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 - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: July 14, 2019, 11:46:48 AM »
Thank you for this thread rboyd. It is needed.

I have been finding it difficult to find information on the wider global impacts of a Blue Ocean Event,

Me too. Most I find tells me to not worry about it because a BOE will be like Tuesday. Everything will work just like before sans ice on top. Fish will get fat, shipping lanes will open. Sure Eskimos will have to end their lifestyle but Siberia will be the next Europe and Russia will be great again. Polar bears that stick to the coast will be just fine.

Because of this our risk assessment of a BOE is completely wrong.

A collapse of the polar cell and ferrel cells with a resulting equible Northern Hemisphere climate

The problem is not an equable climate. I don't believe the planet is hot enough for that yet. The problem is the transition to an equable climate, which has already begun.

Climate patterns that held for millennia are now shifting to match the new temperature difference.  Global warming is worse for the changes in temperature differences between the equator and the North Pole than the rise in temperatures.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 11:13:41 AM »
On the consequences of a BOE according to Crandles post:

These changes are very likely to stimulate fisheries productivity in high latitude regions by mid-century

Absolute madness. I totally believe that fish population may increase in the arctic because of warmer water and better light. However that is almost an irrelevant fact, relative with the myriad of changes that are happening as the Arctic melts.

This mentions nothing about changes in atmospheric currents that are already beginning, nor oceanic currents, nor acceleration of Greenland melt, nor forest fires, nor methane release...

Really, this part of the document is a work of fiction. It mentions possible positive feedbacks but it ignores possible negative impacts. This document misleads the proper risk assessment of the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 04:09:06 AM »
The impacts of a BOE is simply a continuum of what we are already seeing. The very low SIE and SIA we are reaching now are already impacting the weather across the NH. While we define a BOE as less than 1 million square kilometers, NH weather will see no real diffirence between 1.4 and 0.8 million square kilometers.

I agree that it is a continuum. It has already started. From now on things only get worse as more open Arctic is warmed and the atmospheric currents start running amok. Things get progressively worse as ASI shrinks during summer and the Arctic winter keeps its meteoric temperature increase. By the time a BOE is here ( excluding sudden BOE) we'll be in enough trouble. But a BOE makes things worse, much worse. The year after the first BOE, by definition there will only be first year ice.  It will lead to another BOE , but earlier, and with more heat to dissipate before freezing begins. This will warm the Arctic faster than it is warming now, with global consequences to match.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 03:45:15 AM »

The research like Tietsche et al and Schroeder and Connolley

I asked for a resource with a BOE before 2070 for a good reason. If the model that you use says the arctic will have ice in the summer 50 years from now, that model is missing something huge, a BOE will happen much sooner than that. Thus a model that has the ice going by 2070 is very likely to assume the ice will return, because it is already underestimating the changes happening in the Arctic.

The paper you posted uses HadCM3. From a quick search HadCM3 predicts ice free during summer somewhere around 2080. That ain't happening. Please try a newer source, with a model that makes a prediction for the first BOE that more closely matches the observations.

suggests that the lack of ice from BOE means little snow can be supported by ice during time when there are reasonable amounts of snow. The ice gets thicker than usual (not thinner) during the freeze season due to lack of insulating snow.

I don't understand. Can you explain to me how can there be conditions for sea ice formation but no condition for snow? It seems the opposite will happen. There will be more snow than ever before. By your own argument that should result in warming. The data clearly indicates that snow fall during fall is increasing.

  After two years it gets back to pretty near normal. This research is covering situation where unusual weather causes a BOE when the climate is not really ready for a BOE yet.

Actually, this research is covering an imaginary situation where the first BOE happens close to 2080.

I think arguing that one BOE causes next year to have longer BOE is like arguing that a record low ice volume means the next year will definitely beat that record.

All things being equal, a record low volume increases the chances of a lower volume next year for the mere fact of having a lower starting point. But the argument of  why the first BOE highly increases the chances of a BOE the year after is much more nuanced than that and with better fundamentals.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 12:43:46 PM »
The IPCC states "with high confidence" that there will be no hysteresis (because they excluded feedback from all of their models) and that the Arctic will just refreeze like normal.

I'm convinced that after the first BOE the Arctic will refreeze like normal, if by normal you mean later than ever and by the end of the freezing season there is a record low amount of first year ice. No instant hysteresis. Hysteresis happens in the years after the BOE as consecutive BOE's happen at earlier dates.

As to linkages and the effects on temperate weather patterns, effects are uncertain. Some results indicate that weather will remain variable. Jennifer Francis etc do not agree.

IMHO the effects are visible and evident but scientist haven't figured out how to correctly account for it. As the Arctic shrinks and the climate extremes get worse data will come in and scientist will get a better quantitative understanding of the new climate regime. Hopefully, not too late.

What seems obvious is that there will be a lot more evaporation from the open ocean in the autumn. But the relative increase of humidity and latent heat in the atmosphere won't be large, not in Western Europe.

To me the biggie is going to be the change in atmospheric pressure as arctic temperatures depart normal Pleistocene temperatures in a geological instant ( a few decades).

In the past, when fast warming like this happened it was stopped by glaciers melting quick and cooling the ocean. Where there used to be glaciers during Pleistocene warming there is now permafrost. I don't know if Greenland alone is capable of that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 01:02:18 AM »
After a BOE there won't be debates about climate change, it will be quite clear. What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

After a BOE, anthropogenic climate change won't even matter anymore. Human emissions will drop significantly  the year after the first BOE. Plastic pollution will pretty much stop a few years after. About the only impact humans will have on the planet at that point will be that of war, and it won't be for long, we'll be fighting with stones and sticks after a while.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:22:38 PM »
The following 3 attachments cover Loss from Max to day 181 in blue and Loss from day 181 to Min in red.

1. PIOMAS, complete set.
2. PIOMAS, 7 High Arctic seas as defined by tealight.
3. PIOMAS, 5 Arctic Basin seas.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 06, 2019, 03:27:14 AM »
During this time of transition, Elon Musk is the most experienced auto CEO.

The irony is hilarious.

Arctic background / Re: Research Icebreaker Polarstern
« on: July 04, 2019, 03:06:06 AM »
MOSAiC Expedition Countdown Series (2)

Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: June 29, 2019, 12:48:11 PM »
It seems terribly obvious to me that global warming, glacial melting and changes in the hydrologic cycles will increase volcanic activity. It hasn't shown up in the data because the warming and melting is barely beginning. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence in this case.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 28, 2019, 06:34:32 PM »
How is that insolation anomaly created.

Are we using something to determine if there was clear skies or not

No. As far as I understand it, it is potential albedo according to the ice and time of the year assuming  no cloud cover.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 26, 2019, 03:47:00 AM »
Archimid, that's the view of most of the scientists who study climate change, not just one.  That's why the UNFCCC agreed to the 2C temperature limit increase in 1992 and reaffirmed it under the Paris Treaty in 2015 and in the IPCC 2018 report.

I know. That is the consensus.  But the consensus is wrong. I know that is quite a claim, but I honestly believe it is true. I believe scientists have too many forces that stop them from laying out the true risks of climate change. I think I know the reason why I can see the truth and they can't (it is most certainly not that I'm smarter than they are), but I rather keep it to myself. It could just be madness. Time will tell.

Keep in mind that the long interglacials (thousands of years long) were caused because the axial tilt of the Earth meant much higher solar radiation in the Arctic than we are seeing now.

I don't believe that is true. What causes interglacials? Last time I checked it is unknown. M. cycles and GHG's are not enough to start them, however, M. cycles and CO2 are the main drivers of interglacials and without them, there are no interglacials.

M.cycles and GHG's reinforce each other over 10k-20k years to reach the interglacial maximum and then temperature precipitously drops, except this last interglacial.

Our interglacial differ from the ones of the past in that the peak wasn't as high ( Younger Dryas  probably caused this) and Temperatures remained high for 10k years after the peak temperatures, instead of dropping fast to match the decreased solar radiation.

So the forcing on the Arctic was much higher than the we are seeing through global forcing of greenhouse gases, even with polar amplification (which also occurred during the interglacial periods as ice melted and the albedo decreased).

 The forcing on the Arctic at Holocene Maximum was not higher than today because there was a big chunk of Laurentride ice sheet left until about 5k years ago. Even when M. cycle forcing was greater than today the Laurentide ice sheet an other remnants of the last ice age served the function to protect the cryosphere during summer, much like snow and the Greenland ice sheet protects the ASI today. It melted in the long, 15k years process.

And the Arctic did not release the methane currently sequestered in the permafrost and hydrates during those interglacials.

It certainly did release part of it. That's part of the reason we came out of the last ice age. As glacier retreated and exposed carbon and life to warmth, that life lifted carbon up in the atmosphere re-enforcing the M. cycles.

The Arctic temperature was up to 4C higher than today during the "Holocene Climate Optimum" just 5,000 to 9,000 years ago when there were no continental ice sheets.  And still the methane did not explode out of the Arctic.

 The  "today" used in your study means 2009 and the max was not 5,000 to 9,000 years ago, it was 10,000 .

There were massive ice sheets at that time that gave ASI protection.

Methane did not explode because there was plenty of ice for the higher temperatures to melt and warming took place over thousands of years, not decades.

Will it explode now? I don't care. A BOE is a much more immediate and evident threat.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 25, 2019, 10:10:06 PM »
Nutshell: there have been warm periods in the recent past, long ones – where the methane hydrates did not come out, so it’s a high bar to prove they will be forced out under current conditions.  For example, the last interglacial, known as the Eemian, about 120,000 years ago – got warm enough to raise sea levels 15 or 20 feet above todays (now, that’s a problem..) – but no “methane bomb”.

What a horrifying mistake from one of the world's leaders of climate science.

It is not the same a 10C temperature rise in the Arctic that takes ten thousand years than 10C over the arctic in just 100 years.

On top of that, unlike the modern quick thawing of the Arctic, the peak temperature during the eemian happened just as the continental ice sheets melted. This time around the natural peak temperature happened 10k years ago, most of the continental ice sheets melted and we are warming it back up in a geological instant. To draw a sense of safety from this analogy is simply wrong.

It is not even clear if the Arctic sea ice disappeared during summer at the peak of the eemian. For all we know, the Arctic has had ice on it during summers for millions of years and the NH hasn't been devoid of ice in all that time.

We do know however that warming causes more warming and warming melts permafrost and activates life, which in term causes more warming. In fact, that is the normal mechanism for global warming (coupled with M.cycles). The assumption they are making is that the CO2 and methane release will not release proportional to temperatures, instead it will release at a bit above  the geological pace even as temperatures are rising at human pace.

It may be, but there is no evidence for that and significant evidence against it.

From everything I've read a "methane bomb" that warms up the world by a few degrees in a few years is highly unlikely. A BOE with runaway warming is much more likely and makes the methane bomb much more likely.

WHat is almost a certainty tho, is that methane and CO2 will continue to be released with increased intensity in the NH at the pace of Arctic Amplification, not at the pace of global warming. Further more the more dangerous effect of methane will be concentrated in the north, doing maximum local damage. That is lost in global averages.

Arctic background / Re: Research Icebreaker Polarstern
« on: June 25, 2019, 05:01:35 AM »
You know that movie Armageddon? Well, like that, but the heroes are real.

MOSAiC-Expedition Trailer

MOSAiC Expedition Countdown Series (1)

The countdown begins - only 4 months to go...

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:56:07 AM »
I'm not sure if this has been posted before, I just found this amazing site from NOAA's
Earth System Research Laboratory Global Monitoring Division.

In it you can find wonderful resources like the attached methane measurements across latitudes and time.

Edit: From the site.

These frames show the latitude distribution (from south-to-north) of average monthly values determined from network flask measurements. Circles are average monthly values from sampling locations thought to be regionally representative; pluses are average values from locations thought to be influenced by local sources and sinks. A smooth curve is fitted to the representative measurements when sufficient data exist. Data shown in ORANGE are preliminary. All other data have undergone rigorous quality assurance and are freely available from GMD, CDIAC, and WMO WDCGG.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:27:34 PM »
Fun fact: In Germany, it is required by law that every house is connected to the public grid. So, no grid free live-style available here.

The law changes according to the times, with some lag.

And yes, power outages are a very very rare thing here. Actually, i can only remember one off the top of my head. It lasted for a couple of hours. In all of Europe, the uptime is pretty good.

Expected. I imagine that hurricane speed winds, 50C heatwaves, hail and floods are very rare too.  Sadly that low disaster frequency is likely to change with the climate and with it, the reliability of the grid.

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:02:09 PM »
Germany's grid outages add up to about 12 minutes per year.

Good for them. Sadly as new and extreme weather patterns start to emerge more often their grid will be challenged more often, just like everyone else.

Grids can be very reliable.

Until they aren't. Fires, storms, floods, heatwaves are all increasing and with that increase comes increase pressure on the grid.

The idea of everyone being free of the grid and energy independent is, well, have you actually thought that through?

Yep. As I said, if achieved, it would be an era of unparalleled prosperity and security. Right now, it seems impossible because energy storage is still expensive. In terms of power production
with solar, for most latitudes solar provides all the energy needed right now. We don't need any other technology. As storage catches up to power generation, then the need for transmission and generation infrastructure will not be there.

Do you have any experience with not being grid connected? 

3 months without grid power at my home. I powered my home with a small inverter gasoline generator that mostly kept the fridge going and provided lights and wind fans to be able to sleep at night.  Not having power sucks, specially if the infrastructure is built under the assumption that there will always be power available.

Do you have any idea what it would take to replace the grid with billions of standalone systems?

Lots of batteries, lots of solar panels and a whole industry of installers and maintainers.

I've been off the grid for almost 30 years.  I'm off the grid because hooking up would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.  (That's one of the things that made my land affordable.)  Most people just wouldn't want to be off the grid and have to run their own utility company.  If I could switch over to grid power I would.

Having a cable that is always* on is a great thing, while the cost of home energy sources is high. As costs lower and the limits of storage and generation increase, energy independence will be ubiquitous. I don't think the technology is there yet, but it is the inevitable end result.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 22, 2019, 10:16:42 PM »
Archimid, no it is not people like me, as I take climate change seriously.

Yeah you take very seriously making sure no one acknowledges any climate change danger. You wear rose color glasses and want everyone else to wear them too.  Your message is attractive. Ignore all dangers keep living like you do, there is no problem until 2100, if that. People love your message. You feed them the lies they want so they can ignore climate change too. And that gives you peace.

 But this is OT on this thread. We are watching our world burn while clowns like you laugh at the danger.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 21, 2019, 12:29:12 PM »
Klondike Kat, and people like him, is the reason people in the US doesn't take climate change serious. The reality is that 99% have no clue what that graph said. Their opinion on that graph will be based mostly on the opinion of those surrounding them. And within those that surround them is Klondike Kat and people like him, injecting FUD in the most civil manner possible, appearing wise to anyone not aware of the danger, giving everyone the bliss that only false hope and doubt can provide.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 18, 2019, 04:51:23 AM »
Interesting fast ice destruction by what looks like river runoff on the ESS.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:46:45 PM »
Nah. Floods have magnitude and frequency and our infrastructure is designed to withstand floods within historic magnitude and frequency. It was predicted that a warmer world will get more and worse floods and that is what we see. It is also predicted that it will get worse.

 Your comment is only trivially true, dismissive and a danger to mankind. It brings solace where there should be alarm. It doesn't matter tho. It will get increasingly worse.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:23:42 PM »
But doing nothing versus doing our collective best may mean the difference between 4 and 6 degrees of warming.  Which, in turn, may be the difference between some continuance of human civilization and a mass extinction which takes homo sapiens with it.

4 degrees by 2100 is almost equally bad as 6. Holding warming to 4C by 2100 is not a solution to the problem.

I wish there was a good source on what is "safe warming". Such paper should examine what is a safe speed of warming and what is a safe total warming.

Only then ECS becomes useful and correct targets can be set. 4C is an entirely different world.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 13, 2019, 08:19:35 PM »

Is warning of climate disaster counterproductive?

Wait, that's not the premise here.

The question is, do we understand the human psyche and use that to get to our goal.

As I understand the problem is two fold

1. Efficient and accurate messaging. Without a clear picture of the problem we have a very low chance to solve  it. For example if we focus on solving climate change by 2050, then we will not solve the problem by 2030, which about how long we have of climate order, could be sooner, depending on the ASI

2. message reception. This is the part Tom’s post addresses. Climate change is scary. If we tell it straight up some people will panic (ie: climate change deniers), but other people will recognize the danger and react properly with climate change action.

If we blunt the message to protect the people that are too scared to face climate change then we give up the people that will jump into action.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 11, 2019, 03:50:58 AM »
While models and simulations have shown the likelihood of increases, they have not been observed to date.

What a load of BS.

The information in that page related to the statistical analysis of Atlantic hurricanes is outdated by more than a decade!

It completely misses the hottest years of record and the most destructive. It completely misses the phenomenon of rapid amplification we have seen for the last few years. It completely misses the wetness experienced during in Harvey or the incredibly crazy year of 2017.

KkK and cowards like him are counting on the increased hurricane frequency and intensity to go back down to 20th century levels. Fools. The warming will continue. So will the increase in hurricane frequency and intensity.  Can there be a lull? sure, but that likelihood is decreasing as temperatures increase.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 05, 2019, 03:28:29 PM »
However the pattern seems to be that there was increase in volume loss but perhaps it is now going down.

Please, attempt to convince me it is currently going down. If we take 2013 as the starting point, a year firmly in the "new ice arctic" regime, it is going up. The melting season thread hints to going up even more.

In the mean time, I like to look at the following animation as a rough bounds for the possible futures.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 02:12:46 PM »
Greta shames us all with her bravery and determination. She talks the talk and walks the walk. If we had more people like her we would have solve this shitty problem already.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 05, 2019, 04:27:42 AM »
This is very likely the same cherry as "No warming since 1998!" or the hiatus, but because the next state change hasn't happened I will do it.  All that needs to happen for this line to come true is that in a warming world Arctic ice doesn't melt faster. It could happen, but I wouldn't bet the fate of our civilization on it.

The state change can be appreciated on attachment one. From 2000-2012 the Loss to Max ratio increased almost monotonically, then after 2012 the Loss to Max Ratio flattens. I drew a 6 year moving average that shows the behavior I'm attempting to show.

It seems that in the "High Arctic" the state change began in 2012. Thus I'm ignoring all previous years to 2012 and I'm drawing the line using only the years after 2012. I'll update after the next minimum is reached.

(R2 value provided.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 04, 2019, 03:22:08 PM »
If you opt for a transplant, do you have plans for the old brain? Asking for a friend.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 04, 2019, 03:20:02 AM »
Energy Storage in Hydrogen : Does this beat batteries?

Brilliant video. The whole channel is worth checking out.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 03, 2019, 09:13:24 PM »
Inspired by Gerontocrat's insightful graphs, I decided to see what the lines look like for the "High Seas"  in PIOMAS.

Edit: True to form the previously posted graphs only included 6 seas ( I mistakenly excluded the Kara sea). Then calamity happened and I lost all the formulas. Got to do it again... My apologies.

Edit: Fixed. the 7 seas are included.

Policy and solutions / Re: When will CO2 emissions peak?
« on: May 28, 2019, 02:02:44 PM »

Naturally, we are talking about the magnitude of annual emissions of CO2 by the civilization into the atmosphere.

To me this is not obvious at all. Emissions from permafrost, methane, forest fires and the ocean capacity to exchange CO2 all have a huge impact in the total number of CO2. My answer to the poll question before I read the thread was a century of more, because I was thinking of natural emissions.

However after seeing your clarification, which only includes human sources of CO2 my answer gets pulled to within the next two decades. 

The answer depends on two things. The renewables revolution and Arctic sea ice. They both determine when human CO2 emissions peak. Each one can stop the other from happening. The difference is that one ends humanity as we know it and the others ushers humanity into a new era of prosperity and balance with the environment.

Difficult indeed.

Policy and solutions / Re: The Boring Company
« on: May 27, 2019, 08:33:02 PM »
Congratulations to The Boring Company for proving dedicated rights of way are important for speedy transportation, something transportation planners figured out roughly two centuries ago.

Right. The only contribution is extending dedicated rights of way lanes into the third dimension. Not revolutionary at all /s

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: May 26, 2019, 04:46:49 PM »
8minutenergy: ‘We can do solar peaker plants at half the cost of gas’

“However, to fill that evening peak, we need storage. You start looking at the economics and power prices in that evening peak can be very high, just because these peakers, typically gas peakers, are now pushed into a shorter period to recover their fixed costs. So pricing levels can be well over US$100 per MWh and we can build a solar plant with a four hour battery to service that peak – we can build that somewhere in the US$50 to US$60 per MWh range.”

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:44:51 PM »
A reasonable interpretation.  However, we shouldn't ignore a major negative feedback (against all the worrisome positive feedbacks).

I was attempting to ignore all possible positive or negative feedbacks to establish a statistical baseline. The baseline is what will happen if the system stays about the same.

I find it extremely unlikely that the system stays about the same. If the system changes then adding the sum of positive and negative feedbacks and forcings to the Maximum volume for the year that follows the first BOE.   

I'll try to address the feedbacks you mention.

A BOE leaves the arctic with vast open expanses of bare water going into the arctic night.

Correct. This vast expanse of water will warm while there is sunlight and cool when there isn't. In an attempt to ignore feedback and simplify analysis, I'm assuming that when the first BOE happens, the last of the heat will be used melting the last of the ice, thus water is as close to freezing temperature as possible. 

  Open ocean radiates far more heat out into space during the night than ocean covered with ice and snow as an insulator.

Heat is radiated into the atmosphere first, some of it interacts with gasses and water and the rest goes out into space.

Heat also escapes by convection into the atmosphere.

This means that all else being equal, because the atmosphere above the ocean is exposed to more radiation and convection the atmosphere will be warmer. This means that there will be a delay of freezing until the heat of the atmosphere can be dissipated. Thus freezing is delayed until that heat is dissipated.

How long it will take to dissipate that heat?

I don't know. I hope that 2016 DMI N80 is not an example, but I believe it is.

It may takes weeks to dissipate enough heat from the lower atmosphere of the arctic before the sheer darkness of the Arctic night takes over. Add abundant clouds from the newly opened ocean and things get worse.

  I really would expect above-record refreezing after a BOE.  Enough to preclude a subsequent repeat BOE?  I don't know.

I also expect a record volume gain after the first BOE. Once the heat is dissipated (ignore the effects of waves and salinity)  freezing will begin with a vengeance, particularly in the Volume metric. Thin ice thickens extremely fast relative to thick ice. However I also expect the ocean opened for a lot longer, clouds hanging around a lot longer and a warm winter. Come April the ice will be weak and warm. Barely anything above 2m.

What might help the year after the first BOE is the snow.  I expect the continents to be hammered by snow in extraordinary ways, and that may lead to a mild melting season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 20, 2019, 03:28:41 PM »
dnem makes an extremely important point.

The first BOE very likely happens in September. At that point, the power of the Sun over the Arctic is minimal. Let's start there.

Let's imagine a situation where the last few million square kilometers of ice poof out of existence creating the first BOE. Let's suppose that the thermodynamic balance of the arctic switches from Melt to Freeze at the instant the BOE happens. No heat accumulated in the atmosphere or the oceans. No enthalphy considerations. The freezing season begins.

What happens next?  The maximum volume of ice that the Arctic has created in a Freezing season is 19.66 (1000 km3). If the year after the first BOE the Arctic creates the maximum volume on record, then max volume in April will be 19.66 of thin, one year ice. The average Melt from 2006 to 2018 was 17.89, but included thick ice. The maximum let on record was 19.69, more than the Maximum gain.

 If everything stayed the same, it is very likely that the year following the first BOE is followed by another  BOE that happens earlier. Then you start the freezing season with negative ice, ending the following the freezing season with even less ice setting up the Arctic for another even earlier BOE.

This cycle will not go on for long before sea ice is gone by June and the northern hemisphere is a different world.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: May 20, 2019, 12:56:24 PM »
As I predicted. You don't get it.

BAU is genocide.  So is eliminating food and transportation for 7 billion people without replacement technologies.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 20, 2019, 05:39:31 AM »
Politics, economics and culture all need energy, plastics, transportation, healthcare, education and food. All those things in turn have the potential for CO2 emissions.

That is a wicked problem because it can't be solved with political campaigns, economic policy or cultural shifts alone. The problem must be solved by using science and engineering before politics, economics and culture changes can implement the solution.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: May 19, 2019, 03:39:25 PM »
and EVs saw only 2.9% of global passenger vehicle sales in 2018.

Only out of context is that a bad thing.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 19, 2019, 04:00:03 AM »
Thanks for the graphs Gerontocrat.

First thing I notice is how the distance between each decadal minimum increases.

The second thing I notice is how far below the 2010 decadal average is the decadal minimum.

Then in my head I imagine where the 2020s decade average will be using the increasing gaps of the first observation.

And then I imagine the decadal minimum for the 2020s to be as far down from the average as the 2010s. If I'm not mistaken there is a very likely BOE there.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 16, 2019, 12:11:15 PM »

Arctic albedo changes are small compared with changes in cloud cover in the tropics
David R. Legates, Willis Eschenbach, and Willie Soon

Willie Soon of Heartland institute fame? I would be very careful with anything from that liar. I'm sure this paper is picking cherries or misleading in some significant way.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 14, 2019, 11:22:40 PM »
You need to cut the weeds 2x per year for 4-5 years, after that there is absoultely nothing to do for 100 years.

Thanks for your experience. That experience applies to an unchanging temperate climate. In warmer, wetter places 6 months without weeding is likely too long for trees that are not hardy.

 Anywhere the climate is changing (everywhere), things like heatwaves can dry the soil and seriously hurt young trees. Weird weather might bring disease.

However, while the climate conditions remain favorable, trees require little maintenance.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: May 12, 2019, 04:05:37 AM »
Appeals to authority hold very little sway in ASIF. That's good.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 02:48:33 PM »

Thanks for the examples in cowardliness:

remember after 2005, how some had claimed that this would be the “new normal” for hurricanes, only to be followed by a prolonged lull in activity.

The last three years of hurricanes were record losses, yet you cherry pick a small lull after 2005 to justify your point

I  Droughts and starvation appear to be another common meme, that has failed to materialize.

This coward conveniently forgot about the years before 2015-2016. Drought was dangerously closing into many parts of the world as the world was undergoing a warm/dry spell. This warm/dry spell was replaced by a warm/wet spell we are currently on. Is warm/dry returning? I don't know, but I dare not to assume that it won't. And if it does, due to CO2, it will be even warmer with more flash droughts.

Although in the U.S., it has been replaced by flooding, as drought is at an all time low.

I mean listen to yourself. You know the extreme drought was replaced by extreme flood, and you may know that the world is going to get warmer. Yet you ignore the danger happily and with pride.

Pure madness.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 06, 2019, 02:59:18 PM »
I don't like them, specially as they seem to crop up more often than present or historic data. This creates a subconscious bias towards imaginary Arctic set ups.

I understand forecasts can sometimes be insightful, and I like that part, but I think it is being overdone. I like Uniquorn's comments, maybe an etiquette can be created were anyone that posts a forecast owes the thread the actual resolution of that forecast.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 06, 2019, 02:16:31 PM »
The bottom trendline bothers me, for a specific reason; it's a proxy for the annual heat entering the Arctic.

That's how I like to look at it.

That isn't decreasing, *can't* decrease past a hard limit described by that total insolation + other heat inflows.

I suppose that the hard limit is the minimum value for loss in the satellite set. That value is 13.9 and happened in 1996. The graph starts at 14. So all the values that have been proven possible are present in the graph

I'd be highly surprised if it really could drop below 17,000km3/year.  I doubt it can remain consistently below 18,000km3/year.

I think clouds are the only thing that can possibly bring the value down to lower levels, but so far they haven't.

That's the value I'm actually watching to determine when we hit "ice free".

I think we will have a record loss year soon, even if the ice is harder to melt because of geometry or clouds. Next strong El Niño year will likely be the first BOE.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: May 03, 2019, 10:42:36 PM »
Brilliant. Solar powered brush mowers.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: April 30, 2019, 12:51:13 AM »
Report: New Mexico’s Methane Problem Worsens as Permian Production Soars

Application of cutting-edge research and new Permian data indicate New Mexico’s methane emissions are five times higher than what EPA data suggest

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 29, 2019, 02:12:10 PM »
My prediction for 2030 is that people that were predicting slow, easily adaptable climate change will pretend they never said such things. It is likely they tell everyone they have been warning us about the incoming doom for decades. Most of them will immediately forgive themselves for slowing down action against climate change.

Only a few of them will remember their part in making us unprepared and accept the responsibility.

Policy and solutions / Re: Energy Efficiency: The “First Fuel”
« on: April 24, 2019, 01:17:06 PM »
Tesla just increase the efficiency of the Model S and X mostly by switching the front motor of the car.  Same battery pack. 10% more range. But more efficiency means more than just range. The Model S becomes cheaper to operate. Better yet, in the increasingly smaller cases where the cars get their electricity from emission heavy energy sources, emissions have been further reduced.

Efficiency truly is the first fuel.

Pages: [1] 2 3