie, both in age and in time spent on this blog--I have been a reader probably since Neven's first post ever), the meta discussion is fascinating, at least when the posters keep it brief.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: what's new in Greenland ?
« on: July 30, 2015, 02:35:33 AM »
re: OMG

NASA meets The Onion?

Some dark humor over there.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Is the Arctic being geoengineered (in secret)?
« on: August 17, 2014, 10:22:45 AM »
Roughly translated:

Summer present festival

Winners of ten kilograms of Iwate Prefecture hitomebore (love at first sight) rice

Suspicious rice M. Cesium
Suspicious rice M. Cesium
Irradiated rice M. Cesium

Arctic sea ice / Re: Is the Arctic being geoengineered (in secret)?
« on: August 16, 2014, 04:01:22 AM »
I meant you managed to move the off-topic discussions away from the melting season threads(once by suggestion, if I recall, and once by starting up this thread) to threads of their own, where they can be properly dissected.

I reiterate--of course, HAARP has nothing to do with Arctic geoengineering. I was simply doing a little riff on right-wing conspiracy theories.

I repeat: I do not now and never have believed that HAARP ever had anything to do with secret Arctic geoengineering.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Is the Arctic being geoengineered (in secret)?
« on: August 15, 2014, 01:48:38 AM »
I guess I'm sorry I brought up HAARP when I was just trying to be funny. I only meant it as another way to poke fun at Tinfoil's assertions.

And yes, I think he's been trolling the Forum. We had another recently, and heroic Chris Reynolds has managed to deflect them both. But as long as they get shunted off to threads like this one, they do occasionally provide some amusement. They also help show us how disruptive tactics are being used to provoke arguments that are not germane to the conversation.

I'm called a newbie because I have been a lurker since the Forum was established; I was a regular reader of Neven's page long before that. Generally I don't comment because the work of Chris, Jim Hunt, Espen, Wipneus ASLR (and Friv), along with many other hard workers, far exceeds any contribution I might make.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Is the Arctic being geoengineered (in secret)?
« on: August 14, 2014, 11:55:15 AM »
HAARP cannot be used to change the weather, it's just a radar.

You did see the /snark notice, didn't you? And you must have heard of all the HAARP conspiracies.

Science / Re: Arctic Ocean is Venting CO2 in ESS
« on: August 10, 2014, 11:23:06 AM »
That's what I thought. We're f****ed.

Doom, you have the right of it.

seattlerocks, who should advocate for solutions to problems more than those who are most knowledgeable about the subject?  No attacks (sorry, I was tired), but the main reason your argument fails is that there is no time!
There is no time to sit in one's cluttered academic office and ruminate on the perfection of one's climate model, the model that failed to predict the date of the typhoon bearing down on the city where I live, even though the model did predict that the warmer atmosphere would hold more water, and certain areas of Japan are going to get more than a meter of rain, on top of the 1100 mm they received from the previous typhoon last week, whose record-breaking downpours were not predicted by the model, but are consistent with the greater quantity of water in the atmosphere now available to tropical storms. That's two hundred-year weather events in ten days. Gee, why didn't my model predict that these two storms would arise in the first week of August? Better go back and tinker with it.

I see you posted while I was composing this.

Consider the following, Michael Mann and his team, in 2018, run some extremely advanced simulations that project that global temperatures are likely to fall below pre-industrial levels. Because solar radiation falls below certain threshold and these simulations are precise enough to capture several negative feedbacks that kick in, which will lead to the beginning of an Ice Age.

Really. Sure, several negative feedbacks, like ten super volcanic explosions or twenty 40-megaton thermonuclear explosions, perhaps? The latter I can actually imagine, especially if we continue on this path. Once more, there is no time.

That is not a realistic hypothesis. We don't need hypotheticals, we need action.

Science / Re: Arctic Ocean is Venting CO2 in ESS
« on: August 08, 2014, 02:33:35 AM »
I know this is another "we're f*ed" moment, but will there be a way to quantify just how much additional CO2 this source might add to the atmosphere? Also, does it mean that these arctic waters are already so saturated with carbon dioxide that they can't hold any more? Or is it a matter of CO2 escaping so fast that it just bubbles to the surface?


How come you cannot recognise that a scientist, small or big, climate science star or a hidden scientist working on relatively obscure dust dispersion model, should avoid waving flags, and that this avoidance is not irresponsible? Then who is going to keep their intellectual energies to develop better measurement devices, ice evolution models, and so, that we see in your Graphs page? Man, it looks so crystal clear to me.

That doesn't make sense.

And as hard as I've tried to avoid ad hominem attacks, I have to say that's not seattlerocks, that's dumbasrocks.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 08, 2014, 01:35:20 AM »
I think there is no better word for what is happening right now than recovery.

"Recovery" in the sense that there has been a "pause" in global warming. Denialists claim that there has been no global warming since 1998, even though together with 1998, every year since 2002 has been among the warmest on record. I mentioned this on another thread, but no child born after I think it was April 1985 has known a world with a single month that was less hot than the previous average.

To convince yourself that two years make up a trend, after an anomalously low 2012, is to make the same argument as the denialist/lukewarmist camp.

As observers, we are watching the inevitable demise of the arctic ice as a fascinating phenomenon; as a human being and parent, I watch it with growing horror.

This year may be eighth, may be sixth lowest, but it's not really buying us much time. The time for action is ten or fifteen years ago, but given that we can't time travel, the time is today.

I was willing to leave off, myself, sr, but is it really your considered opinion that we have to wait until all the models are in agreement concerning the rain in Spain (which may or may not fall mainly on the plain) before we can act? There is only one answer:
There is no time!
In fact, it's probably too late already to avoid bad outcomes,and maybe even very bad outcomes, but there may still be a small window of time, if enough effort is put into reversing the addition of CO2 into the air (and sea), to avoid catastrophic outcomes.

That's why everyone here thinks you're trolling.

I meant that science is doing a good job even when many climate scientists are a bit biased toward the alarmist side, and some are extremely biased.

True colors. Lukewarmism redux.

Actually, we're beginning to enter move the goalpost, even Gish gallop territory.

As one who earned his Ph.D in literature during the early high phase of postmodernism, I understand full well the question of reliance on reigning paradigms, but this argument preserves no ice in this issue. Scientists who study the evidence, who understand the simple physics, are alarmed. They call for swift action not because they "believe" in AGW, but because the evidence clearly demonstrates that AGW is happening. No child born after April 1985 has experienced a single month that was colder than the previous average. The world just had its hottest May and hottest June ever. The hottest years on record have been 1998 and every year since 2002.

This is not the result of scientists being unable to escape the framework of a paradigm. This is the result of runaway industrial capitalism. And I'm not even a Marxist.

In one of your posts that started all this, you said that scientists shouldn't believe in global warming (I'm too lazy to go back and find it). Well, I agree with you. Actually, the reason that climate scientists overwhelmingly agree with the idea of global warming is that they are convinced by the overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening. They are also convinced by the physics, which tells them that the effects of global warming that are already being felt are caused by increases in greenhouse gases, CO2 in particular.

I enjoy so very much reading posts of the Forum and of Neven's page. I have visited a couple of times WUWT page and alike, and find them disgusting and abhorring, full of people shouting without absolutely no valid arguments whatsoever.

Then why do you parrot the points of a lukewarmist (denialist in sheep's clothing) like Dyson? He belongs in that small group of "well, yes, global warming may be happening, but we don't know how much, so we really shouldn't do anything about it--perhaps someday, when we know more." See Judith Curry and her Italian flag simile.

The idea that James Hanson is more powerful than Charles Koch, that he single-handedly created the idea of global warming to enrich himself, is laughable on its face. The opponents of action against global warming include big oil (Exxon, BP) The Heritage Foundation, the appropriately named Joe Bastardi, the Koch brothers. Don't expect to see a press release from the Walton Foundation announcing a fifty million dollar campaign to elect candidates dedicated to fighting global warming.

Policy and solutions / Re: James Hansen loves nuclear power
« on: August 06, 2014, 01:27:52 PM »
1. TMI
2. Chernobyl
3. Fukushima (also Rokkasho, Monju)
4. WIPP (giving the lie early on regarding safe 100,000-year nuclear disposal and storage)

Add to that the forced decommissioning of San Onofre.

Can it be possible that Fukushima or Chernobyl can show a positive return on investment or  EROEI? Mustn't the cost of decommissioning be added to EROI as well as EROEI? Nuclear has survived only with massive subsidies from government. In Japan, those subsidies have included bribes to poorer towns to accept nuclear facilities. A fraction of those subsidies transferred to renewables will pay back more, faster.

I do agree with Neven that the long-term solution lies in a society making do with less. But as a septuagenerian, I often find it hard to reclaim that energy for a self-sustaining lifestyle that I felt forty years ago. I see the dizzying lights of Tokyo on TV (I hate to go there, and rarely do) and am constantly reminded of Robinson Jeffers' Shine, Vanishing Republic.

As a long-term cynic, I expect the most likely outcome of all this "growth" and "wealth" will be cataclysmic, with most of our last resources (including nuclear ones) spent in some orgy of planet-wide violence whose only positive outcome will be the new ice age of nuclear winter.

A. Hiroshima, Nagasaki
B. Bikini

Today is the 69th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 06, 2014, 02:32:35 AM »
At first, I thought that rant was rather concern-trolly, but it's actually worse, with that ad hominem attack against James Hansen, with its straight-out-of-the-denialist play book "getting the big bucks" claim.

The 2013-2016 stuff is a perfect straw man argument. The planet is on fire, and you say, "Not so fast, the politicians are sure to fund a fire department one of these days."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: August 05, 2014, 01:36:41 AM »
Mine was more a political observation than a legal one. I'm sure you have been quite thorough in your investigation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: August 04, 2014, 07:12:14 PM »
You haven't read the fine print--you know, the place where it says using the truth to buttress your arguments is a violation of Mail policy. At least that seems to be the general rule with Murdoch publications.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: August 04, 2014, 04:32:07 AM »

Point 1: two seasons doth not a trend make (sounds Shakespearean, anyway).

Point 2: the Antarctic increase in sea ice is largely a result of the increased flow of fresh water from the decrease in land ice--the Antarctic is still contributing to sea level rise, I believe.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Mail's Great White Arctic Sea Ice Con
« on: August 03, 2014, 11:49:23 AM »
Congratulations, Jim. You've been concern trolled.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: July 19, 2014, 05:12:15 PM »
As a long-term lurker, I'd like to tell Friv that his posts are uniformly entertaining even when he resorts to hyperbole. All of us are here because this phenomenon of the melting Arctic has us transfixed. It fascinates us, perhaps in the way that watching an inevitable wreck unfold fascinates us, and we can't turn our eyes away. It's just that the action is in such extreme slow motion that the tension sometimes gets the best of us--so cut him some slack, please.

And keep on truckin', Friv.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2014 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 14, 2014, 10:26:57 AM »
Yes, that lack of extent loss looks like some of the compacted ice is spreading out. I would think that should lead to larger extent losses in the near future.

Espen ,your work on this forum is remarkable. As a long-time lurker with no research of my own to add, I'm generally content just to read. But looking at this animation, the 2014 image seems to show a major shadow line near the bottom of the long crack, suggesting a change in elevation of the top of the glacier. The line is not noticeably there in the earlier image. Is this merely an artifact, or does it mark some feature of the underlying topography? Or might it indicate a thinning of the glacier toward the front?

Pages: [1]