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 - Klondike Kat

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 25, 2019, 03:28:42 PM »
2019 is certainly still in the running for a top 2 finish (+/- 1), with the two main reasons besides the relentless weather:
Low area inside the Inner Basin (courtesy of Wipneus).
Extreme export into the Atlantic throughout the season, which has taken a lot of the MYI - shown in lighter shades on Ascat - out of the basin (courtesy of A-Team in the Test Space thread). The FYI has now reached the North Pole.

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

2
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 21, 2019, 04:27:53 PM »
Archimid, no it is not people like me, as I take climate change seriously.  You obviously missed the point of my latest post.  Many people in the U.S. do not take climate change seriously, because they are not personally feeling any negative effects.  Those two graphs illustrate my point.  Warming has occurred significantly during the winter months, which many view positively.  Warming has not occurred during the summer (in many areas), which is neither negative nor positive.  Concentrating on the midsection of the country (which takes climate change least seriously), milder winters and average summers would be considered a benefit.  The reduced contrast between cold and hot has resulted in diminished storm severity (as indicated by decreased tornadic activity).  These areas are not personally affected by sea level rise, Arctic melting, or tropical activity.  There are concerned with rainfall (or lack thereof), primarily concerning agriculture.  This year's flooding is raising some concerns, but drought tends to be a bigger concern in this area. 

Calling them deniers based on political or cultural reasons, misses the central issue (not that there are not those who will never see the light for these reason).  Not everyone is idealistic.  Many people are selfish, looking only at how events affect them personally (recent elections should be enough evidence).  Trying to convince people that climate change is negatively affected them when it is not, will not sway them, any more than called them deniers.  The best strategy to change opinions is to first understand their point of view, rather than ridiculing them.  You cannot convince someone that they have been negatively affected by this, when they do not experience it personally.

3
I don't know much about meteorology, but this just doesn't look right!

If only this 'oxbow' contortion of the jet could become cut off leaving the jet far to the North and us under a Big ,Fat, blocked High with hot temps & clear skies?

I'll set my mind to joining those two loose ends of the Jet and give us a second half of summer to be dreamed of now the land has had a good watering!!!!

This is a typical Greenland blocking events, which is expected to bring much cooler temperatures to much of Europe.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2016GL072387

https://www.aer.com/science-research/climate-weather/arctic-oscillation/

4

Come on guys, we need 100 votes at least!!!
At the moment, there are just 80 votes in the list.

The plea is working.  We are up to 90.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 15, 2019, 01:46:19 PM »
"Correct to say" is a fine term, and probabilities based on mathematics is accurate.  If you flip a coin 10 times, there is a 99% probability that it will comes up heads at least once.  However, there is a finite possibility that it will not.  The outcome, in no way chances the odds, nor does it falsify them.

When talking about the weather or climate, the probabilities are a bit more nebulous.  When a forecaster gives a percentage chance of rain, it is not based on strict mathematics, but on past data.  The less data available (or factors omitted), the less reliable are the projections.  Additionally, there are unknowns that may influence the system, before the time arrives, changing the potential outcome. 

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 13, 2019, 03:01:48 PM »
I normally avoid watching videos of people talking, I prefer to better utilize my time reading, I find it to be much quicker and less biased. Stuff by Guy M I have read in the past led me to the conclusion that he is an unscientific alarmist, I actually prefer alarmists to lukewarmists but without science it's all just nonsense. But in any case, thanks for your summary of the video Tim. I did read it!

I finally took the time to watch the video.  It is longer than it needs to be.  In any case, Maslowski admitted that his projection was based on the trend from the late 1990s to 2007, which was the steepest decline in the satellite era, and which has not continued to date.  McPherson stated that the ice has leveled out after that time, and Maslowksi agreed.  Maslowski admitting that he made his projection based on too short a timeframe.  He downplayed his projection as a sound scientific tool.  He now says we can make Arctic predictions out to six months, and the Arctic will not be ice-free this year.  Maslowski stated that modeled results, with slightly tweaked parameters different experiments, show that ice thickness varies by a factor of three.  Consequently, he is hesitant to make any new ice-free projections.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 06:29:32 PM »
The good scientist admits when he is wrong, acknowledges those who are right, learns from them, and moves on.  Scientists are often wrong.  There is nothing shameful in that, unless they try to claim they were actually right, only something else overwhelmed their rightness.

8
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 09, 2019, 02:37:12 PM »

2011 was a sharp low point in the data, which partially explains the higher rate from 2011 onward.
2015-2016 thermal expansion in the run-up to the monster El Nino.
A bit of noise.
Despite these points, as posted earlier I can see a new trendline emerging. However, it is about 5 mm/year and certainly not 8 mm/y at this stage.

My understanding is that the 2011 dip was due to a rare and massive precipitation event which transferred water from the ocean to land. If you can demonstrate a time frame for the redistribution of the water from the 2011 event and above average SLR in the following years, please do or otherwise indicate that you're just guessing.

https://skepticalscience.com/Extreme-Flooding-In-2010-2011-Lowers-Global-Sea-Level.html

As far as the pattern of any El Nino, can you please explain how an El Nino causes thermal expansion? My understanding is that an El Nino results in a thermal contraction in the ocean as indicated in the NASA SLR charts of the major El Nino's of 1998 and 2016. Heat is transferred from the ocean to the atmosphere resulting in record atmospheric temps in those years as well.

Where is the source of the extra heat coming into the ocean that would cause an expansion?? My understanding is that the heat is already in the ocean and being vented to the atmosphere as part of the El Nino process.

fwiw - I think your 5 mm / year is a reasonable guesstimate of the current net run rate. We can't really guess how often an El Nino is going to come along and reset things.

If your understanding of the year 2011 event is correct, and the event is rare, that is even more reason not to use that as your starting point in calculating trends.  That would be akin to calculating an Arctic sea ice trend starting with the 2012 minimum.  While the trend would be accurate, based on the data, it would not be representative of the system, as a whole.  Would you accept someone's calculation that the minimum sea ice has been increasing at 67k sq. km annually, based on the last seven years of data, even though the calculation is correct?  By the way, since October, 2015, NASA data has shown that sea level has risen 6.4mm, which calculates to 2.1mm / year.  Does this mean that sea level rise is slowing?  All this does is show the folly of using short-term data, in lieu of longer trends.

NASA has stated that the current sea level rise is 3.3mm / year, which is an increase from 3.2 from their trend in 2012, and 3.0 back in 2005.  This does show an increase, but nowhere near 8mm / year (or even 5).

9
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 04:22:30 PM »
Not significantly different from today.  Things are not that different from eleven years ago.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 06, 2019, 11:33:10 PM »
As Wolfgang Pauli, Viggy, Jim Hunt and many others have observed: "Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig; es ist nicht einmal falsch!" 

See also: Gish Gallop

I finally learnt something in this thread!

Also, I think both the pro and con sides can agree that due to the nature of this thread, it will continue on circuitously till we have all burnt out far too much intellectual capital. There will be no agreement or conclusions here. Lets move on to more fruitful conversations.

Agreed.  We will never come to agreement on matters of opinion.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 03, 2019, 04:27:40 AM »
The factors influencing thickness, like wave action, are small compared to those acting on the overall area, sunlight and seawater.  Thickness changes does not drive the sea ice, rather they occur through these other factors.

Processes controlling surface, bottom and lateral melt of Arctic sea ice in a state of the art sea ice model

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281622252_Processes_controlling_surface_bottom_and_lateral_melt_of_Arctic_sea_ice_in_a_state_of_the_art_sea_ice_model

Relevant graph from the article attached.

Thank you Archimid.  From the article, “Decompising the total ice melt shows that bottom melt accounts for more than two-thirds of the total melt, top melt accounts for almost a third of the total, and lateral melt contributes less than 10%.”

12
The rest / Re: How Educated are we as a Forum
« on: March 31, 2019, 01:56:06 PM »
Though educational attainment is crudely associated with knowledge, that is at best a very crude estimator.

Advanced education tends to focus on narrowly defined areas of expertise. It is all too common for experts in very narrowly defined areas to be woefully uninformed in broader areas of knowledge.

Also, knowledge is not synonymous with wisdom, insight or vision.

you nail it quite spot on, after i first studied economics i later did philosophy and the best thing i ever did was to study atrophysics at a relatively high age. it is crucial to drop self-importnance to be open and less biased and limited in mind (i say less, not NOT LOL) of course failure is a daily thing while as long as we learn (as quickly as possible) from mistakes, failure is education and a must, at least when considering that we're barely born wise or took in wisdom with baby food.

narrow views and the likes is a huge problem, one can solve HIS problem and as a side-effect destroy spaceship earth (as it happens) we call them "Fachidioten" quite spot on somehow.

Thing is that masses tend to treat each new breakthrough like a mantra, making it a religion which pust all those single and disconnected finds to high in rating and allow for abuse and narrow minded solutions.

There is quite of bit of truth to this.  These breakthroughs then fall into groupthink, whereby everyone researching the breakthrough contributes to the current thinking, with very few daring to challenge the new mantra. 

13
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 26, 2019, 04:58:46 PM »
KK: Your doubts are unconvincing and self-contradictory. Somewhere between skeptic and denialist. This appears to be a trend.


Anyone who is not saying that the world will end immediately but tries to stick to the facts is called a denialist and a skeptic. This appears to be a trend.

Agreed.  Since when has science taken a back seat to Eschatology.

14
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 26, 2019, 04:57:05 PM »
Vox,
Even your graphic shows minor flooding in the great lakes region, with much of the region showing no flooding.  Thank you for confirming my statement.

Even the experts agree that clouds have moderated temperature:
https://phys.org/news/2019-03-experts-reveal-clouds-moderated-triggered.html

The level of the lakes has nothing to do with flooding.  Flooding occurs along river system, and increases with the drainage area.

Using anecdotal statements to counter the data is the real strawman argument.  Your strawman claims appear to be catching fire.

15
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 26, 2019, 01:45:18 PM »
Living within the Great Lakes region, I find this report largely misleading.  Very little flooding occurs in this region, as no major rivers, with their corresponding drainage systems, exist within these confines.  Flooding will always be more prevalent in urban areas, unlike changes occur in current drainage systems.  The great lakes region in engulfed in greater cloud cover than the surrounding areas, due precisely to the presence of the lakes.  This cloud cover, which will likely increase in a the coming years due to warming, will moderate the weather, not make it more unpredictable.  The region currently has more moderate winters and summers than the rest of the nation, which is unlikely to change.  NOAA shows the number of record high temperatures during the summer in this region to be quite low, especially compared to the rest of the country;  13 last year, 7 in 2016, and none in 2015 or 17.  All these changes will likely be a boon for agriculture, not an undermine. 

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 26, 2019, 10:03:49 PM »
Only once in the past two decades has the maximum occurred in Feb.  So, I give it a 5% chance that the maximum is already in.

There are 3 years (2015, 2007 & 2016), not only one.  8)
I posted the numbers on the poll.

According to NSIDC, the maximum extent was reached on Feb. 25 in 2015, Mar. 17 in 2016, and on Mar. 12 in 2006.  I stand by statement.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 26, 2019, 03:50:34 PM »
Down 176K in 3 days, with average gain left 180k & 5 of the last 10 years having less - Does that not sound like 50/50 that the maximum is already in?
On to melting season!  8)

I would say much less than that.  Almost every year has a sea ice peak in February or early March, only to be followed by a maximum weeks later.  This occurred several times in 2016, with the first peak occurring on Feb. 10, only to finally witness the maximum extent on March 24.  Weather, currents, and clouds combine to shift the ice significantly, resulting in fluctuations in the measurements.  Only once in the past two decades has the maximum occurred in Feb.  So, I give it a 5% chance that the maximum is already in.

18
I think this qualifies as "weird" weather:

The NCEP GFS 0.5deg analysis 2m air temperature has the Northern Hemisphere average temperature dropping to it's lowest in at least 4 years over the coming 7 days.

Not sure that qualifies as weird.  Lowest temperature in at least 4 years does not sound too far from normal.

19
I always understood the total Greenland (or generally any) ice sheet mass change in a year to mainly be a result of the amount snowfall, melt and calving:
mass change = gain from snowfall - loss from melt - loss through calving
Is this correct?

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

The linked page contains a graph that has data until June 2017 and shows an ongoing downward trend in the Greenland total ice sheet mass.

Yes, the mass loss accelerated from 2003 up until 2012.  However, since then it has decelerated dramatically, to the point where it may actually be gained mass.

http://sciencenordic.com/how-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-2018

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

"Exceptional winter snow accumulation and heavy, summer snowfall, drove the net snow input mass to 130 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 average. This was followed by a near-average melt and runoff period, resulting in a large net mass gain for the ice sheet in 2018 of 150 billion tons. This is the largest net gain from snowfall since 1996, and the highest snowfall since 1972. However, several major glaciers now flow significantly faster than in these earlier years. The net change in mass of the ice sheet overall, including this higher discharge of ice directly into the ocean, is not clear at this point but may be a smaller loss or even a small gain. This is similar to our assessment for 2017, and in sharp contrast to the conditions for the preceding decade."

Do I understand this analysis correctly that this downward trend could have been broken in 2017 and 2018? That would be great news.

Yes, you are understanding correctly.  Whether this is the start of a new trend or just a temporary reprieve remains to be seen.  So, I would not start celebrating soon.

20
Yes, the mass loss accelerated from 2003 up until 2012.  However, since then it has decelerated dramatically, to the point where it may actually be gained mass.

http://sciencenordic.com/how-greenland-ice-sheet-fared-2018

https://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

"Exceptional winter snow accumulation and heavy, summer snowfall, drove the net snow input mass to 130 billion tons above the 1981 to 2010 average. This was followed by a near-average melt and runoff period, resulting in a large net mass gain for the ice sheet in 2018 of 150 billion tons. This is the largest net gain from snowfall since 1996, and the highest snowfall since 1972. However, several major glaciers now flow significantly faster than in these earlier years. The net change in mass of the ice sheet overall, including this higher discharge of ice directly into the ocean, is not clear at this point but may be a smaller loss or even a small gain. This is similar to our assessment for 2017, and in sharp contrast to the conditions for the preceding decade."

21
The rest / Re: 2019 Predictions
« on: December 28, 2018, 05:58:53 PM »
I predict this will be a rather blasé year, with little excitement or drama.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 14, 2018, 02:42:15 PM »
NSIDC stats for 11-12-18. Currently 2018 is 8th lowest, now surpassing 2017, 2016, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2006. If current trends continue 2018 can "drop" to 11th lowest because 2015, 2013 and 2007 are stalling the next few days.

2018 - 9.559 km2 (8th)
2017 - 9.326 km2 (4th)
2016 - 8.649 km2 (1st)
2015 - 9.650 km2 (stalling next few days)
2014 - 9.827 km2
2013 - 9.575 km2 (stalling next few days)
2012 - 9.002 km2 (2nd)
2011 - 9.458 km2 (5th)
2010 - 9.521 km2 (7th)
2009 - 9.283 km2 (3rd)
2008 - 10.090 km2
2007 - 9.660 km2 (stalling next few days)
2006 - 9.500 km2 (6th)

Ice forming rapidly around edges all over east, west and Hudson with little propensity to slow.

Not sure what to make of this all, but the ice gain over the past month is the second highest in the satellite history, with the gain over the past two weeks being the highest.  Based on current and forecast temperatures I expect this to continue in the short term.

23
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: October 29, 2018, 05:06:15 PM »
The simple fact is that, with climate change, food insecurity across the planet will grow unrelentingly. Pointing to the effects of a couple of years of global bountiful harvests as a way of arguing that this need not be the case is no different than pointing to the effects of a La Nina as evidence that global warming will not continue.

As we are force marched to our inevitable future where billions will die of starvation and heat stress, it is necessarily so that the weakest and most vulnerable will die first. The sick, the elderly, young children, the poor will go first. This is no different than what happened in the Nazi death camps during WWII. The rest will toil relentlessly until we meet a similar fate.

I think you understood the report backwards.  Pointing to the effects of a couple of years of poor harvests (and social unrest) does not counter the evidence that food insecurity and world hunger has been on a long, steady decline.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October mid-monthly update)
« on: October 25, 2018, 02:19:14 PM »
Climate Change Deniers have been rallying around a cooling Greenland.  Greenland did cool during the later half of the 20th century due to a positive NAO, which brought cooler and wetter weather to parts of Greenland.

Quote
Three major melt events during late July and August brought the 2018 Greenland melt season to a close. Overall, conditions on the ice sheet were slightly warmer than average for the second half of the summer.

 Three significant melt events peaked on July 17, July 31, and August 9. While none of these were exceptional, they were among the highest melt extents for those dates in the satellite record, at or above 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles)—roughly a third of the ice sheet. High atmospheric pressure contributed to the melt events on July 31 and August 9. Strong winds from the southeast were linked to the melt events on July 17 and July 31, and from the southwest on August 9. Surface temperatures during the events were generally 2 to 5 degrees Celsius (4 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2010 average. Overall, higher-than-average temperatures of 0.5 to 1.2 degrees Celsius (0.9 to 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981 to 2010 mean characterized the second half of summer.
link


As for last year's Arctic report card:

Quote
Surface air temperatures observed on the ice sheet indicated a different pattern than those observed at coastal station, especially during summer 2017. Measurements at twenty coastal weather stations of the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) indicate widespread above- or near-average air temperatures for the seasons of autumn 2016 through summer 2017 (relative to the average for the period 1981-2010), with the exception of spring in northeast Greenland. New record highs were set at a number of sites in autumn 2016, with absolute anomalies above +5° C (see Table 1).

This year's Arctic report card comes out in December.

 

I would just like to emphasize that I am not a denier, I think climate change is going to result in widespread + worsening areas of horrible heat, and limited areas of cryospheric crisis (though the balance will, IMO, shift from the former to the latter as we head deeper into CAB BOE). In fact I would assert my outlook is far worse than contemporary consensus on climate change because you are dealing with a simultaneous worsening of BOTH extremes rather than a static shift towards hot, with the increasing gradient between A and B ultimately responsible for the "superstorms" we are now seeing (with breakdown of normal jetstream, oceanic heat distribution to poles is increasingly sporadic and cyclonic -> hence why we see so many Cat 5s now).

bbr,
I do not count you as a denier, and it really irks me that anytime someone presents any scientific evidence that even hints at bucking the establishment gets labelled as such.  Those that do so are not scientists, but activists who cannot see past their own belief system.  Your analysis looks credible.  Keep posting.

25
The rest / Re: Elections 2018 USA
« on: September 20, 2018, 01:37:31 PM »
I find it hard to believe that so many would vote for a crook, just because he is our crook.  At some point, even the most die-hard will throw in the towel.

Pages: [1]