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 - Ktb

Pages: [1] 2
1
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: January 15, 2020, 12:58:39 PM »
Quote
Much of the debate surrounding the human-induced biodiversity crisis has focused on vertebrates3, but population declines and extinctions may be even more substantial in small organisms such as terrestrial arthropods4. Recent studies have reported declines in the biomass of flying insects2, and in the diversity of insect pollinators5,6, butterflies and moths1,7,8,9,10, hemipterans11,12 and beetles7,13,14. Owing to the associated negative effects on food webs15, ecosystem functioning and ecosystem services16, this insect loss has spurred an intense public debate. However, time-series data relating to arthropods are limited, and studies have so far focused on a small range of taxa11,13,14, a few types of land use and habitat12—or even on single sites1,17. In addition, many studies lack species information2 or high temporal resolution2,12. It therefore remains unclear whether reported declines in arthropods are a general phenomenon that is driven by similar mechanisms across land-use types, taxa and functional groups.

The reported declines are suspected to be caused mainly by human land use2. Locally, farming practices can affect arthropods directly by application of insecticides18,19, mowing20 or soil disturbance, or indirectly via changes in plant communities through the application of herbicides or fertilizer21. Forestry practices can also affect local arthropod communities via changes in tree species composition or forest structure22. In addition, local arthropod populations can be affected by land use in the surrounding landscape; for example, through the drift and transport of pesticides and nitrogen by air or water23,24, through the effects of habitat loss on meta-communities (source–sink dynamics25) or by hampering dispersal.

To disentangle the local and landscape-level effects of land use on temporal trends in arthropod communities of grasslands and forests, we used data from the ‘Biodiversity Exploratories’ research programme that pertain to more than 1 million individual arthropods (2,675 species) (Extended Data Table 1). Arthropods were collected annually at 150 grassland sites by standardized sweep-net sampling in June and August from 2008 to 2017, and at 30 forest sites with flight-interception traps over the whole growing period from 2008 to 2016. An additional 110 forest sites were sampled in 2008, 2011 and 2014 to test for trends across a larger number of sites. Both the grassland and the forest sites cover gradients in local land-use intensity. Land-use intensity was quantified in the form of compound indices that are based on grazing, mowing and fertilization intensity in grasslands26, and on recent biomass removal, the proportion of non-natural tree species and deadwood origin in forests27. To analyse landscape-level effects, we quantified the cover of arable fields, grassland and forest in circles, with a radius between 250 m and 2 km, around each sampling site. We modelled temporal trends in arthropod biomass (estimated from body size; Methods), abundance and the number of species separately for grasslands and forests, and tested for the effects of local and landscape-scale land-use intensity on these trends, accounting for weather conditions. Analyses were conducted for all species together, and for different dispersal and trophic guilds.

The total number of arthropod species across all sites (gamma diversity) was substantially lower in later than in earlier years in both forests and grasslands (Fig. 1). Gamma diversity, biomass, abundance and number of species fluctuated over time but revealed an overall decrease with strongest declines from 2008 to 2010, especially in grasslands (Fig. 1). Year-to-year fluctuations in arthropod biomass, abundance and number of species were partially explained by weather conditions (Extended Data Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 1-1, Supplementary Information section 2). Accounting for weather, fitted trends from our models showed declines in biomass of 67% for grasslands and 41% for forests, declines in species numbers of 34% for grasslands and 36% for forests, and declines in abundance of 78% for grasslands, with no significant change in abundances for forests (−17%) (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table 3-1). In grasslands, declines occurred consistently across all trophic guilds (herbivores, myceto-detritivores, omnivores and carnivores), although the trend for carnivores was not significant (Supplementary Table 1-1). In forests, the patterns were more complex: herbivores showed an increase in abundance and species number, whereas all other trophic guilds declined. Temporal trends of arthropods on the basis of data recorded in 3-year intervals from all 140 forest sites were similar to the trends based on the 30 sites with annual data (Supplementary Table 1-1). Sensitivity analyses that removed or reshuffled years showed that the decline was influenced by, but not solely dependent on, high numbers of arthropods in 2008. Fluctuations in numbers (including the numbers from 2008) appear to match trends that have been observed in other studies2, which suggests that the recent decline is part of a longer-term trend that had begun by at least the early 1990s (Extended Data Fig. 2, Supplementary Information section 3). Further sensitivity analyses showed consistent declines when data from individual sampling dates were not aggregated per year, and also showed that declines concerned all three regions that we analysed (Supplementary Tables 3-2, 3-3, Supplementary Fig. 3-1).

Fig. 1: Temporal trends in arthropod communities.
figure1
a–d, Gamma diversity (total number of species across all grassland or forest sites) (a), biomass (b), abundance (c) and number of species (d) of arthropods were recorded in 30 forest and 150 grassland sites across Germany. Gamma diversity shows mean incidence-based, bias-corrected diversity estimates (Chao’s BSS, that is, the higher value of the minimum doubled reference sample size and the maximum reference sample size among years29) for q = 0 and 95% confidence intervals derived from bootstrapping (n = 200). Non-overlapping confidence intervals indicate significant difference30. Box plots show raw data per site and year (n = 1,406 (grassland) or 266 (forest) independent samples). Solid lines indicate significant temporal trends (P < 0.05) based on linear mixed models that included weather conditions, and local and landscape-level land-use intensity as covariates. Shaded areas represent confidence intervals. Boxes represent data within the 25th and 75th percentile, black lines show medians, and whiskers show 1.5× the interquartile range. Data points beyond that range (outliers) are not shown for graphical reasons. Plots for biomass and species number have separate y axes for grassland and forest.

Full size image
Linking changes in biomass, abundance and the number of species to one another enables further inferences regarding the mechanisms that drive arthropod declines. In grasslands, both abundant and less-abundant species declined in abundance (Fig. 2), but loss in the number of species occurred mostly among less-frequent species (Fig. 1, Extended Data Fig. 3, Supplementary Information section 4). This suggests that the decline in the number of species in grasslands was attributable mainly to a loss of individuals among rare species. In forests, species that were initially less abundant decreased in abundance, whereas some of the most abundant species—including invasive species and potential pest species—increased in abundance (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table 5-1). The loss of species was, however, irrespective of their frequency (Fig. 1, Extended Data Fig. 3, Supplementary Information section 4). This suggests that the decline of arthropods in forests is driven by mechanisms that negatively affect the abundances of many species, which leads to an overall decline in biomass and the number of species but favours some species that are able to compensate declines in abundance.

Fig. 2: Changes in the dominance of species.
figure2
Rank abundance curves of arthropod communities for the first two (2008–2009) and final two (2016–2017 for grasslands and 2015–2016 for forests) years of the study, from 150 grassland and 30 forest sites. The insets show enlarged curves for the 30 most-abundant species. Data from the first two and final two study years were pooled (abundances are the total number of individuals of a species observed over two years). Declines in abundance are highlighted by yellow shading, and increases in abundance are shaded in green. The y axes are log-scaled, but show untransformed values.

Full size image
The magnitudes of declines in biomass, abundance and the number of species in arthropod communities were independent of local land-use intensity (Supplementary Table 1-1) as well as changes in plant communities (Supplementary Information section 6) at all sites. However, in forests declines in the number of species were weaker at sites with high natural or anthropogenic tree mortality, possibly owing to increased heterogeneity in local habitats (Extended Data Fig. 4). Landscape composition had no effect on arthropod trends in forests (note that forest sites covered only limited gradients of the landscape variables, Extended Data Fig. 5), but it mediated declines in the number of species in grasslands: the magnitude of the declines increased with increasing cover of arable fields, and marginally increased with cover of grasslands in the surrounding landscape (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 1-1). This suggests that major drivers of arthropod decline in grasslands are associated with agricultural land use at the landscape scale.

Fig. 3: Landscape effects on arthropod decline in grasslands.
figure3
a, Temporal changes in biomass, abundance and the number of species for all arthropod species. b, c, Temporal change in biomass of species with high (b) or low (c) dispersal ability, conditional on the cover of arable fields in the surrounding landscape (1-km radius). The decline in biomass increased significantly with the cover of arable fields for weak dispersers, but not for strong dispersers. Slopes were derived from models that included weather conditions and local land-use intensity as covariates. The y axes are log-scaled, but show untransformed values.

Full size image
The interaction between a species and the landscape around its habitat depends on its dispersal ability, which ultimately determines its occurrence and persistence28. In grasslands, taxa of high and low dispersal ability (Methods) both declined, but an increasing cover of arable fields—although not of grasslands—in the surroundings amplified declines in the biomass of weak dispersers more strongly than it did declines of strong dispersers (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table 7-1). Weak dispersers may experience higher mortality during dispersal, and thus have a lower chance of (re)colonization of a particular site when arable field cover is high. In forests, strong dispersers declined in biomass, abundance and the number of species, whereas weak dispersers increased in abundance and biomass—but less strongly when grassland cover in the landscape was high (Supplementary Table 7-1). This suggests that the drivers behind arthropod declines in forests also act at landscape-level spatial scales.

We showed that arthropods declined markedly not only in biomass but also in abundance and the number of species, and that this affected taxa of most trophic levels in both grasslands and forests. Declines in gamma diversity suggest that species might disappear across regions. Our results also indicate that the major drivers of arthropod decline in both habitat types act at landscape-level spatial scales, but that declines may be moderated by increases in heterogeneity of local habitats in forests. Although the drivers of arthropod decline in forests remain unclear, in grasslands these drivers are associated with the proportion of agricultural land in the landscape. However, we cannot ascertain whether the observed declines are driven by the legacy effects of historical land-use intensification or by recent agricultural intensification at the landscape level; for example, by the decrease of fallow land and field margins rich in plant species, the increased use of pesticides or use of more potent insecticides (Supplementary Information section 3). Time-series data relating to changes in the use of agrochemicals or the presence of fine-scale arthropod habitats would be necessary to answer this question. Furthermore, the extents to which changes in climate have reinforced the observed trends in arthropod biomass, abundance and number of species is unclear (Supplementary Information section 2). Our results show that widespread arthropod declines have occurred in recent years. Although declines were less pronounced during the second half of our study period, there is no indication that negative trends have been reversed by measures that have been implemented in recent years. This calls for a paradigm shift in land-use policy at national and international levels to counteract species decline in open and forested habitats by implementing measures that are coordinated across landscapes and regions. Such strategies should aim to improve habitat quality for arthropods and to mitigate the negative effects of land-use practices not only at a local scale (within isolated patches embedded in an inhospitable agricultural matrix) but also across large and continuous areas.

2
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: January 15, 2020, 12:49:50 PM »
In 30 forest sites with annual inventories, biomass and species number—but not abundance—decreased by 41% and 36%, respectively.

So over a third of the species are lost while abundance remains the same.
I wonder if they have a breakdown of species in the article.

I take it they only measured biomass in regards to decline.

"We showed that arthropods declined markedly not only in biomass but also in abundance and the number of species, and that this affected taxa of most trophic levels in both grasslands and forests." - Siebold et al 2019.

No they split it in three categories but sadly it is paywalled.

The difference between the forests and grasslands is interesting and i would like to see tables with a breakdown for both.

I have access to the paper. What would you both like to see?

3
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 27, 2019, 10:26:03 AM »
The only reason I would vote 3rd party is if Gabbard gets the nomination. She’s on the right politically. Trump is far right.

But centrist/corporate Democrats are also on the right politically, because they serve their donors and not the American people. So, why would you vote for that? Any Blue won't do, when it isn't really Blue. Haven't the right-wing Clinton and Obama presidencies taught people anything? Identity politics doesn't make you left-wing, it's the economic policies. When these serve concentrated wealth, they are right-wing. Leftism has ceased to exist in the USA after Jimmy Carter. Only Sanders can bring it back.

Idk how many times I have to say this. I AM VOTING FOR SANDERS ffs. That being said, if he does not win the nomination I will begrudgingly support whoever comes up next.

4
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 26, 2019, 11:43:23 PM »
I would rather have a centrist, status quo democrat than a right wing talking head.

That's how you get Trump. Why would you want that?


No obviously not. I'm voting for Sanders. But in the event where it is a centrist, status quo democrat or Trump, I'll be voting for the dem. In the event it is Tulsi (a literal right winger posing as a dem) or Trump, i'll be voting 3rd party.

5
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 25, 2019, 12:13:49 PM »
When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

- Maya Angelou


I cannot figure out who the dems that like Tulsi Gabbard are. Or why. She is not a good person.

6
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: November 19, 2019, 11:07:07 AM »
I am sure it has been posted before, but making abortion illegal DOES NOT stop abortion. It makes abortion dangerous. Because it will still occur. Except now it will be by coat hangers, baseball bats, and assorted liquids purchased over the internet, instead of by medical professionals.

If people truly wanted to stop/decrease abortion, the way to go about it is better sex education and free, unlimited prophylaxis (condoms, the pill, IUD).

7
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: November 17, 2019, 11:28:31 AM »
B_lumenkraft is not a Democrat, or a liberal. He is an angry, illiterate socialist whose only goal is chaos and misery for all. Because he is an angry, sad human being, everyone else should also be angry and sad. The same can be said for the majority of the far-left Democrats.

This is very sad. But what can I do about it? Educating them won't change anything because they cannot be educated, they are clinically stupid. So I suppose I will simply ignore them. Let them froth and rage. But do not be mistaken -- these people are the very reason Trump was elected, whether they voted for him, or not. They feed on anger, it is their only sustenance. And that is why they would not vote for a dyed-in-the-wool centrist who could restore the policies of the Obama and Clinton eras over Donald Trump. Because they actually don't even dislike Trump. They love him. They love to hate! It is sick. Truly, disgustingly, sick.

Before I say this, I read and enjoy a lot of Bbr's posts in other parts of this forum.

That being said: Nice ad hominem attack. Fuck you and your diatribe.

8
I change my vote to Bloomberg

"You know who is disenfranchised and needs more power? The 14th wealthiest person alive today!"

9
The forum / Re: ASIF Statistics
« on: September 23, 2019, 05:24:12 AM »
Does this count as statistics? I'm not sure, but I was bored and procrastinating work so here it is anyway:

How long will it take Tom_Mazanec to surpass AbruptSLR as the forums top poster?

A mere 60 years and 276 days

10
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: September 21, 2019, 02:36:00 PM »
Glad everybody enjoyed the read. The presentation was fantastic. Excellent speaker.

11
The rest / Re: Climate, Agriculture and Other Pertinent Documentaries
« on: September 18, 2019, 03:13:50 AM »
Apparently Peter Wadhams is getting a documentary made about him.

From the Ice Itself

https://fromtheiceitself.com/


12
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 16, 2019, 03:03:23 AM »
Here is why we will never reduce CO2 in time: I present the prisoner's dilemma. A classic game.

We have a multi person prisoner's dilemma in which any individual is pitted against the entire rest of the world. This prisoner's dilemma would hold true for the vast majority of people, i.e. if you replaced individual A with individual B from the "everybody else" section, this would still be true.

We look at the individual's preference ranking.

1st choice - Individual makes no, or minimal lifestyle changes. Individual does not attempt to reduce CO2 output. Individual makes no significant sacrifices. CO2 still reduced enough by rest of the world to avoid major consequences of CC.

2nd choice - Individual makes lifestyle changes to reduce CO2. Some lifestyle changes may cause discomfort. CO2 production by everybody else also decreases enough to avoid major consequences of CC.

3rd choice - Individual makes no, or minimal lifestyle changes. Individual does not attempt to reduce CO2 output. Individual makes no significant sacrifices. The rest of the world also does not reduce CO2 output. Climate change has severe and widespread impacts.

4th choice - Individual makes lifestyle changes to reduce CO2. Some lifestyle changes may cause discomfort. CO2 production by everybody else does not decrease by enough to avoid major consequences of climate change. Individual feels that he/she was played for a fool, made sacrifices for no reason.

Unfortunately, the dominant strategy here is for the individual to make no lifestyle changes. And indeed, we see that playing out with the vast majority of the general populace.

13
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 11, 2019, 06:09:14 AM »
"We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades."

Transl.:  We have 30 more years to dick around.

Net zero by 2050 is a joke.

14
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 05:10:45 AM »
Quote
The President of the United States altered a National Hurricane Center map with a sharpie to falsely extend the official forecast toward Alabama so he didn't have to admit he was wrong in a tweet.

It is a violation of federal law to falsify a National Weather Service forecast and pass it off as official, as President Trump did here.

18 U.S. Code § 2074

https://twitter.com/wxdam/status/1169309514669199361

Truly breathtaking to watch this man work.

15
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: September 05, 2019, 01:31:42 AM »

Did the question about a possible spike in warming from reduced aerosols with the reduction in fossil fuel burning come up?  If so, what was the answer?

Yes, I actually asked about Hansen et al.'s 2013 paper on aerosol masking, and the effect that immediately stopping production of sulfates via oil/coal/etc. Dr. Haywood said he respected Dr. Hansen, but believed that the warming effect would not be as great or as rapid as Hansen described. Additionally, Dr. Haywood said that sulfates would be replaced with other aerosols that occur naturally, the names of which escape me.

16
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: September 04, 2019, 04:44:28 PM »
Having a million difficulties trying to upload the presentation as a PDF.

I tried to take detailed notes, and stuck around for the Q&A. I may be able to answer some basic questions if anybody has any.

17
Science / Re: The Science of Aerosols
« on: August 26, 2019, 01:12:38 PM »
Got to hear Dr. Jim Haywood from Exeter University and the Met Office speak today about Aerosol masking, clouds, and possible future geoengineering. He agreed to provide me his powerpoint presentation. I will try to upload it here when I obtain it.

Edit: Jim** Haywood

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 08:11:20 AM »
I'm curious why so many ppl want a BOE as soon as possible.


Humanity is a plague. A failed experiment.

19
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 12, 2019, 09:14:48 AM »
Almost a decade ago I was taking an intro physics course. We were assigned a paper on energy production and what should humanity do to power the world.

I wrote a very dry paper on how humanity needs to shift from fossil fuels to nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, etc.

Once my teacher had graded them all, he announced that ZERO students had written about simply reducing energy consumption. That has stuck with me for 9 years. And it is still relevant today.

We built the dam, then we engineer a crazy fish shuttle and hire people to push fish through the entrance all day. All we actually had to do was not build the dam.

I think we have really forgotten the lesson that sometimes less is more. We create the problem, solve the problem in an absolutely insane way, and declare victory. But we had already won and been winning for thousands of years before the dam was built.

20
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 12, 2019, 04:50:02 AM »
A hyperloop for fish. ;) And it can cull out invasive species.

Whooshh Innovations' "Salmon Cannon" Gives Fish A Boost Over Dams
1-minute video.



In reality, all we need to do is not build the dam.

21
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: August 09, 2019, 05:21:22 AM »
I would say we have already eaten the planet, and now we are scrounging for any remaining scraps

22
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: August 06, 2019, 12:28:12 AM »
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.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 01, 2019, 01:30:33 PM »
Semimonthly BOE evaluation

July 31 extent was 5,955,851 km^2. With on average 44 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -112,633 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Total extent loss in July 2019 was -3,080,630 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -8,315,270 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -58,974 km^2. For the period from maximum to July 31st, this is the 3rd fastest rate of melt for the same period for the years 2007-2019. Barely squeaking in behind 2012, and lagging well behind 2010. (See Attachment 2). 
Additionally, if the melt season ended today, -58,974 km^2 would place 2019 as 3rd out of 13 for the years 2007-2019, once again behind 2010, with 2012 in first place.

Looking only at the month of July, we have averaged -99,375 km^2 per day. This average daily drop places July 2019 as 2nd out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily July melt. We needed a drop larger than 58k today to maintain 1st place in this category. (See Attachment 3).

24
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 31, 2019, 06:35:39 PM »
Currently putting the finishing touches on an essay regarding the vaquita. Extending trend lines, it has until 2030. But in actuality, 2020-2021 is my bet for extinction.

The IUCN, CIRVA, and CITES have all made their recommendations. Even the IWC weighed in here. The US, Mexican, and Chinese governments have attempted to halt trading of the totoaba to prevent gillnet use. The captive breeding program - VaquitaCPR - has failed.

This cetacean is going to follow the baiji into the stars.

25
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 22, 2019, 09:55:22 AM »
After combing through the IUCN redlist, I have a minor update on the Global Amphibian Assessment 2:

Quote
Best estimates of percentage threatened species (with lower and upper estimates) for each group are: amphibians 40% (32-53%).

9 species of amphibians were confirmed to have become extinct, or extinct in the wild, since the 2004 assessment.

According to my own quick maths, since GAA1 in 2004: there has been a 1.6% increase in the number of amphibian species listed as vulnerable (from 628 in 2004 to 638 in 2019); a 29.5% increase in amphibian species listed as endangered (from 729 in 2004 to 944 in 2019); and a 39.2% increase in amphibian species listed as critically endangered (from 413 in 2004 to 575 in 2019).

Additionally, 137 of the critically endangered species are in a subcategory of CR(PE), or critically endangered (possibly extinct).


All data available from: https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/summary-statistics#Summary%20Tables

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 16, 2019, 06:50:58 AM »
Semimonthly BOE evaluation

July 15 extent was 7,496,597 km^2. With on average 60 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -108,277 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Total extent loss thus far in July 2019 was -1,539,884 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -6,774,524 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -54,196 km^2. If the month of July ended today, this would be the 7th fastest rate of melt for the same period for the years 2007-2019. (See Attachment 2). 
Additionally, if the melt season ended today, -54,196 km^2 would place 2019 as 5th out of 13 for the years 2007-2019.

Looking only at the month of July so far, we have averaged -102,659 km^2 per day. If the month of July ended today, this average daily drop places July 2019 as 1st out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily July melt. (See Attachment 3).

I said in a previous post that we would need to have the strongest July melt ever in order for a BOE to occur. And while a BOE will likely not occur this year, we have still managed to have the strongest July melt so far.



Also, I have previously been posting the individual months for the first attachment rather than the excel sheet of the entire melt season. It allowed for us to be "on pace" at the first of the month if there was a big enough drop on the first, even if we were not on pace the day before. Confusion ensues.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 01, 2019, 11:03:57 AM »
KTB - I may have missed earlier messages - is your BOE  1m km2 or 0 km2 ? 


Why isn't 27 / 28th June showing as True where daily loss is albeit briefly > loss rate required for BOE ?

BOE is the "industry standard" i.e. 1M km^2.

Individual days that are greater than the minimum daily melt required at the START of the month are green, even if that day is not above the New Daily Requirement column.

For it to show TRUE, the cumulative melt until that point would have to be equal to, or greater than, the cumulative minimum requirement for a BOE. So by late June, to get TRUE results, we would have required melt of over 1M km^2 to catch back up.

Bad design on my part that we can be FALSE (not on pace) on May 31st, but be TRUE (on pace) on June 1st. This is because I have multiple spreadsheets, and really should only post the full melt season spreadsheet, while keeping the individual month spreadsheets to myself.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 01, 2019, 06:23:52 AM »
And for comparisons to other years:

The following attachment is for actual previous years daily average melt from July 1 to their respective minimums (Attachment 1).

The following section is for what the previous years would have needed for a BOE to occur: From July 1st to each years respective minimum, our current BOE requirement is the 7th highest value, of which 2010 is the leader (which makes sense for the record low at this time of year, and the length of its' melt season), while 2018 - solid 2nd place - continues to hold on in this aspect because of how insanely long its' melt season was. Keep in mind that 2018's minimum was reached on September 21st, and that 2010's minimum was reached on September 17th. (See attachment 2). End

Quote
As an aside, for a BOE to occur at this point, we would need to have the strongest June melt for the years 2007-2018 (and likely ever since the satellite record began), an above average July melt, the strongest August melt, and the strongest September 1st to minimum.

All I can do is parrot the ASIF gods by saying that conditions have favored melting. We shall see what July and August hold in store.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 01, 2019, 06:15:35 AM »
Semimonthly (I didn't forget you Tor) BOE evaluation

June 30 extent was 9,036,481 km^2. With on average 75 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -107,153 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Total extent loss in June 2019 was -1,732,452 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -5,234,640 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -47,588 km^2, which is the 4th fastest rate of melt from the maximum to the end of June. (See Attachment 2). 

Looking only at the month of June, we have averaged -57,748 km^2 per day. This average daily drop places June 2019 as 9th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily June melt. (See Attachment 3).

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:14:08 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation

June 15 extent was 10,187,233 km^2. With on average 90 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -102,080 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1). That's it guys, pack it in, we now require a century drop per day.

Total extent loss thus far in June 2019 was -620,026 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -4,122,214 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -42,940 km^2. (See Attachment 2). 

Looking only at the month of June, we have averaged -38,752 km^2 per day. This average daily drop places June 2019 as 13th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily June melt. (See Attachment 3).

And for comparisons to other years:

As an aside, for a BOE to occur at this point, we would need to have the strongest June melt for the years 2007-2018 (and likely ever since the satellite record began), an above average July melt, the strongest August melt, and the strongest September 1st to minimum.

As I had mentioned previously, for a BOE to occur we would need the strongest June melt since at least 2007. Instead we have witnessed a well below average 15 days.

31
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 06, 2019, 08:13:38 AM »
The worst consequence will be utter and complete collapse of human civilization as we know it.

And to some above replies: redistribution of wealth still keeps society in the game/prison of capitalism. The bars must be broken and humanity set free in order to save the earth and ourselves.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 01, 2019, 07:04:18 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation

May 31 extent was 10,768,933 km^2. With on average 105 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -93,037 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Total extent loss thus in May 2019 was -1,536,443 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -3,502,188 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -43,777 km^2. We have experienced the 2nd fastest rate of daily loss from Maximum to the end of May -- behind 2010 at a whopping -57,318 km^2 per day. Impressively strong early season melt is still holding our average high. (See Attachment 2).

Looking only at the month of May, we have averaged -49,563 km^2 per day. This average daily drop places May 2019 as 8th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily May melt (See Attachment 3).

Additionally: Note the significant lack of green in the first attachment at this point. We had 0 days of melt greater than the BOE requirement set on the first of the month (-83,128 km^2). So we fall further and further behind.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 28, 2019, 06:08:15 AM »
JCG, your updates make my updates easier! Please do not change!

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 16, 2019, 06:31:54 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation

May 15 extent was 11,568,100 km^2. With on average 121 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -87,323 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

There have been many days of below average melt, and several days of above average melt. Total extent loss thus far in May is -739,276 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -2,705,021 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -42,266 km^2. If the month of May ended today, this would the 3rd fastest daily loss from maximum to the end of May (behind 2010 at a whopping -57,318 km^2 per day, and 2014 at -42,541 km^2 per day). (See Attachment 2).

Looking only at the month of May (so far), we have averaged -49,285 km^2 per day. This average daily drop places May 2019 as 8th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily May melt (See Attachment 3).
Although we still have 16 days to go this month, and many of the ASIF gods are becoming worried about the high pressure setup forecast by GFS.

No 2nd post for mid monthlies, don't have the data calculated and I am traveling so even this post was unexpected for me.

Edit: was tired and missed 2,000 km^2 so the averages will be slightly lower. My mistake.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 02, 2019, 07:11:15 AM »
And for comparisons to other years:

The following attachment is for actual previous years daily average melt from May 1 to their respective minimums (Attachment 1).

The following section is for what the previous years would have needed for a BOE to occur: From May 1st to each years respective minimum, our current BOE requirement is the 2nd highest value, behind only 2018 with an average daily drop of -80,251 km^2. Keep in mind that 2018's minimum was reached on September 21st, and that 2016's minimum was reached on September 7th. (See attachment 2). End

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 02, 2019, 07:04:23 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation.

April 30 extent was 12,305,376 km^2. With on average 136 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -83,128 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Surprisingly, there were several days of extent gain in April, and several days of low extent losses. Total extent loss in April was -1,069,805 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -1,965,745 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -40,691 km^2. This is the 2nd fastest rate of melt from maximum to April 30th, behind 2010 at -43,748 km^2. Although, keep in mind that 2010's maximum was reached on March 31st. (See attachment 2 with graph :D).
Fun Addition: If the month of May ended today, 2019 would have the 3rd fastest rate of melt, behind 2010 and 2014.

Looking only at the month of April, we have averaged -35,660 km^2 per day (much slower than the March powerhouse of this season). This average daily drop places April 2019 as 7th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily April melt. (See Attachment 3).

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 21, 2019, 06:36:51 PM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

April 20th, 2019:
     12,603,699 km2, a drop of -48,724 km2.
     2019 is the lowest on record.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 16, 2019, 05:14:02 PM »
These numbers are interesting, but without a comparison it is difficult to know what is significant.
For example, if I knew the average drop from now to minimum for 2012, at least it would help get my head around what is required.

So far, while a BOE is still unlikely this year, given an average melt from now on brings it close to 2012, then a decent, well timed storm in July or August could potentially do the job.

Anyway, is it possible to have 2012 average melt to minimum in the column to help with comparisons?

I have most of what you ask for ready to go, but was saving it for the April 30th update because I don't have mid-month values calculated. Other pieces I don't have made yet, but with the data I already have it would be easy to complete what you are requesting.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 16, 2019, 07:53:43 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation.

March 31 extent was 13,375,281 km^2. Requiring average daily drops of -74,550 km^2 for a BOE to occur.

Extent loss has slowed considerably over the past 8-9 days, although it did pick back up today. Total extent loss in April thus far is -553,639 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -1,449,479 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -42,632 km^2.

So far in the month of April, we have averaged a slower rate of -36,909 km^2 per day. If April ended today, this would be extremely middle of the pack (6th place out of 13 --- counting 2007 onward). Although, we have the entire latter half of the month remaining.

As of April 15th, extent was 12,821,642 km^2, and with on average 151 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -78,289 km^2.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 02, 2019, 05:07:52 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation.

Max was reached on March 12, and was 14,271,121 km^2. Required average daily drop of -71.736 km^2 for a BOE to occur. We have had 5 days of above the necessary melt, and many days that had above average melt (quite impressive for March if you ask me). Total extent loss as of March 31 was -895,840 km^2, which is 467,140 km^2 shy of maintaining the necessary track for a BOE (attachment 2).

Instead, we have averaged an impressive -47,149 km^2 per day during the period between maximum and March 31. Since 2007, we have had only 1 year (2014) that had greater average loss during the period between the maximum and March 31 (attachment 3)

As of April 1st, we now require an average daily drop of -74,550 km^2 for the next 166 days.



Edit: And again, I want to emphasize that I am aware that we will most likely see FALSE for the entire season. I get it. I made and maintain this to show how difficult/significant a BOE will be. Who knows when this will be useful.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: March 21, 2019, 12:13:47 AM »
Slater projection is up and running for those interested.

http://cires1.colorado.edu/~aslater/SEAICE/

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 19, 2019, 01:21:44 AM »
My excel document has been retrofitted and is currently up to date.

JAXA max extent on March 12th, with an extent on 14,271,121 km^2. This requires a daily extent loss of -72,520 km^2 for 183 straight days (on average) -71,736 km^2 for 185 straight days for a blue ocean event to occur.

So far, we have 1 day of above necessary extent loss (in green). However, we are still not on pace (in red).

As of March 17th, we now require daily drops of -73,131 km^2 for the next 178 days. -72,318 km^2 for the next 180 days.


Of note, I have decided to limit these posts to twice per month, on the first and last days respectively. I'll figure it out. Still working on things.

43
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: March 15, 2019, 08:22:01 PM »
Quote
Conservationists say they have found a dead vaquita porpoise, a critically endangered marine animal of which only about 10 remain in the world, in a fish net off the coast of Mexico.

A report published by the IUCN on March 6 states that only about 10 vaquitas remained alive in 2018, as per an acoustic monitoring program conducted in the Gulf, though there is a 95% chance they number between 6 and 22.

“Without immediate, effective action on the part of the Government, the vaquita is doomed to extinction,” the report adds.

http://time.com/5552189/sea-shepherd-vaquita-porpoise-endangered-mexico/

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 05, 2019, 05:24:23 PM »
I decided that after 3 years of lurking with minimal contributions to the extent and area threads, I should finally add something.

Because of nearly everybody's fascination with the BOE, I have targeted that as my project. I don't think many people have actually visualized just how much ice needs to melt in order for a BOE to occur. If we take the start of the melt season as Feb 23rd, we need an average daily extent loss of -65,645k for the next 201 days.

The attached graph shows the starting extent for the melt season (as hypothetically called by a few on this forum).

In the Average Daily Ice Loss for BOE column, we can see exactly what it sounds like: if daily loss matched that number exactly for the rest of the melt season, we would have a BOE.

In the Are We On Pace? column, I have summed the actual daily ice loss of the current day and all the past days of the melt season vs the sum total of the same number of days required for a BOE. Then, if we are equal to, or less than (darn negative numbers) the average required, we will see a TRUE. If the actual daily ice loss sum total is greater than the average daily for BOE sum total, we will see FALSE as currently seen.

In the Days Remaining column, we have the number of days left until the end of the melt season, on average of course.

In the Actual Daily Ice Loss, we see the actual daily ice loss.

And finally, in the New Required Average column, we see the new average daily requirement for a BOE. From that date on, if we lost the New Required Average, we would have a BOE regardless of previous ice gain/loss. Ergo, the latest reading shows a new required average daily drop of -71.660.

Special thanks to JCG and Gerontocrat for their daily updates. As my chart has no true value regarding projection, I will likely only post weekly or even biweekly to avoid cluttering up this thread. And, if people feel that this is more appropriate for the Meaningless Thread, I can move it there instead.

Hope you all enjoy.


Edit: Updated calculations to actually be correct. Added Required Drop Tomorrow to be on Pace which shows us how far behind we are lagging the necessary drop to match the initial average daily loss. If we lose -558,125k km^2 tomorrow, we will be back on pace for a BOE!

Edit 2: Are we on pace? Nope.

45
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: January 15, 2019, 05:19:51 AM »
Jan 13th sea ice  concentration from 2016-2019

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 18, 2018, 04:29:49 AM »
Casual correction: an artifact is something Indiana Jones finds. Artefact is an artificial product or effect observed in a natural system, especially one introduced by the technology used in scientific investigation or by experimental error.

47
Consequences / Re: Oceanic anoxia
« on: October 30, 2018, 12:34:27 AM »
Edit: self moderated to another thread

48
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2018 melt season
« on: September 24, 2018, 03:03:24 AM »
Tired of waiting for GRACE-FO, so I emailed them. Received the following results.
Quote
Hello,

Is there an estimated date for when GRACE FO will complete scientific testing and begin to relay data?

Cheers

Which was followed by:

Quote
We’re a bit delayed with an issue, but we hope to have science data soon.

You can read the latest here: https://gracefo.jpl.nasa.gov/news/139/grace-fo-satellite-switching-to-backup-instrument-processing-unit/

Kristen Walbolt
Web producer
NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory

No hard date given, only a soft "soon"


49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 14, 2018, 04:49:41 PM »
If this is even remotely correct we are in for trouble

Pages: [1] 2