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 - Pragma

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 22, 2019, 11:10:51 PM »
It will certainly be an interesting learning experience to observe rapid in situ melt with mild air temps.

The cool thing about being new to this is learning a lot.

It's not just the air temperature, but the heat capacity of the air and the movement.

In still air, a boundary layer forms which is the same temperature as the ice, and no heat transfer happens.

If there is air movement, the boundary layer is stripped off and the new, warmer air will transfer it's heat to the ice.

The humidity will also greatly affect the heat capacity of the air.

So, an 8 deg dry atmosphere with no wind will melt far less ice than a 3 deg 30% RH air mass moving at 20 km/hr.

Thirdly, the higher the dew point, the more energy there is to be released in the form of condensation.

Temperature is just a part of the equation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 19, 2019, 05:23:54 PM »

As had been said many times, this is a data thread, not a discussion thread.

Dissertations do not belong here; they are clutter and just lower the signal to noise ratio.

Please move any discussion of the data to the melting season thread, (or whatever is current at the time).

Thanks for your cooperation.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 15, 2019, 08:31:17 PM »
Plus, because we stopped measuring, the bees are doing just fine and can handle all the toxic pesticides we can throw at them.

Did you notice that the bee research cancellation coincided with an "emergency" exemption to using a pesticide that was harmful to bees?

Although relevant,  that's just an aside. I came to this thread because I just had some insight into the whole wealth thing, especially concentrated wealth, and I think there is some misunderstanding.

People that are wealthy beyond avarice have limited ways to get a sense of acheivement. They don't get to save up for a fancy night out, or a trip to Ibiza. They don't get to buy out-of-season avocados as a treat. They have disadvantages that the rest of us don't.

They are, simply put, bored. So, they play Jenga.

However, they play Jenga in a way that befits their power, wealth and status. No plebeian alder blocks for them, no sir! They play with the real building blocks of our ecosystem.

For those not familiar with Jenga, here are the basics:

Players take turns removing one block at a time from a tower constructed of 54 blocks. Each block removed is then placed on top of the tower, creating a progressively taller and more unstable structure. The game ends when the tower falls, or if any piece falls from the tower other than the piece being knocked out to move to the top. The winner is the last person to successfully remove and place a block.

So, when the Koch brothers pay millions to deny global warming, they are not evil, they just don't want anyone to interrupt their game.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 06:22:15 PM »
With no disrespect intended toward any scientists involved, I think the IPCC is flawed and intentionally so. As I have said before, it is primarily a political document, constrained by consensus. I'm not sure we can exclude limited scope as a possibility. They continue to ignore reality, i.e. empiricism, because reality has yet to be peer reviewed.

Also, as I understand it, they specifically have not mentioned feedbacks in their reports. The rationale, such as it is, is that the feedbacks can not be adequately characterized, so they are eliminated. One can debate the merits of that approach, but a large gap exists, nonetheless.

This thread contains a wide variety of views, some scientific, some emotional, but deviating from the IPCC is far from blasphemy IMHO. 

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: July 14, 2019, 05:56:53 PM »
Boycot corporate media now, never watch it again:

Posted on Youtube no less. Oh, the irony, and how telling that Youtube controls so much.

I don't watch corpororate media now, but mainly because it is so appalling. While I agree generally they should be boycotted, there is more than one way to do it.

For an interminable week, I had to use a computer that had no ad blocker or script controller and the internet was unusable.

I had no idea it was so bad. I also have no idea how people put up with it.

With the appropriate tools, I pick and choose what I watch and provide no direct revenue to them. I probably give them some metadata, but they have to work for it.

At the same time, combined with blogs and websites as pointers, I have access to a huge amount of information for free. I can then directly support the channels I find worthwhile and avoid Patreon whenever possible.

Another valuable, and painless, change is to drop Chrome etc, and move to open source, like Firefox.

This all happens while Alphabet has the significant burden of infrastructure.

I do not engage in any social media of any kind and I make no apologies to anyone. I have been expecting it to become "uncool" and collapse, but no luck so far.

Boycotting is good, but killing them by parasitism can work and is quite fitting as well.  :)

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: July 13, 2019, 10:00:24 PM »

I think you have produced a pretty complete laundry list. One could add on knock-on effects like crop loss, but that could go on forever, and we don't even fully understand the current climate situation, let alone what we may be facing.

In your paper, I do have a minor quibble about IPCC carbon budgets, in that any that are based in some kind of reality all involve negative carbon. So, to me the issue is moot, although I think the entire IPCC is moot.

I've been thinking about this lately, along with many other here, I'm sure. Relatively speaking, it's imminent.

As has been said, a BOE is not a magic event and the significance will vary as it happens earlier and earlier in the season. That said, I think it is already happening but we haven't changed things that much, yet. (let me explain  :) )

Although we have reduced volume significantly, we have not reduced area anywhere near as much. We are not nearly as far along as some would assume, but area will catch up very quickly IMHO.

So, what we are seeing in terms of jet stream incoherence and other effects is just a taste of what is to come.

As usual, it all comes down to how soon will it happen and how fast we will see the effects?

Everything seems to be "sooner than expected" and "faster than expected".

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 13, 2019, 09:01:56 PM »
Sure, his ex-wife sais so and he sais so, so let's just believe the pathologic liar.

You have sloppily, or dishonestly, conflated two different statements, but regardless, I wouldn't consider a jilted ex-trophy wife as the gold standard for credibility, particularly when there is zero corroboration. She would, however, probably be an excellent source for muckraking and innuendo and if her story fits into your narrative, then go ahead. The fact that she married Trump in the first place should be a red flag, but maybe that's just me.

Pragma, you're gaslighting me is trying as fuck.

I think you are using the term "gaslighting" incorrectly. Gaslighting is when someone is manipulated into questioning reality.

From where I sit, it looks like you just don't like it when someone challenges your authority or position. You can call it whatever you like, but where I come from, we refer to it as "calling bullshit".

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. I refuted your assertions, with research. You accused me of putting words in your mouth. I responded by quoting your very words. Every time I reply, you don't address it, you move the goalposts.

If you don't like someone calling bullshit on what you say, the solution is trivial; don't post bullshit.

If you are getting upset at someone disagreeing with your position, I suggest you reconsider posting on a forum.

If you are annoyed because you feel your opinions and assertions are above reproach and you shouldn't have to defend them, that speaks of a much bigger issue.

The rest / Re: Archaeology/Paleontology news
« on: July 13, 2019, 08:24:15 PM »
As a curious young teenager I read Von Däniken's Chariots of the Gods. It all made perfect sense, until I learned to think more scientifically and realized it was a steaming pile of BS.
I don't think pseudo-science has any value on this forum.

I am embarrassed to say I did the same thing. :-[
Critical thinking is both an art and a science that needs to be learned, and practiced daily. Our monkey brains need to be on a short leash.

That said, I will at least consider just about anything, but I will not entertain any discussion about a flat earth or perpetual motion. Curiously, both are on the rise. This tells me we are truly eff'ed

Gumbercules, I'll look up those two...I enjoy a little pseudoscience once in awhile.

Well, if you're looking for crackpottery, for free no less, try:

Our Mysterious Spaceship Moon
by Don Wilson.

Spoiler alert: 'cuz aliens

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 13, 2019, 12:27:06 AM »
Hmm. I am thinking you have a point and the language needs to be tightened up: Does Arctic Ocean include the surrounding seas?

Also is "will maintain a sea-ice cover throughout summer for most years" being used as just the opposite of "an ice-free Arctic during summer" and hence former includes partial coverage during summer or is partial coverage a separate category that isn't discussed and hence excluded from 'maintaining cover throughout summer for most years' category?

If a 3 category interpretation, then what is written seems wrong, or if seas are excluded, highly likely to be wrong before 1.5C is reached.

Just like caveats about the limitations of various measurement methods, we need to remind ourselves of the fact that IPPC documents are essentially political statements.

After the scientists have had their say, the politicians, bureaucrats and diplomats take over and nothing gets put into the final report unless there is consensus.

When you couple this with the fact that most reports are at least five years old, they are out of touch with reality, and I would say for some, intentionally so.

The result is an anodyne word salad that should be taken with a large grain of salt.

It will be, however, a good document for whatever generations come after us, about how we said a great deal and accomplished little.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:51:40 PM »
Quote from: b_lumenkraft link
Don't put words in my mouth, Pragma.

I don't need to:

Also remember, Donald Trump is a Hitler fan.


Not only were we unable to locate an original source for this quote, or evidence that Time magazine even interviewed Trump in 2002, but we see no discernible record of its existence before the meme first surfaced in April 2019. Yet it’s the kind of statement that would have been quoted ad nauseam in the press had Trump said it. No such references exist.

Nor were we able to find isolated instances of Trump praising Mein Kampf or Adolf Hitler in public statements. The cadence and grammar of the passage are Trump-like (“… but I do respect him. As a leader. Tremendous respect.”), but all indications point to it being fabricated.

A book with Nazi speeches is the only book he reads.

Now that is just silly. Reference please.

Snopes again:

Questions about what he read or didn’t read aside, we have yet to stumble upon a verifiable instance of Trump expressing respect or admiration for Adolf Hitler. What we did find is that people (including some close to him) have been insinuating that Trump has an affinity for Hitler for the better part of 30 years, which in and of itself is interesting.

"All lies and jest, still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest, hmmmm"

Paul Simon, The Boxer

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 12, 2019, 10:15:32 PM »
The US is escalating the concentration camps policies to the next step: Concealed concentration camps will become a thing which then become extermination camps.

This is a one to one copy of German Third Reich policies. Remember, Auschwitz is in Poland.

Also remember, Donald Trump is a Hitler fan. A book with Nazi speeches is the only book he reads. He has it on his nightstand.

Your nose is getting longer!

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: July 10, 2019, 03:58:11 PM »
First of all, I voted for Trump. I'm neither proud nor ashamed of it, and I'd do it again in 2016, and will do it again in 2020.

Wer mit den Nazis marschiert, ist auch ein Nazi!

Nein, aber wie man in den Wald ruft, so schallt es zururck!

Of all the political analyses I have seen, IMHO, this cuts to the heart of the matter. I'm sincere when I say it is brilliant, but those that need to hear it the most will likely ignore it as the rantings of yet another "deplorable".

The politics / Re: Russia, Russia, Russia
« on: July 10, 2019, 05:56:17 AM »
Is there a charismatic NDP anywhere on the horizon?

During the Wilson Raybould kerfuffle the three leaders had their little press conferences with all the faux sincerity and outrage. Frankly, side by side, they all looked pathetic in their own way, and not ready for prime time. A pox on all their houses!

We have a dearth of leadership at the provincial, federal and international level and it scares the crap out of me. They are all a bunch of clowns and the situation is reminiscent of what led up to WWI. I want leadership, but right now I'd be happy with people just acting like adults.

Science / Re: Global Forest Watch
« on: July 09, 2019, 11:23:00 PM »
I think it's pretty much agreed that it's a racket and Elsevier is one of the worst. There are a number of user groups that consist of a data base or members that have access, and if you ask nicely, they will fetch it and/or forward it. I got a paper through a friend that was little more than a pamphlet with zero new information and it would have cost me ~$25 to find that out.

It is highway robbery, because as you say, they are selling what they get for free. When you consider what Google/Youtube downloads for free, for the hope of an ad click for microdollars, you know these bandits are making a fortune. Service charge? For a download, not a hard copy? Bullshit!

In many cases, I literally helped pay for it!!! >:(

I have heard noises that people are tired of it and things might change soon, but I won't hold my breath.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 07, 2019, 06:56:32 PM »
just a thought/question:

if all the MYI is gone and if we agree that certainly all the First-Year-Ice will be gone (<95%) that would mean we would end up with zero ice if i'm not totally mistaken, hence i don't think that all the MYI will go for good but that the littel that will remain will be 95% MYI and all the rest gone for good.

I think that there is a bit of a "gotcha" in the terminology. As long as there is ice at the end of the melting season, there will always be MYI because whatever is left becomes MYI the next year. Personally, I only think of ice 3+ years as MYI, but that's just me. So, a BOE will signal the end of MYI, but not before. (with the usual caveats about the 1M sq. km threshold)

BTW i slowly get a feeling that we could be in for very nasty surprise in about 40-50 days from now, shadowing the worst expectations based on the past 2-3 years when we dodged it.

it has been said and remains, weather is key, but it will come the day  when we shall be watching in awe at nothing (no ice) despite relatively cold weather at the end of august/early september, simply because the ever thinner ice will soon simply melt away just because it started 1m thinner than 5-10 years ago.

I think someone called this a "poof" and I agree, it will happen, just like concentration thresholds make ice "disappear".

I don't think we give enough weight to the most recent years. We focus on area or extent, which is natural, because it is just so visual. But, to me, it can be a red herring. In many terms, 2017 was a much more significant year than 2016 and yet it was ignored as an also-ran.

And then of course, there is the uncertainty of the measurements, particularly PIOMAS. I joke that we are going to end up with volume but no area, or area without volume. :)


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 05:46:43 AM »
I am at times amazed at the low quality English used by some of the native speakers on the forum

As a university professor in an English-speaking country, I can regretfully confirm that written English is weakening.

On the other hand, in a polyglot community like this one, just getting one’s meaning across is probably enough.

1. People who police others' informal writing on the internet deserve neither to be writing nor reading on the internet. It's petty. E.g., I *teach* EFL, yet rarely ever edit my posts anywhere on the internet and let tons of typos make their way into posterity, and occasional true errors... because it's petty to care about how people write on the internet!


Because... (<--- Don't do that, e.g.)

2. Bill is correct. The *only* point of language is to move an idea from one head to another(s). (<--- Don't do that, either.) Anything else is gravy; only formal writing need be as accurate as possible.

3. Playing language cop can get one into some rather embarrassing moments, such as using low-quality English to accuse others of using "low quality English," which, I believe, would mean they used English vulgarities very well. If we are to take your post as written, as opposed to as intended, you have stated in text the opposite of what you intended.  :o

This is called irony. And hypocrisy. (<-- Don't do that one neitherhow.)

So, don't be petty. It's pretty petty. It's a pity and peculiar to be petty per people being pithy with said people's prose, pacishe? (<--- Do this. Have fun, that is.)

 ;)  ;D 8)


But on the other hand, it is perfectly OK for you to do a long dissertation on what other people should do or not do. For our own good, of course.

I see.

I think you just destroyed my i-ron-o-meter. You buried the needle.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: July 03, 2019, 12:10:45 AM »
It should be 2031-2033 due to acceleration, depending on ENSO cycle and emission variability.
And then onward to 500ppm or collapse, whichever comes first. My bet is on collapse.

I think you're about right for a date, but I disagree with 500 ppm or collapse. Regardless of the order, it will be both.

If civilization collapses, the aerosol masking effect will collapse, spiking the temperature and releasing much CO2e from forests and from permafrost that has become permamelt, and that is without any subsea methane release.

Science / Re: Water vapour and warming potential
« on: July 02, 2019, 09:17:21 PM »
What is your proposed forcing mechanism for water vapor?  I can't think of any.  (There might be more pools behind dams or irrigation canals that allow more water to evaporate, but that precipitates out of the atmosphere as rain or snow and winds up back in aquifers or lakes and oceans).  The effects of water vapor that I've read about are all feedbacks related to the increase in temperature due to other climate forcings.

Well, in a highly simplified model, the atmosphere can only hold so much water vapour on average for a given average temperature, so based on that, there is no forcing, only feedback.

That said, there are many areas on the earth where the atmosphere is far from saturated, so my thinking was that humans have done so much to alter the water cycle, (Aral sea, Amazon, agricultural) that they have affected, and possibly (likely?) increase the circulating moisture. Yes, that moisture will fall out but we may be keeping "more balls in the air".

How much that affects the overall system, I can't even guess. We may just be shifting patterns around and I'm nitpicking, but we have a knack of screwing stuff up in unexpected and novel ways.

BTW, the article that kassy posted does a great job of discussing the whole thing (thanks kassy!) and it comes down fairly firmly on feedback only.

In this discussion I almost lost sight of my objective. Regardless of whether water vapour is forcing or feedback, it is a moot point. We are increasing the water vapour through our actions and I wanted to quantify what the effect of that would be.

I'm getting there...slowly  :)   

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 02, 2019, 05:14:56 PM »
It seems to me that we have been using the words dispersion and export quite happily for the last several years without having to wrangle about what the words actually specifically mean down in the Bayou.

As someone who speaks English as a second (or even third) language, I am at times amazed at the low quality English used by some of the native speakers on the forum, with grammatical non sequiturs, embarassing spelling mistakes and word salads that would stretch the abilities of the the greatest of sauciers to dress palatably.

+1 If something is worth saying, then it's worth taking the time to say it clearly. Text/email is bad enough for misunderstanding as it is.

Also, I don't understand, in the context of dispersion, why it matters where the ice is going.

Export is fine when talking about imminent ice loss, but to imply that ice is not dispersed because it is exported is silly and unnecessary. It sounds like an accountant talking about a tax loophole :).

Ice south of the Fram is still counted in extent, area and volume regardless of whether it has a shipping label on it or not.

The rest / Re: Pareidolia
« on: July 01, 2019, 03:56:20 AM »
Has anyone besides me noticed that Baffin Island is a long haired Dachshund? :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 30, 2019, 07:30:16 AM »
Check out post 2802 which is documenting a 5'+ surge.

You've got water being pushed for 1,000 miles and then through a narrowing opening which amplifies the surge heiight.

What happens when a continuous 5' wall of water hits the ice? My default mental image is that the water goes over the top and floods it. As fast as the water might work it's way through any cracks in the ice, it i ifs is replaced by the continuing surge behind it.

I'm looking for logical explanations for the destination of the incoming flood.

You have been watching waaay too many disaster movies. There is no flood, there is no surge, at least according to the posting you cite. It predicts what the seas will be, which means how high the waves will be.

Waves travel horizontally, but the water does not, it just goes up and down. Think of a skipping rope, the wave in the rope goes up and down but it never leaves the hands of the people moving it.

The ice will bob up and down on the water and there may be some splashing but there will be no tsunami inundation. There will be a current develop, but substantially less than the wind speed.

Five foot waves will put the larger floes under stress and  probably break them  up. The wind and wave motion will cause some layer mixing, and possibly accelerate melting. There will be compaction or dispersion depending on the wind direction.

The world will not end.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 30, 2019, 05:09:15 AM »

Does anyone have an idea how much of that moisture is arriving at the ice edge as vapour? How much latent heat is being transferred to the ice?

I'm above my pay grade here, but I was wondering the same thing. The ice is some distance from the strait itself, but the water temperature looks to be about the same as the air temperature, perhaps a little lower. If we assume that the sea water doesn't cause the moisture to condense, it definitely will when it gets to the ice. The latent heat of vapourization is released when the moisture condenses and it is about 7 times the latent heat of fusion, so whatever the amount of water is condensed, it releases enough heat to melt 7 times that weight in ice.

How much water is condensed is where I get stuck. The value of 30 kg/m2 is the total amount of water in the atmospheric column, so I am assuming that one would have to know, or assume the temperature of the air column that the incoming air is mixing with.

Just to confuse things more, I think that most of the moisture would be at the bottom, because the temperature would drop with altitude, and condense out any moisture. It probably involves a bunch of ugly differential equations, but as a pure guess I would say a significant portion of the water would condense out. Significant?? you say? I dunno, 20%? 50%? It make take a while for the moisture to condense as it moves across the ice until the dew point drops below 0 deg C

This is probably as clear as mud.  Can someone get me out of this hole I've dug for myself?  :)

*Edit* The bottom line is that I am sure that that much moisture is very bad for the ice and even if some of it condenses over the open sea, the energy released will warm up the water, which is being pushed toward the ice.

*Edit 2* Wiki specifically says the value is the amount of moisture that would be precipitated out as rain, so if the ice can drop the incoming wind to 0, it will condense the full 30 kg, and potentially melt ~200 kg of ice, and I'm sure that's not good. I'm also sure that most of what I said is a very rough guess.

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: June 27, 2019, 10:30:42 PM »
Because of these bombs and climate change, thousands of people could die. Photo of a crater from a bomb explosion:

This is so emblematic of the very dangerous game we are playing. What other types of well hidden bombs are we triggering, or will be triggering soon? 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 27, 2019, 09:46:59 PM »
Slater model projected extent for Aug 16th: 5,12 m sq km (a solid second place)

nsidc extents on the same date :

2012: 4,77
2007: 5,39

there won't be ice in hudson by then.

what would that take away from the 2nd place prediction ?

With the usual caveats about extent, a lot can happen in 6 weeks, but I think there is a better chance that the prediction could fail as too high an extent, rather than too low. A lot of ice is going to be sent on a one way trip to Iceland, so we could end up with a lot of very dispersed ice in the CAB, or large holes in it.

The more I learn on this forum, the less I know, and I am less willing to predict anything. :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2019, 05:39:32 PM »
These are excellent maps. Thanks for taking the time, and I hope they become a regular feature on this thread.

Agreed, but they fit even better in the melting season thread.

As they are of comparative extent data, I'm curious why you think so.

Not a  big deal, but I can see equally why they could be in either.

I ask because I post in threads and then second guess myself as to whether it is OT or not.

OT drift is easy, and usually unintentional.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2019, 03:07:50 AM »

Pragma, thank you.  But all the credit has to go to the NSIDC, they can be obtained here:

I think they are amazing too, and I am glad to bring them before this forum if they have not previously around.

LOL! I'm laughing and embarrassed. As I have mentioned before, NSIDC is updating their tools all the time and are very receptive to suggestions.

I was going to email them, suggesting a comparison tool.  :-[

Um, er ... never mind  :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 19, 2019, 11:12:53 PM »
...12-13C surface winds and 9C dewpoints.

What does a 9C dewpoint mean, and why is it insane?

I'll take a stab at this, although there may be more to it, beyond my ken.

Dewpoint is one way of indicating humidity in the air. Below 9C, the water will condense out of the atmosphere and appear as fog/ice fog or some kind of precipitation. It may just condense on surfaces, such as grass, which is why it is called the dew point.

This is bad for (at least) two reasons:

The higher the humidity, the higher the specific heat, meaning that the air is more capable of transferring heat to the ice.

Secondly, and probably more significant, is the latent heat of vapourization. As the moist air encounters the ice boundary, (below 9C), it will condense. In the process it will give up a huge amount of heat, almost seven times as much heat per gram as the latent heat of fusion needed to melt ice.

If it falls as rain, it will also wipe out any snow on the ice surface that was insulating it from the sun, and make the surface easier to absorb sunlight.

That's all I got  :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Who's right - The models or the recent trend?
« on: June 19, 2019, 07:55:05 PM »
Models cannot be "right" - they are models!

And recent trends are always "right" - they are the reality!

Agreed.  Models are based on how well they can predict future trends.

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

 Richard P. Feynman

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 05:11:08 PM »
With so much warmth in the Arctic and cooler than average temps over a large part of the mid-latitudes, my ultimate concern might be 'will we see the eventual breakdown of the jet-stream'?  I'd have to guess this is still years if not decades away, but having a much lower temp diff between the two should ultimately allow for warmth just to travel as it wants north. 

... we could be witnessing what a breakdown of the jet ultimately will look like?!!

This is not a movie preview. What you reference as something that may happen in the future is happening right now. There is no "upcoming event", it is a continuum. You can answer your own questions by taking what you wrote and changing the future tense into the present tense.

Perhaps the real question should be: How low will the temperature differential get, how fast and how soon?". The ongoing progressive loss of arctic sea ice is in the process of telling us that.

I don't know enough to say for sure, but it seems to me that sustained high temperature anomalies in multiple areas of the arctic are much more than just a warm spell.  The jet stream has broken down, but the remaining latent heat of fusion is allowing it to stumble on. This was predicted by people much more knowledgeable that I.

I think a lot of us are falling prey to IPCC-itis. That body has decided that everything is referenced to 2100, when all of us will be dead. ACC has been posited as something in the future for over a hundred years. I still have difficulty adjusting my own time frame, and it seems to be a moving target.

Keep in mind that the IPCC projects that the first BOE will occur in 2040 and then every 10 years after that.

ACC is now, and what we are seeing is the result of emissions that were released up to ~ 10 years ago, so buckle up.


Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 13, 2019, 06:50:10 PM »
Article on shrinking arctic sea ice:
and BTW, my thinking is that we don't need a BOE to start having a catastrophe. If it goes down to twice the limit for a BOE, we will still have disastrous weather...probably almost as bad as a BOE, since a large majority of the Arctic Ocean would still be ice free.

I agree.

We humans love our thresholds and "events". We talk in decades and centuries as if it means something, but it's only because we have ten fingers.

We are having a catastrophe now and have been for some time. I suspect that the extra open ocean we had in 2012 changed things, although we will never know for sure. IMHO, so did 2016, and so will 2019, regardless of where it ends up.

When we drop below 1,000,000 km2 (there's those darn tens again), it will only be of significance to us.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 11, 2019, 03:05:08 AM »
    What has me spooked about the Arctic sea ice this year in particular is that the "structural fundamentals" seem to falling apart - dramatic cumulative reduction of multi-year ice; apparent loss of the Beaufort Gyre as a nursery, and potentially it becoming a new killing zone; consistently mild (for the Arctic) winters for most of the years since 2004, and every year starting with 2014; apparently high ice mobility this year; suspicious indications that the polar cell is weakening and that weather patterns that bring warm air into the Arctic may be increasing etc.

   Thus, the threat is much broader and deeper than a temporarily warm forecast.  If I'm wrong about all or any of these, let me know.  I like to be an informed worrier. 


Welcome to my world Glen. I still have a ton to learn but I think your worries are well founded. One thing I was surprised at was how mobile the ice is, and was, going back in the satellite records. It is nowhere near as monolithic as I had expected (or assumed).

That said, the ice seems even more mobile now, so ice dynamics play a large part in understanding the various ice data. The numbers without context are of limited value. For example, there appears to be much more ice on the Atlantic side, hung up on various islands as another poster just observed. This would suggest lower melting rates than on the Pacific side, but if there is a steady flow of ice from the pole, it replaces any ice loss in that area, which could actually be melting faster.

I think the jet stream as we know it is on it's last legs as the loops get larger and slower due to the loss in temperature differential. Previous high CO2 conditions, such as we are moving into, had a much smaller temperature difference between the tropics and the poles.

Higher CO2 -> warmer earth -> Ice loss -> warmer arctic -> wilder Rossby wave swings -> Warmer arctic -> ice loss -> rinse and repeat. Google Jennifer Francis.

I also understand that there is a large blob of very warm water deeper in the Arctic Ocean, held down by the nature of thermoclines. FWIU, it is getting bigger, warmer and moving up in the water column. I also understand that it has more than enough sensible heat to wipe out any remaining ice.
I'm not sure that the fundamentals are falling apart, as much as they have been deteriorating gradually, but the whole picture is made blurry by the natural weather variation that can swamp the signal. The arctic has a weakened immune system and a warm summer is like a case of the flu, exposing the underlying conditions. Similarly, I think things could go awry suddenly and unexpectedly.

I may not have all of this right, so I welcome other posters to steer me straight.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Do we make too much of 2012 ?
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:37:33 PM »
I think we make too much of this thread.

The level of irony in your seemingly vacuous statement is impressive.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: June 06, 2019, 06:24:23 AM »

empty shells filling the void with valuable assets

+1 my thoughts since days and all this bullshit for bragging rights and a few selfies.  :-\ :-\ :-\

I refrained from commenting until now, but our national broadcaster presented (for far too long) the story of one person that complaining that he nearly lost his life due to the line ups. It was prompted by the fact that "so many"people had been dying on Everest lately. Where the helll are our priorities, have we lost our collective minds?

He never realized that he *was* the line-up, but somehow thought he was "special". He was portrayed as heroic, rather than what he really was, entitled and self-indulgent.

I have decided that the "mountain climbing adventurer" epitomizes why we are so royally screwed. Selfish, narcissistic individuals, caring only for themselves, are engaging in a pointless exercise and in the process, leaving their shit behind, both literally and figuratively.

I take faint comfort in that the majority of the commenters about the above article were having none of it, many in harsh but valid terms.

Cue Pogo quote here.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 02, 2019, 09:45:54 PM »

i could have used the term "volume" instead of "mass" but i started to dislike the "volume" term because it's mostly associated with "piomas" numbers that are obviously and outright wrong because their algorithm can't manage the new conditions of dispersed and fragmented ice for some reason.

I agree with you, but I am only saying that on a gut level. I stare at, and process, physical data every day and you develop a feel for these things. Sometimes things just don't look right.

That is about as unscientific as one could be, but I chalk it up to our subconscious working in the background. That's my excuse :-)

I have seem PIOMAS values viewed with skepticism before, but does anyone have a handle on exactly where the deficiencies lie and how one might adjust for them?

This is frustrating for me and it ties into a common theme being expressed on the forum right now; Many of our metrics are only telling a small part of the story, and to me, it seems much of it comes down to ice dynamics.

For example, changes in extent are of limited use unless compaction or dispersion are both known and understood. Similarly, the Atlantic side could be seen as not melting when in reality, the ice movement is steadily and rapidly replenishing any ice loss in that area. There are at least half a dozen other examples of this problem but I'm sure you know what I mean. In a nutshell, has the ice melted, refrozen or moved?

I check the graphs and satellite shots regularly, but I realize that I am mostly just trying to read tea leaves, or the entrails of goats. I eagerly await the monthly(?) PIOMAS values as I hope/expect them to tell me the "real" story, yet I am trusting that data less and less.

I recall Prof. David Barber talking about his 2009 trip to the arctic, expecting a large area in the central arctic to consist of solid ice, only to find it to be rotten and virtually no obstacle to the ice breaker. So what is it that we really know for sure? Have we improved much, in ten years?

It may just come down to sitting and waiting, because the weather variability overwhelms the trend signal. That is not easy for analytical types that want to know about something that is both historical as an event, and critical to our future.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 29, 2019, 06:03:23 PM »
As many of you here know, for an excellent source of approachable information on Rossby Waves and the jetstream, do a Youtube or Google search for Jennifer Francis.

She has a number of talks and interviews at various technical levels.

Over the (hopefully) longer term, the effects of a reduced temperature differential between the poles and mid latitudes can not be underestimated. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 26, 2019, 02:39:13 AM »
I'm not a weather map person, particularly, ...

Neither am I but I did some googling, so to add a bit to this:

As you indicated, the high pressure systems rotate clockwise and the low pressure systems rotate anti or counter-clockwise, but I just also learned that there is a spiral aspect. The air mass in a high pressure system is "flung out" so to speak, whereas a low pressure system draws air into the centre. Makes sense, like explosion and implosion.

So, the two systems on either side of Svalbard are like two gears meshing. The HP system throws the ice from the central arctic to the LP system, which then draws it in, closer to it's demise in the North Atlantic.

Thanks FOoW, I'm with both of you that the ice is going to get very mobile soon.

Even worse is that a smaller but very similar system exists on either side of the Bering Strait. A vacuum cleaner at each side of the Arctic, how convenient!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 24, 2019, 10:03:50 PM »
My point:

When I first arrived at the SIB many years ago, the language was pretty dense, the references to places, locations, effects, resources a mess for me.


Because I remember what it was like in the beginning for me and, as a teacher, I try to notice when I am stating things that are assumptions for me, but not for my audience.

And that was why I posted, not to inform you of ice dynamics, but to remind long-time posters that what is background to you is likely mysterious to new users.

Ref. Reply # 1021

I think this is an excellent point that could be missed by people deep into it. After a hiatus, I have to refresh everything in spite of what I learned. (where is that damned "garlic press"?). ;-)

The very issue of ice to the south of Svalbard  and Novaya Zemlya tripped me up until I realized the "shadows", indicating ice floe direction. It's all about ice dynamics and looking at various details with respect to overall context. The context is essential.

As I mentioned before, ASIE is of limited value without ASIC and if strong winds affect the edges, ASIE can change drastically in a day, with little or no actual change in the situation except for albedo.

This is why the good people here dig deeper for a better understanding, but the basics are needed to understand the nuances and implications. I'm slowly getting there.

I have probably pointed out several "obvious" things just in this post that are far from obvious to an occasional reader.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 23, 2019, 10:19:41 PM »
b.c. - That's an excellent resource. It's going to take me a while to learn how to drive it, but the info is all there. Thank you.

Sarat - I think one could watch that video 50 times and not get all the information from it. It tells so much of the history of the Arctic ice in one compact video.

From all of this I see that the ice is extremely fluid and Fram export has been a regular feature "forever". I don't see anything particularly dramatic but more just a slow, progressive decline. Any drama is just the stochastic nature of the weather and cyclical influences such as the PDO and AMOC laid over top.

That said, whereas the GAC of 2012 produced drama and much speculation, it was simply an anomaly, albeit a big one. Soon, a much smaller "alignment of the stars" will produce the same results.

A cursory glance at ASIE or ASIC is useful, but can be misleading. The last thin layer will vanish like morning frost in sunlight and some will proclaim a "collapse" has occurred.

BTW, the last week of the Keeling Curve CO2 concentration put us solidly above 415 ppm for the peak of this cycle. This is well over a 3 ppm jump, whereas previous annual increases were in the range of 2.5 ppm, or less.

The inevitability of it all saddens me.

Correction: CO2 Concentration is now 415 ppm, not 215 ppm.

Pages: [1]