Using your smartphone? Consider switching to Theme Exodus!
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.
I am not trying to discredit PIOMAS, but it's important to understand it's limitations and I'm not there yet.
Do we give too much importance to ASI extent and we should focus more on ASI volume?
IIRC, AGW can wipe out the arctic and subarctic climate zones, making the poles temperate in wind circulation. Is this correct?
Could AGW create a new equatorial climate zone, a "supertropical" one to coin a term?
I just engaged in a simple act of protest against privilege and every single person who weighed in on the discussion defended that privilege.
If the public never "gets it", it's precisely because people acting like you.
Of course, the important date is not first BOE, but when it becomes inevitable. That is almost certainly past.
Perhaps the AI is so advanced the computers have now demanded equal holiday rights?
Geoengineering is not BS.
It is funny how all the random old people here don't like model output...
Yes warning re not https and looks same.
Third, at least informally, recognizing that at the end that land fast ice might remain artificially delaying the first 100% ice free time, we all (or at least nearly all) informally agreed to a definition of essentially ice free at 1 million square kilometers or less. This pulls back the estimated first essentially ice free Arctic September by another 2-5 years from the projected estimate.
2018 is joining a group of catastrophic years in the Arctic, 2007, 2012, 2016, although I fear it will be overshadowed by 2019 with this setup.
So I do not buy the WACCy theory, because I see the exact opposites: the warmer the arctic, the warmer the continents
The big question is of course: are we transitioning to a new climate mode (huge low pressure zones and storms above the Arctic, sucking in warm air from the midlatitudes, keeping the Arctic fairly warm, not letting the ice freeze, which keeps the stormy weather alive/low pressure systems in a feedback loop)?
That would place both 2017 and 2018 below 2007 and 2012. Looks like something is acting like a break in summer, and it's gone after summer.
Open water reached well beyond 80 degrees North along the Atlantic Front, and therefore high temperature anomalies North of 80 are likely to slow refreezing. But for most of the Arctic temperatures North of 80 are irrelevant.
Although it's not really hard to imagine the pack being 25% smaller as it was in 2012 (Ironically the same year sighted by the Mayans as the year of our awakening...), I think what BOE people fail to see is how hard it is for 'central ice' well away from the warmer coasts to get melted away. ESS took a lot of blow torches right off the coast and look how long it took to disappear... I'm not at all saying I don't agree with the downward trend but that--to me--hides the remaining ice being well away from the warmer lands. If you compare the current cap to the 80-2000's average, it really is like an open ocean Anyway... and seeing these extreme weather events already it is very dangerous to think we need to wait for a blue ocean before SHTF! We talked most of '18's spring of how Bearing remained open and we see every year how Laptev also seems to have an open crack so given this year's record melting in Laptev (the heart of most Clathrate studies if I'm not mistaken) I'm going to hazard a guess that this one area will be the next harbinger of things to come! The graphs are so off with recent dips in ESS etc. that one has to wonder if and when the warmth just gets enough of a foot hold to just up and collapse it!
I will start expecting it imminently when the winter max volume drops under 20,000KM3. When we hit that threshold, I think we will have a 1 in 10 chance that year of a BOE with relatively normal melt. When the max drops below 19,000KM3, I think it will rise to a 1 in 4 chance. At 18,000KM3 I think it will be 1 in 2.
The DMI 80N shows that the polar melt season has gone into overtime. And it isn't solar radiation doing it because the sun angle is too low. It's warm, humid, cloudy air advecting from the open water where the Arctic ocean is "Atlantifying".
Judging by the N80 graph and the day to night ratio of the Arctic at this time of the year this thought occurs to me. Around this time clouds start the transition from negative feedback to positive feedback.
The big question is: is the current "atlantification" N of Svalbard simply weather related or will it be a permanent feature from now on? I do not know the answer...
Direct GW effect of doubling of CO2 without other effects like water vapour increase, snow reductions changing albedo (also cloud effects and lapse rate) is relatively easy to calculate and is around 1C per doubling. With these other feedback consequences it is much less certain but probably around 3C +/- 1.5C.
GerontocratPaleontology and the models reinforce one another. Both together in context are more skillful than either alone.
I really like your message. It is spot om.
Palaeontology is not the answer.
Climate deniers don't like what the models say so run exactly the same argument. Seems you don't like what the models are saying and so are running exactly the same argument. This is a science based forum and not Watts Up with That. The models are certainly imperfect, but whats a better method for predicting the future?
Discussions of ice free arctic in winter is something for the paleoclimate studies of the Paleocene-Eocene equable climate......What say you, about ice free Arctic in September.....August.... July, October, June, May, April, November? Or are those discussions for.... futurologists, yet unborn?
They are discussions for other threads unless you would like to discuss the likelihood of ice free conditions extending into the fall for this season.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a BOE in the next year or two, only to not see another for five years, then get them two years running, etc.
A scenario of year-round ice-free Arctic can only be reached (IMO) by further a northward reach of the warm ocean currents.I keep reading this dreamy misconception everywhere. People seem to be forgetting about the fact that the quantity of heat energy required to melt 1kg of ice (of just below freezing) to 1kg of water (of just above freezing) would raise the temperature of that same 1 kg of water to 80 degrees Celsius. This means that as soon as ice is gone, and there is heat energy (i.e. Sunlight), the oceans will be very hot at the surface (provided that surface T will also keep on rising as it does) all around the Arctic circle. It already is super anomalously warm, by the way. So when the sun is gone at the polar caps, all it needs is a little flow from warmer lower ocean currents to keep it from freezing up, and/or surface winds blowing the warmer (sun-heated) waters Northwards. Considering all the additional feedbacks, I'd say year round ice free poles could be a reality around 2035 at the very latest.
More melting ice leads to higher temps (due to less sunlight reflection) and more water vapor, which = better chance for clouds to form. So for example.....if the Arctic goes ice free free, and there comes a point when the ice doesn’t come back, that leads to less ice melting and the arctic abruptly transitions to a new state. So what if the cloudy summers we are seeing is just a last cry for the arctic before it transitions to a new state. This is just a theory and I’m sure I’m wrong in some of what I said, but it makes sense to me.
Pluto it is not - no demotion on the horizon. It has been, is, and will be an ocean, until it is ice-free for at least most of the year. Then perhaps someone will say - it is now totally Atlantified (horrible word) - so is part of the Atlantic Ocean.
Something I may start posting over the next few weeks, as I think it may be pretty key - accumulated precipitation.
Looking ahead ... as Stephan says, it seems unlikely that the ssslllooowww extent decreases will continue. Something's gotta change there. I'm surprised it's lasted this long, actually. Not many years have such a radical change in compactness during the melt season.
The temperature of the central arctic ocean in summer is pegged to the melting point, as long as ice is still there. Moreover, when the ice is covered with snow, the air is pegged to 0oC, but when the snow is gone and the ice is in partial melt the air is pegged to -1.8oC. So your "cooler summer temps" are nothing but a mirage signalling the deterioration of the arctic.
You may be right about 2015.And I think one of those inflection points was 2012.
I am rather unclear on 2012....there is a difference between the point of inflection and the point where the system has to fall away from the potential surface in order to reorganize.
It is, however, clear to me that in late December 2015 the Arctic climate became disconnected from its prior meta-stable state.
It could very well be true that the inflection was reached sometime in 2012 and it took 3 years to start into freefall.
[ed: Note: I am assuming a continuous potential surface. There is no real known reason to assume that, but it has seemed to work in the past.]
My assumption was based around the disappearance of MYI it represented. But then, both 2011 and 2010 were very hard on MYI as well.
Perhaps we should look at it as a range instead - 2010-2015 - where the catastrophe took place, and the system tumbled into a new state sufficiently disconnected from the previous regime that we can't recover to it without serious changes elsewhere in the system.
And I think one of those inflection points was 2012.
Do we throw out all evidence because they are all over the place wrt level and trend? Or, do we say yes not much good for level or trend, but it looks like they all agree on trend in slope as zero ice is approached? So don't use them where they are bad but do use them for what they are good at, ie suggesting the change in trend as zero ice is approached declines.
If the models show a slowdown in the rate of decline as zero ice is approached and also the data is tending to show this recently, then assuming the rate will be steady or increase needs some substantial explanation. Without such substantial explanation, the default assumption should be of a declining rate of decline.
A request:... "positive" for any feedback which amplifies the base process, and "negative" for any feedback which slows down the base process....
Can someone please remind we why we keep copying over that stupid 80ºN line graph? Look at Zack's treatment below
1 Like