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 - bbr2314

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
1
I would propose we re-dub our current year -12. By all accounts 2031 is our new year 0. We just have not yet acknowledged it.

It is interesting to consider what the practical implications would be of a BOE. Like, heavy snows beginning in August, no cohesive polar vortex, and dual vortices establishing themselves early in Eurasia and North America. At that point the only remaining MYI may actually be sheltered in Hudson or Kara or Okhotsk (or some combo of the three) in addition to the CAA and southern CAB.

When the event begins, as it did in the Younger Dryas, the snowfall will not stop for the next summer in the coldest locations. Imagine winter 2014-15 in Boston, but tack on another 100" in March, and then in April, with another 50" in May and continued snows into June before insolation ultimately does the trick (for the last time in a long time).

How much snow will it take until the interstates are unusable? How much SWE will it take before roofs start caving in? How deep does the snow have to get before the power fails? How frequently do storms have to occur for maintenance to become impossible?

If a population is frozen in place, with no way to escape, and the power fails, there would be guaranteed mass death occurring in short order. Such an event would be much more democratic than heatwaves, where air conditioners provide relief for some.

What use is a generator when it is encased in snow 10' deep, and you can't vent through your roof because it is also covered in snow XX feet deep, and the power goes out? At that point, you are dead, and so is everyone else. Either from freezing, running out of food, carbon monoxide, or your roof caving in.

History indicates this is precisely what happened at the onset of the Younger Dryas. It didn't happen everywhere -- the Southeast US was safe -- but where onset occurred, the switch flipped instantaneously, in the span of a year. It is because the impending event is due to cascading impacts that will only be realized to be "final" (for our purposes) after they have already occurred.

#blackpill

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: September 27, 2019, 04:17:58 AM »

I've seen a lot of debate about this, the consensus here is that continental snow doesn't really have much bearing on Arctic sea-ice. Recently (2017, 2018) the snow mass charts have gone off the scale in winter (ECCC had to make a new y-axis) and it really hasn't correlated with a change in Arctic sea ice melt.


More snow = more sunlight reflected = cooling.  But the best way to get a wider cover of snow on the continents adjacent to the Arctic is to disrupt the polar vortex and allow more cold arctic air to spread further away from the central Arctic, meaning the central Arctic becomes warmer.
Yes! Extra snowcover also has the impact of aiding -500MB anomalies in the continents, with ensuing cold blasts into the mid-latitude oceans a particularly potent method of advecting additional oceanic heat into the Arctic. Continental snowfall is good from the perspective of blunting incoming warmth to the Arctic that would originate from the continents, it is bad from the perspective that -500MB anomalies are effective at evacuating mid-latitude oceanic heat northwards, into the Arctic.

IF the continents are snowcovered AND the Arcic is fully ice-covered, the outcome of snow-covered continents is probably net beneficial to sea ice. However, if the continents are snowcovered and the Arctic pack is entirely surrounded by water -- as is currently the case -- perhaps this is when the oceanic feedbacks derivative of the -500MB anomalies really kick into overdrive. When the sea ice is surrounded by hundreds or thousands of miles of open water, the positive benefits of continental snowcover are lost as that air which would normally advect overtop the sea ice, depleted of heat and moisture, is instead often muddled by cyclonic activity as it meets the open waters of the ESS / Laptev/ whathaveyou.

I had not considered this juxtaposition before, but it would make quite a bit of sense in explaining why atmospheric circulation goes to particular sh*t in the autumnal months as of late.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 11:56:48 PM »
It is interesting to note that there is a pattern to the very bad years of 2007, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

The first "bad" year was 2007. It took five years for 2012 to happen. It took four years for 2016 to happen. It took three years for 2019 to happen.

Perhaps it is nonsense, but that would put 4M KM^2 minimum as "normal" come 2021 (two years after 2019, and then we are down to one year separating these instances, i.e. it becomes each and every year), with each year thereafter likely to achieve a max under 2019, 2016, and 2007.

It should also be noted the last minimum above 5M KM^2 looks to be 2009. That is potentially about 11 years between the last minimum above 5M KM^2 and the last minimum above 4M KM^2 (using the step-trend above, that year would be 2020, or it may have already occurred).

We cannot say whether the remaining decline will follow on the same gradual continuum. Below 4M KM^2, the area / volume discrepancy inherently favors massive drops in area relative to volume as 0 is approached. I would think that there will not be another 11 years between the last 4M KM^2 min and the last 3M KM^2 min.

2009 is actually a great year to illustrate this increasingly gaping volume discrepancy. It has a September PIOMAS minimum of about 7,000 KM^3 (I can see the charts but not the exact #s). 2019 is probably going to come in around 4,000 KM^3. That is an approximate 45% volume decline, while area has only declined 25%ish (approx 5.25M KM^2 down to 4M KM^2).

At some point in the near future if volume decline continues, area is going to give out in a big way IMO, as the two most converge as 0 is approached.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 09:08:14 PM »
Just take a look at the poll-results year on year and you will see that weatherdude88 is not alone in his inaccuracy of prediction AND that the data is invariably weighted toward lower-than-actual prediction (though i suspect this year may buck that trend).

That being said he did take a risk coming out with what he did.
He is a denier troll and it was not a risk, it was a lie designed to further obfuscate and derail the discourse on this forum.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 25, 2019, 07:35:45 PM »
2016 loses 299,415 square kilometers of sea ice area over the next 4 days (74,853 square kilometers / day). 2019 needs to lose 214,871 square kilometers over the next 4 days to keep the pace (53,717 square kilometers / day).

It is likely 2019 will fall to the third lowest northern hemisphere NSIDC sea ice area value for the date, in the next 4 days.
Oh look you are back at a convenient time yet you are still wrong, nothing has changed!

7
Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live
« on: August 14, 2019, 03:31:43 AM »
Northeast warming faster than rest of US, particularly in winter:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/climate-environment/climate-change-america/

As a New Jersey resident I have to call BS on this article.  First off more people live in the sector of the northeast than any other sector in the country, which would include more cities and more of a heat island effect...not really news.  Second their data only constricts to meteorological winter and not astronomical which would include part or match, and anyone living in the northeast will tell you that is to most variable month of the year (March 2016 was the coldest march on record for a lot of tristate areas).

I can not deny that winter is not what it used to be, but I'm unimpressed by the means they support it.  Seems just like stating an obvious fact.
Yes, this article is fake news and the data is broad and incorrect. It also goes back to 1895 so it should be no surprise that the NYC heat island is visible on the map (as are heat islands elsewhere).

8
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: August 13, 2019, 05:54:12 PM »
Quote
Things have got a lot worse in the last 6 years
Indeed. Worsening ever more. There'll be no end to the worsening for the next couple of centuries I guess. As long as GMST keeps rising. Or until the forests are gone of course.
Or until the humans are (mostly) gone  ;D

9
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: August 13, 2019, 05:28:23 AM »
These graphs mean nothing. They are produced by elites (The World Bank) to further the notion that inequality has not worsened and that most people are not slaves. The best way to make a slave angry is to tell them they are a slave -- instead of the modern BS about working class blah blah blah.

Under 5% of China lives in "extreme poverty"? What kind of definition is this? I would say 95-98% of Chinese are the modern equivalent of slaves.

"Extreme poverty" is a made up term, and has no bearing on actual quality of life. Enabling someone to live to 80 so they can work til they die DOES NOT IMPROVE THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE.

10
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: August 13, 2019, 04:52:50 AM »
Read some (recently written) history, my drug addled friend! :)

Slavery generally declined in Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. There was no more Empire to efficiently collect taxes. Roman law was not very nice to women...the list goes on and on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11415022/The-best-thing-the-Romans-did-for-Britain-was-leave-historian-claims.html

The best thing the Romans did for Britain was leave, historian claims


On average Britons lived for two years longer after the fall of the Roman Empire

Quote
Asked if the fall of the Roman Empire was good for Britain, Prof Fleming added: “If you are a villa owner, no. But if you are part of the 97 per cent of the rest, then, yes, it might add a couple of years to your life which makes a difference.

“The people were living longer after Roman Britain because they weren’t being taxed
. “

I think you are living in a parallel universe where words mean more than realities. You would also say that slavery is almost non-existent today despite the fact that the vast majority of people would starve and die if they did not show up to work tomorrow. That historical anecdote is merely that, an anecdote.

Precious few people are wealthy enough that they can continue to eat, if they stopped working.  However, that number is much higher today (and they would survive longer) than in years gone by.
I am talking as a relative % of the population, I think you are talking raw numbers. As a relative % of the population, we are at the worst-ever moment in history right now, IMO.

Remember, before urbanization, most humans WERE self-sufficient in terms of food production. A peasant's life in Medieval Europe was probably better than a factory or IT worker's life today, IMO.

11
Consequences / Re: When and how bad?
« on: August 12, 2019, 09:09:25 PM »
Sorry, but I don't understand your replies, bluice and klondike Kat.
Could you please spell out a scenario where the future would be better? Which curve is that?

The Future IS better. Every single year since WW2 has seen a growing life expectancy, smaller child mortality, improving lifestyles for more and more people in this world. More and more countries are democratic, women can vote, there is no more child labour, no slavery, no 6*12 workweeks, less and less war deaths, even the homicide rate is collapsing.

Compare our present to the middle ages: 6 of your 9 children would have died before 10 (or rather 5 ), you'd have no teeth by the age of 40 if you were lucky to live that long, toiling every day from dawn till dusk.

Seriously people, what is wrong with you???

It is so funny how people swallow these lies.

There is the largest underclass in the history of the planet at the moment. There are literally about 4 billion people who live in abject poverty, and who are literally the definition of slaves, even though we don't call them slaves anymore. Getting rid of the notion of slavery has allowed the essence of slavery to expand and encompass billions of new humans.

What is "democracy" anyways? Is it legitimizing governance by a handful of elites so that they can do as they please without risk of violent revolt (or severely reducing said risk)? Or is it equalizing opportunity etc? It is definitely not the latter.

I would also argue that the sheer scale of the slave and working classes in the developed and developing worlds negate the benefits you speak of re: mortality etc. Great, Americans live to 80 on average -- so a slave now has to work for 70 years of their life instead of 10-20. What a great life, how productive, how amazing!

It is insane to see people swallow the double-think presented by the media / etc as "good" when these innovations have been God-awful for about 90% of planet Earth's human population. A long life with children who don't die isn't necessarily better than a short life with children that do die if said humans are trapped in eternal slavery, a state where refusal to work or taking a day off results in their termination and potential death. How benevolent we are, how lucky they are, to live in modern society! LOLOLOLOLOL

12
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 12, 2019, 08:16:08 PM »
The answer is an unequivocal 1: We have significantly overshot the global carrying capacity for humans.

The outrageous overshoot has been made possible by abundant and highly concentrated solar energy in the form of fossil fuels, period.

We cannot possibly create a transition to a sustainable economy to support 8+ billion humans.  Not gonna happen.

To come remotely close, the wealthiest 1-2 billions humans will need to consume much, much (~80%) less, starting now.  Not gonna happen.

To come remotely close, the middle 3-4 billion humans will need to give up their aspirations to join the global consumer class, and the global corporate hegemony will need to give up its aspirations to profit off of that.  Not gonna happen.

I have a 16 YO. One kid.  If I knew then what I know now, I would never have procreated.

One HUGE pet peeve: We need to bring the human population to a peak and begin to shrink it, immediately.  That will entail a difficult demographic transition that will include an aging population and a "deficit" of young workers to support them.  Too bad.  If you think it will be easier to go through the demographic transition at some point in the future, you are deluded.
This is correct but also incorrect.

The outrageous overshoot was enabled by fossil fuels but that is NOT the cause.

The cause was the French Revolution, which was the launching point for turning elite consumption habits into mass consumption habits.

This enabled the growth of the global middle class, which resulted in worsening exploitation of the planet (fossil fuels) and gave rise to the global slave class, consisting of billions of people near-starvation in developing regions.

Without the French Revolution, there would have been no global middle class, and population controls would have remained in check. Would there have been some limited environmental degradation from that point forward, and could there have been other revolutions resulting in similar trajectories? That is entirely possible.

But I think it is folly to blame the resources in the ground for the demise of our environment instead of the meatbags that are extracting said resources, who do so based on a political ideology that every human should be entitled to consume as much as they desire, with no repercussions.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 12, 2019, 04:50:08 AM »
https://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=afg&product=PNS&issuedby=afg

Public Information Statement...CORRECTED
National Weather Service Fairbanks AK
800 PM AKDT Sat Aug 10 2019

...Lightning Detected within 300 Miles of North Pole Today...

A number of lightning strikes were recorded between 4pm and 6pm
today within 300 miles of the North Pole. The lightning strikes
occurred near 85 degrees north, 120 degrees east, which is about
700 miles north of the Lena River Delta of Siberia. This lightning
was detected by the GLD lightning detection network which is used
by the National Weather Service. This is one of the furthest
north lightning strikes in Alaska Forecaster memory.

$$

JB

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 11, 2019, 08:06:06 PM »
You picked not the relevant chart. Past days at ESS and the Pacific side in general were really cold with massive surface refreezing, but winds have already shifted.

Any evidence of this massive surface refreezing in the ESS or the Pacific side in general would be appreciated.
Yes, your pattern recognition ability to observe the increase in concentration in the pacific edge between the 4th and the 10th of August.
I think you are being rude and you are also incorrect, there was no increase in concentration, but there has been an increase in CLOUDS which creates the artifact you incorrectly attribute to refreeze.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 11, 2019, 06:11:16 AM »
JAXA at 5.11 -130Kish though obvs Juan's post will be better  ;D

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 08, 2019, 09:01:28 PM »
Would you mind briefly describing why we are fu**? I see those cold anomalies over north America? What does that mean for us?
We are double-f*cked because as the Arctic is collapsing, the cold is now increasingly becoming focused in the grain-growing regions of the Northern Hemisphere. The crop situation this year across much of the Midwest is now dire. Yields will be double-digit %s below normal.

If this repeats next year there will be major food shortages for much of the developing world, IMO, as well as SEVERE winter and spring cold outbreaks in the developed world, particularly in the areas that have consistently trended colder since 2012.

In terms of raw data comparisons (2019 vs the 1981-2010 mean), the Arctic is still glowingly positive, although the - numbers are reduced in scope a bit across the continents. Nevertheless, I think the shift since 2012 highlights a new normal(ish?) pattern we are now spiraling towards, and it is very very BAD.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 08, 2019, 10:35:02 AM »
July data in. We are so f*cked!

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 07, 2019, 10:47:13 PM »
If the 12z EURO is correct I would think a minimum of under 2M KM^2 for both area and extent becomes very possible.

19
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 07, 2019, 05:58:04 AM »

OK, so we are back to  --

99% of those people will die within a month of collapse.

Thanks!

Quite the opposite.  Civilization collapse would likely cause the vast majority to switch to a low calorie diet and greatly increase their activity level. No choice there. Meanwhile, insulin can be kept at room temperature for at least a month, with FDA-approved levels of potency remaining.   Beyond which, most Type II's need only oral medication, with stability of agents for many months.

You're right, though, about the less common Type I folks.  Without insulin, they're gonners, regardless of diet and exercise.

I think you are extremely naively optimistic.

The initial carnage of the first week or two post-collapse would probably result in the deaths of a very substantial portion of the population. No law, no order, no food for some -- in dense areas you would probably be seeing cannibalism by the third week.

It's hard to guess what collapse will look like.  But I think the example of Hurricane Maria on Puerto Rico may be a good case study.  Weeks of no grid electricity.  A functioning military and national guard for quite some time.  They're geared for operating for long periods without a grid or gas stations.  It was actually the rural areas that had little or no support.  Urban areas had better lifelines. 

In all, I expect a stuttering collapse--two steps backwards for each periodic step forward.

IDK, when Sandy happened in NYC, Lower Manhattan was essentially a war zone by day 3 or 4. Not with crime, but it was completely abandoned. There were massive fuel and logistics issues as well, with the subways largely down. That was only three to four days.

20
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 07, 2019, 05:44:14 AM »

OK, so we are back to  --

99% of those people will die within a month of collapse.

Thanks!

Quite the opposite.  Civilization collapse would likely cause the vast majority to switch to a low calorie diet and greatly increase their activity level. No choice there. Meanwhile, insulin can be kept at room temperature for at least a month, with FDA-approved levels of potency remaining.   Beyond which, most Type II's need only oral medication, with stability of agents for many months.

You're right, though, about the less common Type I folks.  Without insulin, they're gonners, regardless of diet and exercise.

I think you are extremely naively optimistic.

The initial carnage of the first week or two post-collapse would probably result in the deaths of a very substantial portion of the population. No law, no order, no food for some -- in dense areas you would probably be seeing cannibalism by the third week.

21
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: August 06, 2019, 04:47:26 PM »
Some footage from the floods in Russia. In just a couple minutes the water was a couple meters high.  Looks like a tsunami. https://www.hln.be/video/in-drie-minuten-staat-water-metershoog-in-straten~p94637
I am pretty sure that actually is the 2011 tsunami from Japan and this is fake news... the water reverses direction, it rises too quickly, and the weather matches the weather seen in most footage that day (it is also snowing... and it definitely is not yet snowing anywhere in Russia).

22
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 06, 2019, 03:53:05 PM »
Has anybody considered that even if everybody survived collapse, within 3 months about ~10% of the US adult population would be dead from lack of insulin. Stockpile now!

Not to mention all the other health conditions that would suddenly go untreated.

Ten percent may be diabetics (mostly older, sedentary, overweight Type 2), but I can't believe 10% of the population are treated with insulin. 

If civilization collapses, obligate fasting will control blood sugars nicely for most.  For most of the others, increased exertion will help control blood sugar levels.  Civilization collapse would likely be curative of the diabetic state for most, within a month or so.  A silver lining.

Death is not a cure, and you are delusional.

23
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: August 05, 2019, 08:17:41 PM »
Wouldn't that be a good thing for overpopulation? Just turn the power off for a few days and come back to 50% less people!  ;D

It would be most effective when done where you live, but I don't think you would find that very funny. To be entirely dependent on a sick system, to be both victim and accomplice, isn't a laughing matter.
I still have my stockpiled carbohydrates and peanut butter from the Ebola scare of 2014, not too worried,  ;)

24
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 04, 2019, 02:03:27 AM »
What is wrong with you people. It's like the flagellants during the Bubonic Plague. White people are just like other people. Where would we be without electricity, modern medicine, etc. It is easy to say "omg white people evil" while ignoring all the positives. Just as it's easy to say white people are to blame for slavery when it was actually the Africans who were first engaging in the practice (not that it is acceptable in either case, but really, why is one evil worse than the other).

If you want to flagellate I guess that's fine but I don't think it is a reasonable response and I'm not going to join you or condone it.

25
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 03, 2019, 10:20:13 AM »
After watching Titanic for the umpteenth time I realized it is probably not a bad indicator on what to expect in a contained collapse scenario where 1) there will be mass death 2) there will be survivors 3) resource distribution is unequal 4) maximization of absolute NUMBERS for survival is not the key goal and there will be "capacity" to spare for which some will die.

https://titanicfacts.net/titanic-survivors/

31.6% – the percentage of people aboard (passengers and crew) who survived the sinking.

53.4% – the total percentage who could have survived, given the number of spaces available on the lifeboats.

492 – the number of Titanic passengers who survived.

37% – the percentage of passengers who survived.

61% – the percentage of First Class passengers who survived.

42% – the percentage of Standard Class passengers who survived.

24% – the percentage of Third Class passengers who survived.

2 – the number of dogs believed to have survived (both were lapdogs taken onto lifeboats by their owners).

20% – the percentage of male passengers who survived.

75% – the percentage of female passengers who survived.

214 – the number of Titanic crew members who survived.

24% – the percentage of crew members who survived.

22% – the percentage of male crew members who survived.

87% – the percentage of female crew members who survived.

50% – the percentage of Navigation Officers who survived (4 out of 8).

0% – the percentage of Engineering Officers who survived (all 25 perished, bravely working to keep the ship afloat for as long as possible).

100% – the percentage of lookouts who survived.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 31, 2019, 08:59:29 AM »
Bye bye Laptev!

This would be GAC equivalent damage due to the worsened overall state of the ice in 2019

I believe as volume approaches 0, rate of extent and area declines will hasten relative to volume losses (it is necessary as 0 in one is 0 in the other but 1,000 KM^3 of volume remaining could easily be 1,000,000KM^2+ area and extent). At that point 1,000,000 has a lot farther numerically speaking to fall to hit 0 than volume does. When it happens, it will happen QUICKLY.

I think we could see the same effect, but dulled given our current and possible final position, as we fall a substantial % below 2012 this year. But it won't be a BOE. We will still have 2M KM^2ish+ of area and extent, IMO, at minimum. This is still potentially an order of magnitude worse than 2012 in terms of overall climactic impact (both in the Arctic and the mid-latitudes and beyond, as open water and OHC are much worse than seven years ago).



The Laptev ice is almost entirely .5M or less in thickness at this point. One major cyclonic event with borderline temps and it will go the way of the ESS. It could finally be on the horizon, at least according to tonight's 00z EURO at D7.

Finally, a comparison between the models shows the GFS has a similar event around D9 as the low responsible for the rapid deepening is delayed.



The Canadian is also a bit more delayed, and winds the low up on the ATL / Laptev boundary instead of closer to the heart of the CAB.



There is certainly increasing support for some kind of event in the D6-9 range.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:48:06 AM »
The 00z models have a couple interesting features to watch.

In the short term, there is going to be a ~980MB low pressure system in the Kara. It will be BROAD, more than anything else. I wonder if this will result in negative impact to ATL and Laptev fronts.

In the medium term, I think the biggest thing to keep an eye out for is actually not in the Arctic. The Pacific looks set to generate a series of major typhoons, some impacting land, some recurving more quickly without doing so. The 18z GFS stalled a Category 4 or 5 around Okinawa for a week or so. The 00z GFS has a very different solution. The output is likely to be highly variable until these storms begin to form.



However, I think the key takeaway from ^ is that there will be MULTIPLE opportunities for major +500MB heat injections in the Western Pacific. This ridging is ultimately going to make it up into the Arctic by D7+ (IMO). This is likely to result in a worsening of conditions once more. The 00z GFS has a major heatwave blasting the entire Laptev / ESS fronts, it would ensure we maintain #1 spot through 8/10 with EASE. 

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:12:22 AM »
2012 was exceptional in it's ability to dent the deep inner portion.

2019 has been at the front of the pack in efficiently dealing with the portions we expect to melt but hasn't YET demonstrated the exceptional qualities necessary to make a significant dent in the deep inner portion. Most prominent is limited advance on the Atlantic side.

There doesn't appear to be a lot of empirical basis for extrapolating 2019 performance to date to major CAB reductions and a record.
2012 was exceptional in several metrics, but actually not in the CAB. 2016 (green) ran neck and neck with 2012 (yellow orange) all the way to the bottom, before being hit by an early CAB refreeze. This is supported by both UH AMSR2 (see petm's post #5024) and NSIDC.

2016  and 2012 we're both exceptional with respect to the CAB.

Oren shared a chart in the PIOMAS thread showing 2012 far ahead in CAB volume loss vs. other years.
I wish you would post less... oren's CAB volume chart in the PIOMAS thread shows 2019 in the lead. You post inaccuracies interspersed with useless conjecture, the combination is understandably off-putting yet for some reason here you are, still posting...

Oren's chart shows 2012 CAB beating every other year by close to 1,000 km3 in the final month of the melting season.

Like I said earlier, the finish of the 2012 melt season was parallel to Hurricane Harvey as a rain event. Unparalleled and off the charts.

This season will need a finish approaching that to top it.

Thanks for the compliment.

....you said


Oren shared a chart in the PIOMAS thread showing 2012 far ahead in CAB volume loss vs. other years.

2019 is AHEAD of 2012. You did not qualify it as September, you said it as if it were current, and how would you make a statement about 2019's September volume at this point anyways? It isn't even August yet.

You make falsifiable statements and then twist them around and keep arguing for no good reason. I hope you are banned.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 31, 2019, 04:39:23 AM »
2012 was exceptional in it's ability to dent the deep inner portion.

2019 has been at the front of the pack in efficiently dealing with the portions we expect to melt but hasn't YET demonstrated the exceptional qualities necessary to make a significant dent in the deep inner portion. Most prominent is limited advance on the Atlantic side.

There doesn't appear to be a lot of empirical basis for extrapolating 2019 performance to date to major CAB reductions and a record.
2012 was exceptional in several metrics, but actually not in the CAB. 2016 (green) ran neck and neck with 2012 (yellow orange) all the way to the bottom, before being hit by an early CAB refreeze. This is supported by both UH AMSR2 (see petm's post #5024) and NSIDC.

2016  and 2012 we're both exceptional with respect to the CAB.

Oren shared a chart in the PIOMAS thread showing 2012 far ahead in CAB volume loss vs. other years.
I wish you would post less... oren's CAB volume chart in the PIOMAS thread shows 2019 in the lead. You post inaccuracies interspersed with useless conjecture, the combination is understandably off-putting yet for some reason here you are, still posting...

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 30, 2019, 05:52:11 AM »
2012 plateaus for the next few days. We are now three days ahead of when 2012 hit this mark. This should ensure (IMO) that regardless of whether or not we get a GAC, we will be far below 2012 by 8/1, and will maintain distance through 8/10. I would guess we will see a departure of up to 300-400K KM^2 from 2012 at peak dissonance over the next few days.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 27, 2019, 08:53:38 AM »
My bet is still on 2nd overall in terms of probability, but it's an open race.

Sounds about right to me too. I'd say 2012 is leading by a length, but several laps to go. Decreased thickness is indeed a wild card, and also don't forget the open and warm Chukchi.
You are wrong. 2019 is leading by every metric -- extent, area, and volume. You can say what you want, but it is still wrong.  :)

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 26, 2019, 02:17:51 AM »
Months ago I said if we saw a new minimum the story would be the weather in the mid-latitudes. As all-time records are now falling across Europe, that is clearly the case.

The Greenland situation in sync with the Arctic is severely troubling IMO. I wonder if the rubber band is going to snap in the opposite direction as we head into autumn. With a possible record amount of open water, the Greenland melt, and the rising SSTs, I would think this year is more primed than any before for VERY rapid growth in continental snowfall as the sun falls lower in the sky. This could translate into a severely early and chaotic winter pattern with major snowfalls across most of the mid-latitudes extending into areas that normally do not see them (IMO). I won't get too off-topic, but the end of the melt season is much more likely to coincide with an abnormally early start to winter across the continents, in my opinion.

At the same time, the early onset of snows across North America and Eurasia is likely to advect even MORE oceanic heat into the Arctic in September and October, which could mean we also see a very late minimum this year (to end the post on a note that brings it full circle and totally back on topic). That would also coincide with a very lackluster refreeze, probably worse than 16-17, which could put us in a position where we could see a very horrible minimum in 2020 (like, 1M KM^2 remaining).

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 25, 2019, 02:01:14 AM »
I can vouch that it's not by smoking anything worthwhile that Rich gets his notions but clearly he is a wiser man than Zack Labe .  .. b.c.
So it's meth? That makes sense, especially after reading his follow up comment. LOL. Or maybe Krokodil?

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 23, 2019, 10:14:58 PM »
The smoke-cyclone in Siberia is now approximately the size of the remaining sea ice. Wow. Paris is expected to breach its all-time high by 3-4F on Thursday as well, with 108F currently forecast.


35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 23, 2019, 12:02:13 AM »
HYCOM has actually been quite useful this year IMO and it portended the complete implosion of the PAC front very accurately. Now it is showing the same happening on the ATL front NE of Greenland, with concentrations dropping to 50% or so across a very wide area over the next week. We have had enough thickness on the ATL front til now to avoid this, but it appears as though we may finally see a collapse in the next week or so. The forecast from GFS / EC/ CMC support this as well. The Laptev front also appears ready to collapse, and all the PAC front that is still above 15% is rapidly going to drop below that number. I would anticipate multiple double / triple-century drops in extent over the next ten days and sustained 100K+ area drops accompanying.


36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 22, 2019, 03:18:26 AM »
The best path forward is the current path. There is nothing you, me, or anyone else can do about it.
Certainly off topic but why is it that you come here?
It is not my fault if you believe in delusions that are disproven by the ongoing course of human history.

Instead of insulting me and dragging the thread off-topic again why don't you try answering the question of how removing aerosols won't result in a BOE and a crisis magnitudes worse than today's.

1. You dragged it off-topic with your editoralizing.

2. Aerosols are an issue, but you are over-stating it by a good order of magnitude. Effect is smaller than originally thought and far less abrupt.

3. You weren't insulted. What reason do you have to pay attention if humanity is screwed? This suicide cult crap pisses me off. Think as you wish, but it is unethical and immoral to spread a suicidal opinion all over the internet encouraging hopelessness.

4. Your opinion is factually incorrect.

This will be my last on this. If you persist on spouting your suicidal ideations, I will track down that blocking function/app and block your posts and encourage all others to do the same.

I think I overreacted but I also disagree strongly on aerosols and I think research also backs my viewpoint. I will not continue this tangent and I apologize for my previous brusqueness.  :)

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 22, 2019, 12:33:25 AM »
The best path forward is the current path. There is nothing you, me, or anyone else can do about it.

Certainly off topic but why is it that you come here?
Why do you come here? I am here to watch the ice melt and to learn from others. It is not my fault if you believe in delusions that are disproven by the ongoing course of human history.

Instead of insulting me and dragging the thread off-topic again why don't you try answering the question of how removing aerosols won't result in a BOE and a crisis magnitudes worse than today's. Bueller? Bueller?

38
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 12, 2019, 03:07:26 AM »
If society truly collapsed, all the nuclear reactors would meltdown and the Northern Hemisphere would be uninhabitable within weeks, and the Southern Hemisphere would probably follow within a few months. So you would probably just be dead.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 09, 2019, 08:56:24 PM »
XXX-rated Pole Hole showing up on 12z EURO


40
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 08, 2019, 06:48:42 PM »
The volume anomaly at the end of June is more negative than it has ever been.

In my opinion this statement is not true as the June volume anomaly is still in the light grey shaded area and not below it (as it was in 1981, 2010, 2011, and 2012).
Your opinion is wrong... the light grey area is based on trend line, the June volume anomaly was MOST DEFINITELY the most negative it has ever been and this is not up for debate.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 08, 2019, 04:04:52 AM »
Alaska's worst day yet for fires (IMO). Massive plumes all over. Also in Siberia.


42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 07, 2019, 12:23:08 AM »
I think the Titanic analogy is so apt here. The ship looks like it could plausibly survive (from an outsider's view) up until nearly the very end.

https://youtu.be/rs9w5bgtJC8?t=8175

The last ten minutes is much more dramatic than the first two hours, but the same rate of sinking is ongoing for most of the time. I.E., VOLUME is VASTLY more important than AREA and EXTENT because the last 1,000,000 KM^2 of area will disappear alongside the last 1,000 KM^3 of volume, and this becomes especially true as one approaches 0.

Congrats, we are all on board!  8)
 
Also: it is crazy that PIOMAS still includes substantial + volume in Hudson Bay versus 2012 / etc. The advantage 2019 has going into July... and if the 12z EURO verifies? Oh my.

In today's EOSDIS shot (7/6) you can see a huge area of the ESS (?) that is about to disappear in the span of a few days. HYCOM indicates this ice is now falling under .25-.5M of thickness all at once.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 06, 2019, 07:53:12 AM »
PIOMAS #1

Suck it weatherdude

44
WHO ELSE IS REFRESHING THE VOLUME CHART EVERY FEW HOURS OMG WHERE IS SECOND HALF OF JUNE DATA GIVE IT TO ME NOW PLZ

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 07:57:43 AM »
I think 2019's main problem now is that there is no thick remaining shorefast ice that can protect the main pack from assault.

Apples to apples, HYCOM's 7/2/2018 forecast for 7/9/2018 showed big bits of relatively thick ice remaining in Beaufort and along Siberian shorelines. Volume was still even minorly substantial in Hudson and Baffin, and Kara had coverage.



2019? OMG.



Even the bits of old shorefast Siberian Islands ice now integrated into the basin's pack are MUCH thinner than last year. All of the shorefast ice in Beaufort is gone. Same with 90% of the Siberian ice. Kara is open. Hudson's anomaly is barely there at this point.

If HYCOM went back further with apples-to-apples comparisons I'm sure 2019 would conclusively look the worst. You can see how the pack is also PRIMED to make huge retreats in July and August as there is now nothing to stop the periphery FYI from collapsing completely, as it is about to do through 7/15-8/1.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:30:28 AM »
You know, if the world is ending due to impending BOE and all, I guess one positive would be that all the grammar nazis will also be dead.  8)

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:00:28 AM »
Oh boy



The cliff is about to get going...

I would think the concentration maps to be too aggressive if thickness and EOSDIS didn't confirm that the entire PAC front is about to give out entirely (IMO)


48
Guadalajara, Mexico, sweltering through a hot steamy summer, has 3 feet of hail dumped on it.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/is-it-snow-is-it-hail-sweltering-mexican-city-experiences-extreme-summer-event/70008700
We should build the wall out of ice for the added ALBEDO bonus.

49
I’m just messing with you Bbr. People give you a hard time because you have a crazy theory about a new impending ice age.

I view you as one of the best weather forecasters on the forum.  I don’t agree with all of your theories, I do respect what you have to say. 

Thank you for being an active participant on these forums 👍🏻
Now you get a beer  ;D

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 25, 2019, 04:58:35 PM »
2019 is certainly still in the running for a top 2 finish (+/- 1), with the two main reasons besides the relentless weather:
Low area inside the Inner Basin (courtesy of Wipneus).
Extreme export into the Atlantic throughout the season, which has taken a lot of the MYI - shown in lighter shades on Ascat - out of the basin (courtesy of A-Team in the Test Space thread). The FYI has now reached the North Pole.

Yes, it is still in the running, but could also finish 6th or lower.  Looking back at recent years, the sea ice minimum is determined largely by the melt occurring after the solstice.  There appears to be no correlation between the melt that has occurred from the maximum to the solstice and the ensuing minimum.  The weather from now until the autumnal equinox will be the decider.
..

It is of course true that the final result will be based upon melt in the 2nd half of the season.

But to ignore the advantages 2019 has entering the 2nd half would be misleading. It would take a miraculous weather distribution to curb the current momentum and finish outside the top 5.

The installed base of ocean heat, open water and low thickness combined with the present forecast is a huge head start.

Not really.  Compared to recent years, the melt over the first half of the season is fairly average.  This season got off to a fast start, with one of the highest 30-day melts in the satellite era (second to 1997).  However, that rate has curtailed over the past 60 days, such that the current trend is on the low side (only two years since the 2007 low have been less).  Some have contributed that to the thicker ice behind more difficult to melt.  Sea ice extent is currently 6th lowest at NSIDC, and if the pace continues, would finish 8th.  I think that weather conditions would need to deteriorate further to finish in the top 5 (at least in the NSIDC data set).
Blah blah blah volume was #2 as of 6/15 and will probably be #1 by 7/1

Pages: [1] 2 3 4