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]
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 25, 2019, 08:13:38 PM »

I take no issue with your solution.  However, you do realize that although it will save money, it will only slow the rate of CO2 increase slightly.  I fail to see the enormous benefits reaped.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 11:25:17 PM »
The Chuckchi sea (and the Bering) can really start the next melt season with the record low volume (again). But it won't be a catastrophe because the CAB still have the pretty thick ice that will mostly survive the melt season.
This is wrong. The Chukchi and Bering are, IMO, directly tied to the freezing season in North America and its duration. If the Chukchi and Bering's volume remains at record lows through the freezing season and into the spring, there is a very good chance winter will not abate until May, or even June, across the most productive food-growing regions on the planet.

We already have a catastrophe unfolding after this year's late start and early finish. If 2020 repeats the same pattern (or worse) there will be major shocks to food prices beyond what is already likely in the pipeline due to this year's harvest.

If the CAB has ice when people start to starve, BOE will be trivial at that point. The impacts are already well underway due to certain regions becoming increasingly ice-free, and we may not even need an ice-free CAB to see catastrophe unfold in the form of spiraling food prices.

Thus years harvest was not a catastrophe.  Corn production is only down about 9% from last year, and still above 2015 levels.  Wheat production was up 4% over 2018.  Food prices are down significantly from the spring scare, which caused more hype than harm.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 11, 2019, 10:04:29 PM »
Also worth noting the linear trend of September minimums predicts BOEs will be common in 16 years from now.


An excursion below the trend line such as seen in 2010, 11 or 12 reduces that to 4 or 5 years from now.

Very scary.

True, but a polymeric trend does not yield a BOE until much later.

A quadratic will be sooner than linear.

Except that a quadratic is a poorer fit than a linear.  A third-order is a better fit than either.  I am not sold on the Gompertz, which never reaches zero.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 08, 2019, 05:17:07 PM »
Gerontocrat, your graphs has gotten me thinking.  What if the open water in the peripheral seas is contributing to larger heat losses, resulting in faster refreeze of the CAB?  Widespread ice cover in the past may have kept more heat bottled up beneath the ice. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 01, 2019, 02:31:10 PM »
Yes Kassy.  Additionally, extent and area show the largest divergence during the late summer and early autumn months, as larger ocean surfaces show enough ice to be considered ice-covered in the extent measurements, but are not fully ice covered for the area measurements.  Slush qualifies as ice-covered for extent measurements, but only partially in the area measurements.  During late winter, extent and area measurements converge as most of the surface is ice-covered.  NSIDC prefers using extent as the measurements have been more consistent over time (area measurements tend to fluctate more due to thin ice and melt ponds).

Volume is calculated using the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS).  The model incorporates sea ice thickness, calculated using the HYCOM-CICE model developed by DMI and sea ice concentration (different from extent or area).  Consequently, volume can differ significantly from either area or extent. 

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 23, 2019, 02:33:23 PM »
Wow. This thread is really depressing. Maybe it should be retitled to people doubling down on climate change. Many of these locations should be evacuated, rather than cool the outdoors and truck in water for toilets.

It is not just Qatar and the like.  The U.S. southwest has witnessed tremendous population growth, due largely to air conditioning and water piping.  The Phoenix area had barely 100,000 inhabitants in 1950.  It now has over 4 million!

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 15, 2019, 02:25:28 PM »
For the current thinking on how climate change is affecting cyclones see:

Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change Assessment: Part I. Detection and Attribution

There isn't overwhelming evidence for anything yet, but the sorts of things that look suspicious are listed in the summary.

 "Most authors agreed that the balance of evidence suggests detectable anthropogenic contributions to:
i) the poleward migration of the latitude of maximum intensity in the western North Pacific;
ii) increased occurrence of extremely severe (post-monsoon season) cyclonic storms in the Arabian Sea;
iii)increased global average intensity of the strongest TCs since early 1980s;
iv) increase in global proportion of TCs reaching Category 4 or 5 intensity in recent decades;
and v) increased frequency of Hurricane Harvey-like extreme precipitation events in the Texas (U.S.) region. "

Very nice, and may I add a few more summaries:
i) The opinion on the author team was divided on whether any observed poleward TC changes demonstrate discernible anthropogenic influence.
ii) None of these observed tropical cyclone timeseries demonstrate clear evidence for a century-scale increase similar to that observed for global mean temperature.
iii-a)  U.S. landfalling hurricane counts (1878-2017) show a nominally negative decline, although
        the trend over 1900-2017 is not statistically significant.
iii-b) The timeseries of tropical cylcone landfalls for Japan since 1901 and global tropical cyclone
        and hurricane frequency since 1970 also show no strong evidence for trends.
iii)  In summary, no detectable anthropogenic influence has been identified to date in observed TC
      landfalling data, using Type I error avoidance criteria. From the viewpoint of Type II error
      avoidance, one of the above changes (decrease in severe landfalling TCs in eastern Australia)
      was rated as detectable, though not attributable to anthropogenic forcing.
iv)    A slight increasing trend in global intensity for the strongest TCs (at least hurricane
intensity) was identified (p-value of 0.1).
v)  we conclude that there is only low confidence in detection and attribution of any anthropogenic influence on historical TC intensity in any basin or globally.  However, ten of 11 authors concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a detectable increase in the global average intensity of the strongest (hurricane-strength) tropical clyclones since the early 1980s.
vi)  the evidence for detectable increases in U.S storm total inundation levels, apart from changes expected from sea level rise influence, is mixed.
vii)  In summary, the author team had low confidence that anthropogenic influence specifically on hurricane precipitation rates has been detected. Alternatively, all authors concluded that the balance of evidence suggests that there has been a detectable long-term increase in occurrence of Hurricane Harvey-like extreme precipitation events in the eastern Texas region, and that anthropogenic forcing has contributed to this increase.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 05:56:38 PM »
Did not realize until now that KK is a cartoon figure, which stems back from the '60ies. Through more than 700 posts over the past year, this guy has tried to divert discussions from relevant and meaningful conversation.

I feel ashamed that this ludicrous character ( from my own time zone! ) has been allowed to spoil so many threads over the past year. This thread in particular is about more than 60 dead people in Japan this weekend,  hundreds of victims in the Bahamas during the past month and many more to come.

To rephrase a certain young activist: "How dare you?"

Glad to see that you recognize my character - also from my childhood time zone. 

How dare I?  You are the one diverting this thread from meaningful and relevant conversation.
Your post is typical of those who wish to influence scientific debate by incorporating an emotional element.  Sure, people feel for those who had to suffer through these diasterous events.  However, long term deaths have not increased due to hurricane activity.  Since 1880, the long term trend in Atlantic hurricane deaths is flat, i.e. no change.  On average, 760 hurricane fatalties have occurred annually.  That is the same today as it was 140 years ago, and that is total deaths!  Considering that the population has increased 5-fold since then, that is actually a significant drop in the death rate.  The deadliest years were 1900 (~12,000), 1998 (9,715), and 1930, 1963, and 1974 (~8,000 each).

The national hurricane center has calculated the accumulated cylcone energy (ACE) since 1950.  During that first decade (1950s) there were 69 total hurricanes.  This past decade (2010s), there have been 71.  NOAA has even stated that the trend in Atlantic hurricanes is "not significantly distinguishable from zero."  Sorry if I prefer solid scientific evidence over hyperbole.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:39:54 PM »
When we talk ice KkK focuses on area/extent, a lower-dimensional measure than volume that produces a very long term prediction. That way he can avoid the truth that the volume numbers reveal.

When we talk Hurricanes KkK focuses like a laser, on ACE, which only includes wind speed and duration. He must ignore the floods, the rapid intensification, the slower paths, and the increased destructiveness.

He must pretend that average = normal AND that ACE is the only average that matters. Lucky him for being able to do that. I guess I'm just jealous of his bliss.

Sometimes it is important to focus on the most relevant numbers, rather than those which best exemplify ones own viewpoint.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 03, 2019, 02:58:13 PM »
Archimid, it is not a matter of "getting it."  I "get it."  We just differ on the outcome.  The arctic sea ice minimum has decreased by more than 40% over the last three decades.  The changes that have resulted have not been catastrophic.  What makes you think that another 40% will make such a big difference.  I am not the only scientist who disagrees with your prediction.

Science / Re: Has climate sensitivity been under-estimated?
« on: October 01, 2019, 01:43:17 PM »
the paleosens work from 2012 also showed this non-linearity of ECS  Though they simply checked over the last 800,000 years. see:

There is no compelling reason for ECS to be linear.  As in most chemical and physical equilibria, it should decrease with increasing concentrations.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 23, 2019, 07:25:13 PM »
At the autumnal equinox, this is where the global tropical season stands based on accumulated cylcone energy (ACE):

North Atlantic:  82.0, an increase of 11.9% above the average ACE of 73.3
Northeast Pacific:  92.1, a decrease of 10.4% from the average of 102.8
Northwest Pacific:  113.4, a decrease of 36.2% from the average of 177.8
North Indian:  34.6, an increase of 317% above the average of 8.3

Northern Hemisphere:  322.1, a decrease of 11% from the average of 362.2

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 17, 2019, 12:07:04 AM »
It is interesting to note that there is a pattern to the very bad years of 2007, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

The first "bad" year was 2007. It took five years for 2012 to happen. It took four years for 2016 to happen. It took three years for 2019 to happen.

Perhaps it is nonsense, but that would put 4M KM^2 minimum as "normal" come 2021 (two years after 2019, and then we are down to one year separating these instances, i.e. it becomes each and every year), with each year thereafter likely to achieve a max under 2019, 2016, and 2007.

It should also be noted the last minimum above 5M KM^2 looks to be 2009. That is potentially about 11 years between the last minimum above 5M KM^2 and the last minimum above 4M KM^2 (using the step-trend above, that year would be 2020, or it may have already occurred).

We cannot say whether the remaining decline will follow on the same gradual continuum. Below 4M KM^2, the area / volume discrepancy inherently favors massive drops in area relative to volume as 0 is approached. I would think that there will not be another 11 years between the last 4M KM^2 min and the last 3M KM^2 min.

Does that mean we are approaching an asymptote at 4 M?

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 02:41:30 AM »

I'm convinced that there is a hiatus if we take a 2012 starting point. I'm also convinced that there is an accelerating trend if we take 2013 as a starting point.

This freezing season is terribly important. If we get a 2013 like recovery it means the arctic is warming slowly after the MYI phase change. If we get a 2017 like recovery or worse, we are done.  The arctic already spent cold reserves and we are heading towards collapse.

Using arbitrary starting points to match ones personal preferences is poor science.  However, using a linear straight line fit because it is simpler, is not much better.  I cannot say for certain whether the gompertz fit, Taminos three-sloped trends, or another polymeric fit is the best, but they all match the data better.  Just because no one has presented a definitive reason for the changes, does not mean they have not occurred.  The best science is to try an devise a theory to match the data, not the other way around.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 09, 2019, 03:01:50 PM »
Thanks for that oren! So with the dreaded pole hole covered, here are the latest results. Still no stall at all.

EDIT but the linearly projected 0 area now falls in 2164 (as if ...)

You are averaging stretches of high and low to get your linear fit.  From 1992-2004, you have plotted 13 consecutive years where the extent is above the linear fit, followed by 9 straight years being above the fit line.  Does that not tell you something above the possibility of a change in slope?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 01:44:20 PM »
I am continuously surprised that so many posters are hoping to witness a BOE.  Is it the downfall of civilization that they hope to envision or just the novelty of an ice-free Arctic?  Perhaps they just want to see if their predictions of what a BOE will cause in the way of climatic changes come to fruition.

Science / Re: Has climate sensitivity been under-estimated?
« on: July 31, 2019, 08:11:03 PM »
climate sensitivity according to paleodata
glacial maximum: CO2 = 180 ppm
interglacial:    CO2 = 280 ppm
DeltaT = 4C
CO2 ppm fraction = (280/180) = 14/9
For a doubling of CO2: (2/(14/9))*4C = 9/7 * 4C = 36/7 = ~5.14C
I think I read this in Peter Wadhams's book.
Time for another joint.

That assumes that the CO2 rise is the sole cause of the temperature rise.  Which begs the question of why the CO2 started rising.

Policy and solutions / Re: Why people don't listen to experts
« on: July 31, 2019, 12:33:01 AM »
I think both are correct.  Groups pushing agendas and central powers are both presenting experts, oftentimes contradicting each other.  This makes it quite difficult for the novice to decipher.  In the end, people tend to believe what they want to believe, and find experts who will confirm it.  Independent thinking seems to be fading among the masses.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 29, 2019, 11:55:15 PM »
I guess that is like trying to calculate the earth’s energy budget by focusing solely on incoming solar energy during the daytime hours.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: July 29, 2019, 05:03:07 PM »
I did a similar analysis, but went back to 2007, because that was the first big loss year. 

Using NSIDC extent data, the average loss over that time frame was 10.37m km2, with 2012 leading the way with 11.91m, followed by 2008 at 10.71, 2010 at 10.67, and 2007 at 10.61.  2016 was fifth with 10.39m. 

Using the same data on July 19, the average date at which 2/3 of the ice has melted, only 2012 retains its position at 7.78m km2.  2011 and 2013 were next, but both had their melt curtailed at the end of the summer.  Conversely, 2008 was at the low end, but witnessed enhanced melt through late September. 

Consequently, melt to date is a poor indicator of additional melt.  Hence, assuming a continued melt rate through minimum is no better than assuming average melt. 

By the way, using the current rate of melt, the minimum this year would be 3.77m, second lowest after 2012.  Using average melt, the minimum would be a little higher at 3.98m, still second lowest.  However, using the last two years of high early melt (2011 and 2013) as the benchmark for late season melt, then the minimum would be much higher at 4.48m km2. Therefore, my final projection is for a range between 3.77 and 4.48m km2 at minimum.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 22, 2019, 03:16:04 PM »
I'm not seeing anybody denying the risk of climate change?

You can't see anyone denying risk of climate change? Here. Read your own words.

What risk does a BOE present to me above and beyond the general risk of continued AGW to my life? None in my opinion.

I mean, you say that you don't see anyone denying risk in the same post that you deny the risk. If you can't see it when you deny it, how do you expect to see it when others deny it?  See, this is not science or logic. These types of contradictions are products of fear psychology.
I'm not sure if you are reading what I wrote? I do not think that BOE causes any risk to me or mankind above and beyond the general risk of continued AGW.

I've seen nothing that indicates that the huge risk involved in continued AGW is in any significant way increased (or decreased) by a BOE.

Does that mean that I deny that there is a risk involved in continued AGW? Of course not. Stop spouting nonsense my dear man!

I believe that the problem is that there are several posters claiming knowledge of an imminent catastrophic event, without supporting evidence.  These same posters claim that anyone who does not believe their scenario is accurate, must be a denier.  As gerontocrat posted, one can obtain substantially different projections simple by varying the graphic fit chosen.  As El Cid posted, there appears to be state change after the periphery ice has melted, and the melting of the CAB may progress at an entire different rate.  While the overall trajectory points towards a BOE, the data gives little indications as to when. and certainly not imminently.  That does not mean that a sudden change could not occur in the very near future, which causes another substantial downturn in sea ice.

Knowledgeable people, here and elsewhere, have various speculations of the timing and overall consequences of a BOE.  As crandles stated, hyping timelines and threats only gives more ammunition to conservatives, wishing to dismiss environmentalists as alarmist.  How many claims of an ice-free Arctic have failed to materialize in the recent past.  I see no reason to add any more.  If that make me a denier Rich, then so be it.  I will take realism and accuracy in data over hyperbole any day of the week.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 01:55:51 PM »
The abrupt changes in planetary climate that a BOE will bring are not magic. They are simple physics. The Earth has had a planetary refrigerator for likely millions of years. After a BOE that refrigerator fails and the NH will know true climate change. There won't be any denying because we'll be busy surviving.

I'm not arguing against logic here. It is frustrating to see how intelligent people who are aware of the role of arctic sea ice on atmospheric and oceanic patterns can't see the destruction that will ensue as the arctic disappears. The destruction has already started and the Arctic has barely begun to change.

But I may be wrong, so let's get to the science. Find me a paper that describes what happens after the first BOE, that doesn't ignore the ASI teleconections to the rest of the world and predicts a BOE much sooner than 2070.

Good luck with it.

The impacts of a BOE is simply a continuum of what we are already seeing. The very low SIE and SIA we are reaching now are already impacting the weather across the NH. While we define a BOE as less than 1 million square kilometers, NH weather will see no real diffirence between 1.4 and 0.8 million square kilometers.

I found this analysis of a BOE event to be rather informative.

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.

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.

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.


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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

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%.”

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. 

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.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 26, 2019, 04:57:05 PM »
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:

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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.

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.

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

As for last year's Arctic report card:

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).

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.

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]