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 - Phoenix

Pages: [1] 2
The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: Today at 03:21:58 AM »
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.
~ John F. Kennedy

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: Today at 12:39:25 AM »
TS Cristobal has duly formed in the Gulf of Mexico

It's hardly going anywhere for 3 days. Just going to sit there and dump rain on the same region in Mexico. ~ 20" forecast.

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: June 02, 2020, 10:39:18 PM »

I ask the moderators to moderate people on this post trying to foment violence and terror.

I feel the same.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 02, 2020, 06:40:16 PM »
The total area of 2020 v. 2019 is now almost exactly the same thru 6/1, but the regional disparity is just crazy. Let's break it down according to a regional perspective.

Where 2020 leads:

Atlantic (Kara / Barents, +135k)
Siberia (ESS + Laptev, +200k)
Periphery (the rest, +100k)

Where 2019 leads

Pacific (Beaufort / Chukchi, + 350k)
Core (CAB / CAA, + 80k)
Greenland (+10k)

Analysis -  2019 maintains huge lead in seas which retained significant ice at 2019 minimum (CAB, CAA and Beaufort). Best opportunity for 2020 to make up ground is Siberian CAB. Making up ground on Atlantic CAB is historically difficult penetrating deep Arctic. Advantage 2019. Pathway to a record in 2020 after a coldish winter, slow start in Pacific and now a pause in momentum seems unlikely to say the least. But this has been a strange year and weather gods will always prevail.

edit: Wipneus has posted the PIOMAS gif depiction for May and the 3D picture conforms to the 2D picture. Looks like the best place for 2020 to make a run at the CAB is definitely from Laptev. Beaufort / CAA ice looking very healthy in 3D.

Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: June 02, 2020, 09:31:45 AM »
Not sure where this belongs, but here's a link to a new study that makes the case that today's CO2 levels haven't been observed in 23 million years.

The team used the fossilized remains of ancient plant tissues to produce a new record of atmospheric CO2 that spans 23 million years of uninterrupted Earth history. They have shown elsewhere that as plants grow, the relative amount of the two stable isotopes of carbon, carbon-12 and carbon-13 changes in response to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: June 01, 2020, 09:53:25 PM »
It's a homicide either way.

I think the protesters want him to be suffocated. So they have a reason to burn and loot.

Well Alexander, what do you think is the appropriate response from a group that routinely sees its members murdered and the perpetrators go unpunished?

How should I respond ? Just roll over and die?

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: June 01, 2020, 08:24:20 PM »
The official repport says he did not die from suffocation.

So long as we all understand that it was related to stresses related to his difficulty breathing because of the cop, that's all that matters. It's a homicide either way.

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: June 01, 2020, 06:30:15 PM »
it's the powerful vs. the oppressed.

I agree but, the quality and quantity of oppression is merely defined by skin color. Oftentimes in fascism vs. rule of law kind of level of difference.

This is a nuanced discussion. I agree that there is a high degree of correlation of oppression to a color gradient. But the extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust is a reminder that color is completely unnecessary for oppressive forces to find the hierarchy they seek.

I am resisting the impulse to put black people on the pedestal as poster children for oppression. It reinforces the idea that I (as a caucasian person) am separate from them. I do not feel separate from them. When I see the murder of my black brothers, i feel that this is a member of my human family and I understand that my fate is intertwined with the fate of this person. I understand that if this person is not safe, I am also not safe.

I am not black and I will never be able to walk in the shoes of a black person and experience the unique qualities of oppression that they face strictly based upon skin color. But I understand that in order to navigate our way out of the mess humanity finds itself in, we must resist the forces that seek to separate us into identity silos.

When one of us is oppressed, we are all oppressed.

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: June 01, 2020, 12:04:55 PM »
I would encourage people to view these events through a Darwinistic lens and see that racism is simply a symptom of more fundamental survival forces at work when broader systems break down.

For an historic parallel, I would refer to the situation of post WW I Germany in the wake of the treaty of Versailles. Without passing judgement on the responsibility of what put the German nation in that particular situation, we see in hindsight that the French were insistent on reparations demands that were incompatible with a sustainable German nation. Powerless, the Germans had to accept and were soon thereafter in a situation where there was widespread starvation and despair.

In the absence of any leverage to force the people at the controls to help them, people subconsciously and organically arrive at the conclusion that they must undermine the system which
oppresses them in order to survive. They are in a Darwinistic frame of kill or be killed and nothing trumps survival.

Like a young lion cub that must grow up to kill wildebeests and water buffalo in order to survive, the ultimate target is an unrealistic goal in the early stages of development but the young lion must learn how to kill in incremental degrees of difficulty in order to graduate. So the cub begins with slower and weaker prey. When a young lion kills a lizard, we recognize it as a necessary evolution process.

In the case of the Germans, the history of how they progressed through incremental stages of killing difficulty is well established and need not be rehashed here. But ultimately it can be argued that they were successful in killing the paradigm that they began with. However horrifying the process, it can easily be argued that the survivors in the German nation was in better position in 1955 than in 1925. Nature abhors a vacuum and the Nazis filled it.

The situation in America today is not quite so advanced in terms of the level of economic suffering seen in Germany a century ago, but the situation is certainly moving in that direction. What is common is the sense of powerlessness of the average American system which is well described on many threads in this forum. The US political system is deeply intertwined with the interests of a wealthy minority and has fortified the system against intelligent self-regulation. The politicains, courts, electoral processes, and media institutions have all been co-opted.

The average citizen probably does not grasp this and even if they do, they are essentially powerless to stop it. What they certainly do understand is the increasing survival pressure and declining visibility to a secure future. They are in an earlier but equivalent phase of what the Germans were sensing in the 1920's. The herd is understanding that the system itself must be killed. Like the young lion, the ability to kill must be cultivated and it must start with those that post no threat. These processes start with the weak and progress incrementally.

As one of those Americans who is acutely aware of my lack of political power, I've been expecting the system to lead us in this direction. In the absence of ability to address the big flaws in the system, we start small and kill the things which are accessible to us.... each other.

We have two routes to go. The elegant path of progressive legislation or the violent path of burning the system down. Someone like Trump offers the malignant narcissism necessary to lead the violent path if the elegant route doesn't emerge. Nature abhors a vacuum and the gene pool has produced enough people with the appropriate personality attributes. There will be another Trump waiting in the wings.

As a person of Jewish descent, i had to grapple with the experience of my ancestors in the Holocaust and arrive at a viewpoint which allows me to maintain compassion for the experience of the starving German citizen of the 1920's. I think there may have been some attributes of ethnic supremacy which were prevalent in the cultural mythology. Those attributes were probably determinative of which groups got the short end of the stick in the Holocaust. But a lot of christians died in that war too.

I don't excuse racism and think these examples of police murders should be prosecuted and punished to the maximum extent possible. But I still have compassion for the economic and survival pressure that the white supremacist asshole is facing and want to take the boot off his / her neck so that they do not have the motivation to go looking for victims.

Racism is a symptom of the underlying system dynamics. If everyone in America was white, the herd would organize itself according to some other hierarchy in order to play out the same dynamic we are seeing now. The herd is simply organizing itself into sub-herds.

Of course, the corporate media is doing all it can to promote the black vs.white paradigm because they are agents of the ruling class. They do all they can to keep the focus off of the underlying class war which is the root cause of this. It is only after the rich people become afraid for their personal survival that editorials like this will begin to appear in the mainstream press.

The current version of America is unsustainable and breaking. We don't know what the next version is going to look like. I am pushing hard here to educate people about the virtues of the elegant path with a Green New Deal as a centerpiece. We'll see what happens.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 01, 2020, 08:20:05 AM »
Phoenix, I think this will help if you know how to use calculus.

Thanks for the offer nanning. i don't know how to use calculus. Just throwing the question out there to see if anyone else here has wrestled with the issue of depth of penetration of solar into open water.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 31, 2020, 06:50:19 PM »

Geophysical Research Letters
Warm‐air advection, air mass transformation and fog causes rapid ice melt
June 2015

Direct observations during intense warm‐air advection over the East Siberian Sea reveal a period of rapid sea‐ice melt. A semistationary, high‐pressure system north of the Bering Strait forced northward advection of warm, moist air from the continent. Air‐mass transformation over melting sea ice formed a strong, surface‐based temperature inversion in which dense fog formed. This induced a positive net longwave radiation at the surface while reducing net solar radiation only marginally; the inversion also resulted in downward turbulent heat flux. The sum of these processes enhanced the surface energy flux by an average of ~15 W m−2 for a week. Satellite images before and after the episode show sea‐ice concentrations decreasing from > 90% to ~50% over a large area affected by the air‐mass transformation. We argue that this rapid melt was triggered by the increased heat flux from the atmosphere due to the warm‐air advection.

(from conclusion - An extra 20 W m−2 surface heating would theoretically melt an additional ~4–5 cm of ice over 7 days)

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: May 31, 2020, 05:19:38 AM »

Amy Klobuchar declined to prosecute officer at center of George Floyd's death after previous conduct complaints

Her VP hopes just went down the tubes. When Jim Clyburn starts making public comments about your prospects, it's time to pay attention.

"We are all victims sometimes of timing and some of us benefit tremendously from timing," Clyburn said Friday. "This is very tough timing for Amy Klobuchar. ... The timing is tough."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Arctic for Amateurs and Newbies
« on: May 29, 2020, 06:34:58 PM »

But it's fun, isn't? If you call watching a disintegrating world fun that is...  :'(

I wouldn't say I find it fun. It's more like a compelling drama. A cliffhanger in which we have so much at stake and don't know the outcome. Scary and fascinating at the same time.

Some of us need to understand the horror to explain to the sheeple why they need to make changes. Keep asking questions and you'll learn.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Arctic for Amateurs and Newbies
« on: May 29, 2020, 05:37:44 PM »
Why do high pressure systems keep forming over the beaufort gyre?

I wish I knew FG.

It's a unique spot in the Arctic in that it's the only place where there's a steep dropoff to a deep basin near the coast. The shape of the gyre mirrors the shape of the deep basin underneath.

I imagine that this time of year, there is a constant temperature gradient between the N. American border and the Beaufort. The air from the land moves over the gyre, cools and shrinks in mass, sinks and makes room for more air to come in above. The increased mass of air in the vertical column is basically the definition of high pressure.

I think the depth of the basin is somehow related to the ability of the gyre to form. But this is really all a guesstimate.... a good spot for someone more knowledgable to come in with a better answer.

There's a potential horror story associated with the gyre. Historically, it loses it spin every 7-8 years and releases a lot of fresh water through the CAA to the Atlantic. It's been over 20 years since that last occurred. The fear is that the next time this happens, it could mess with the AMOC. The gyre has accumulated so much fresh water that it rivals Lake Baikal as the largest fresh water reserve on earth.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 29, 2020, 12:29:25 PM »
Two comments off the cuff:
* In the Chukchi and in the Svalbard-JFL line, we have not just a shallow shelf but also an incoming oceanic current which is warm and salty. These current are prevented from sinking below the cold fresh water, thus enhancing ice melt. Ignoring the effect of prevailing currents in general, and these two currents in particular, can lead one to the conclusion that shallowness is a factor in itself.
Other shallow regions do not have these currents and do not have the tendency of enhanced ice melt. Specifically, the ESS is the shallowest Arctic sea and also the most difficult to melt. OTOH, the deep Beaufort is continually fed by thick ice from the CAB during the melting season, as can be seen in the long-term animations upthread and in animations from various melt seasons. Thus its resilience is partially a mirage of ice import.

Your point is well taken Oren. As I have indicated previously, I am not representing anything close to a unified explanation of all the factors influencing melt. I am also not representing this hypothesis as an endpoint in the pursuit of explaining the factors which influence the annual minimum. Just a start.

I certainly appreciate that factors below the surface are working in conjunction with depth to influence the outcome. The level of complexity associated with these subsurface factors is potentially infinite and the data is not necessarily available or easily understandable to a layperson, which is my intended audience.

Your point that there the combination of current and shallow water influences the minimum offers the potential for a more refined hypothesis which you are of course free to do. I don't regard that as contradicting what I have offered as you don't seem to be refuting that depth is an important element of the outcome.

Your point that other regions have shallow water which are not subject to "enhanced ice melt" (due to lack of currents) is potentially outside the scope of my intended investigation. I am trying to address an understanding of only the regions which have yet to become ice free (as represented by 2019 minumum). If you can identify which area you are thinking of, perhaps I can better respond.

* I know you do not consider quantification an essential tenet of the hypothesis. However, once a quantification has been served by others I think it shouldn't be ignored.

I don't feel like I am 'ignoring' quantification. I think I'm being straightforward in acknowledging that i don't have the quantification that you or others might prefer. Acknowledging the shortage of quantification is a nice way to allow others to step in and try to fill the gaps as Aluminum did on an unsolicited basis. I took care to acknowledge my own lack of qualification in validating the data he provided.

I don't propose that ultimately arriving at a mathematical proof of concept is necessary for this inquiry to be useful. In the absence of data which is either not easily available, unreasonably burdensome to assimilate or too complex for the layperson, I am trying to appeal to the deductive reasoning of the layperson and arrive at a simple argument which makes sense.

At some point in the process, the discussion becomes like a situation where a friend is asking to borrow some money. If you don't have any, then no matter how much you want to help them, you can't. I don't think I have what you are looking for in terms of quantification. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean by quantification and there is something I can provide. if you can provide a straw man as a suggestion of something you think is realistic, then maybe there is something possible. It's not exactly clear to me what you are looking for.

I have posted data in the Melting Season thread showing that on average more ice survives in the ESS than in the Beaufort. Besides, 90% of the Beaufort and ESS ice is expected not to survive a given melt season. And what about the Greenland Sea? Thus I think your proposed "survivable ice" measure would not be quite helpful.

Let's separate my suggestion into two elements. The first element is the suggestion that we should strive for proactive measures which give a better sense of what the season portends. The second element is the specific suggestion that the measure be (CAB + CAA + Beaufort).

As far as the second suggestion, I would consider it to simply be a straw man. If the best minds think ESS or Greenland Sea s/b included, I think that's a step in the right direction and would be very pleased with that 5 sea indicator of intra season progress relative to the end game.

As far as the first element, what are your thoughts there ? Do you think this is a direction to pursue? How do you feel about the 5 sea comparison which I infer that you might like better? You are the moderator here, I'm happy to defer to your judgement.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 28, 2020, 06:16:01 PM »
A lot of signals of increasing climate volatility right now.

Anomalous input with covid-19 aerosol reduction. We just experienced the strongest tropical cyclone in Bay of Bengal history. Multiple May named storms in the Atlantic. Possibly the all time most active May melt season in the Arctic. CO2 levels hitting daily peak levels later in the calendar. ENSO 3.4 index shifting extremely quickly from positive to negative.

So much volatility makes interpretation more challenging with so many variables up in the air.

The later rise in CO2 has the antennae on alert. Definitely want to see that go down soon. Hoping the negative ENSO diminishes the atmospheric heat available to the Arctic.

Increasing volatility is not a surprise to anyone paying attention, but there is a different in the intellectual expectation of an event and the actual experience when the outcomes begin to manifest. It's scary.

Please refrain from making exaggerated statements.  Amphan was the strongest cyclone in the Bay of Bengal SINCE 1999!  Five other years experienced multiple May storms in the Atlantic.  Possibly the most active.  Possibly not.  Volatility is a difficult measure.

walrus, please don't accuse someone of making exaggerated statements w/o first fact checking.

Amphan had record sustained winds of 165 MPH (145 kts), beating the old record of 160 MPH shared by the 1999 storm and one other. I follow the big storms with the weather nerds elsewhere.

I indicated the two named storms in May as being "rare", not unprecedented. That it has happened 4 other times in 120+ years of record keeping is in my opinion, rare. You are free to disagree if you like.

I'm sorry that the truth doesn't suit your liking.  I don't invent the truth, just try to lead people in that direction and understand that the truth is often unwelcome. The truth of climate breakdown is hard to digest. Even for me as I have explained above. I wish it were otherwise.

i truly value the ASIF forum as one of the rare places where we can speak freely with intelligent people about these unpleasant truths.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 28, 2020, 07:16:42 AM »
i'll editorialize a bit today to try and give some sense of the rationale behind the revelance of the hypothesis.

I'm naturally drawn to observe systems of all kinds and try to understand the processes which govern them in order to understand where the world is heading. One of the principles which is common to all systems is entropy. All systems come apart in the end.

There is an abundance of history to draw upon which provides parallel examples to help us understand humanity's present situation. For example, we can look at the US situation as a declining empire and draw understanding empire and see parallels to the entropy of previous empires. We can look at the unsustainable disease of wealth concentration and understand the parallels in events like the Great Depressions, rise of Nazi fascism, French Revolution, etc.

AGW and associated ecological collapse provides a somewhat unique feature to human experience in the potential to trigger global collapse of human civilization. That's not a novel concept at ASIF. Intellectually, that's a view that the majority of people here probably share. The pattern of civilization collapse itself is not new, there are plenty of regional examples. One of the things that makes the current situation unique is that it involves a global resource threat.

Understanding that humans have been around for ~ 10,000+ generations, there is a certain surreal element to grasping the possibility that we might not get many more. In the abstract, its not that shocking. All systems end and some people will inevitably be there at the end. Why not us? But there is a conflict with the instinctual human condition to fight for our survival and protect the people we love.

Each of us has our wiring system which determines how we act and react to the situation. There is no right or wrong way. Each of us follows our nature.

My nature instructs me to choose hope that we can somehow adapt and salvage something. Some others might characterize that as hopium in the face of such inertia. I can't fault the full doomers for taking their path. It may be too late to avoid disaster. Alternatively, salvage may still be a technical possibility, but it is unrealistic to expect that the inertia of human systems involving billions of people will evolve on a timely basis. Again, I can't fault that skepticism. It's rational.

I believe the odds aren't great, but I hold out hope that the survival instinct will prevail and there will be some kind of viral awakening that results in a transformation of political priorities.

My understanding of the consequences of a BOE are incongruent with the concept of salvage. The incremental entropy associated introduced into the system as a result of something close to BOE is not something fun to contemplate. The belief that BOE is inevitable and coming in the near term is anti-hope for the future and diminishes the rationale to work for the political transformation which could potentially promote salvage.

I have a pro-salvage agenda. In the absence of certainty, I'm going to compete and promote the outlook that salvage is possible. I'm not proud of's simply where my programming leads me. I've tried surrender and it just doesn't work for me. The durable Arctic hypothesis is a manifestation of that competition and an attempt to persuade people that there is hope.

There is obvious and natural tension that manifests in this competition. On the melting thread, Friv is the avatar for doom. He is also funny and entertaining and very knowledgable about the sea ice and contributes good forecast content and insights. If something adverse for the ice is on the horizon, its a good bet that Friv will be on top of it before most people and amplifying the threat. He reminds me of the Woody Harrelson character in the movie 2012 who is determined to bear witness to the Yellowstone Caldera eruption in person. He's rooting for it and wants to see it even if it means the end of the world. And if it's inevitable, why not enjoy the show ??

My contributions to this forum should be understood as those of someone who wants to promote the belief that doom is not inevitable in the coming decades.  I have a psychic vested interest in the outcome. I'm biased.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 27, 2020, 10:21:53 AM »

I wish you would attempt to quantify your hypotheses.
Does the CAA start melting later than the ESS? I think not, judging by the AMSR2 area graph.
Why does the Beaufort start melting much earlier than the ESS? Same latitude, same proximity to landmasses, and deeper bathymetry.
The answer to all these questions is prevailing currents and ice movement.
Note if the CAA ice was not landfast, it would have been flushed south and melted much earlier every year. So the CAA is a really bad example.

It is interesting to consider how one would attempt to quantify such a hypothesis. Let's consider....

One would probably have to begin with a database which conforms to the NSIDC or Jaxa pixel level dataset.

For each pixel, one would have to add some data fields which provide information regarding ocean depth, distance from land and any desired additional attributes which provide more refined understanding. Then for each year one wanted to go back and evaluate, one would have to populate  each pixel with a value which represents the presence or absence of sea ice at the minimum.

If that attribute data is not already present, it involves a lot of research. 

If someone wanted to go back 10 years, then they would have to populate 10 years x the # of pixels in the dataset. Ten years is not a statistically significant sample size and going back 10 years is a pretty different environment with CO2 levels 20-25ppm lower than today. We are in an environment where data from older years is rapidly losing relevance as a barometer for what will happen going forward as we constantly reinvent the atmosphere.

What I did was look at the year which most resembles the current environment and formulated a simple hypothesis which fit just last year's observed minimum. I'm not representing any predictive value at this point because the hypothesis was made after the fact to fit the outcome.

It doesn't make sense to invest a ton of effort into attempting to quantify the hypothesis at this point when there is the possibility of easily disproving it with another season of observation. Especially when the range of observations can be augmented by a bunch of other observers, many of whom which would like to see it disproven.

Another season of observation with many eyes and opinions will yield a better hypothesis than anything I came up with on my own. If it still has merit, someone else may have better aptitude than I in the number crunching aspect. It's not written in stone that the person providing the initial observation also be the PI.

If I were pressed to come up with some quantification, I would start with the following variables...

1) a distance from NA or Siberia expressed in km or degrees latitude
2) distance from the border between the Nansen Basin / Atlantic shelf
3) ocean depth

The unusual nature of CAA is of course taken into consideration. That's why the acronym is DACHSOO and not DACHSO. SOO stands for shallow OPEN ocean. CAA is shallow, but not open and therefore distant from shallow open ocean.

The reasons Beaufort might start melting before ESS is not essential to the hypothesis. I'm attempting to explain the factors which best differentiate between those areas which retain ice at the minimum. Both of these areas are pretty much guaranteed to melt out before the minimum. Again, I'm not pretending to be offer the unified holy grail of all melting processes. I'm simply offering some thoughts which represent an alternative possibility to the linear hypothesis that some offer when projecting BOE.

The linear hypothesis is similar to mine in some respect. It's based on looking backward and fitting the projection to the prior outcome. The linear hypothesis has no intuitive resonance for me. i see an annual process which resembles the siege of a castle. The ice outside the basin is analagous to the farm land, the basin is the outer castle walls and the last remaining ice is the fortified keep. The tactics and artillery necessary to penetrate the keep might be different than those employed earlier.

I'm interested in investigating the difference and quality of the defense mechanisms which the as yet unconquered Arctic has to offer. The linear hypothesis doesn't require anyone to consider the quality of the defenses of the remaining Arctic. It assumes the incremental difficulty is proportional to the increase in strength of AGW. It assumed that Djokovic would pass Nadal and Federer within 2-3 months of becoming the world #3, not the 3 years it actually took.

Let's be patient. I've just introduced an idea. Let's watch a melt season unfold with this idea in mind and see where it leads. It may die a natural death within a few months.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 27, 2020, 05:53:34 AM »
Rob Dekker had/has a model predicting the outcome of melt seasons using the continental snow anomaly. I always thought the model too simplistic, but there's certainly a correlation there. Whether the causation is obvious (albedo and other feedbacks) or not so much (warm weather affecting both land snow and sea ice) is another matter.
Just don't start a continental snow/WAA crusade, this can be discussed in more depth elsewhere/in your own thread if so desired.

I'm just searching for an elegant and simple understanding of the sea ice that is as accessible to as many people as possible.

On one hand we have sea ice and on the other we have the sun, which is the source of virtually all heat on earth. We have three transportation media between the two end points....atmosphere, water and land with wind as an important transportation facilitator. The sea ice story is a story about transportation and the result is the sum of the transportation processes.

The connection between the seasonal snow levels and the seasonal sea ice results seems pretty simple to me. Given the fact that snow levels are commonly discussed on this thread, it seems like a no-brainer to explain why they are important to the seasonal sea ice results.

If endeavoring to educate and make the processes easier to understand is considered crusading, I plead guilty.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 26, 2020, 06:53:08 AM »

I fear your theory will not see much traction and discussion without a strong initial quantification of its merit.

You make lots of good points Oren and I hope to learn a lot from you. Of course, all of the factors that go into making ice disappear is such a complicated and perhaps impossible thing to completely reduce to math. I haven't the inclination to even contemplate such an undertaking. Instead I choose to focus on two simple variables which are accessible to most people through visual observation.

I don't expect heaps of discussion because the premise is so relatively simple. In an arena where there appears to be a) incredible interest in the future outcome and b) an absence of an accepted hypothesis.... one would hope that simple curiosity would motivate people to at least pay attention.

Not to be too nitpicky, but I appreciate if you refer to the concept as a hypothesis and not a theory. I understand the colloquialism, but the distinction of where this idea falls in the process of the scientific method is an important one. I think this is a concept that may be worthy of investigation. I don't want to represent it as having withstood nearly enough scrutiny to merit being labeled a scientific theory.

Giving the hypothesis some visibility with a melt season in front of us is a good way to enhance the observations from last year. I will watch more carefully and hopefully so will some others and perhaps kill the idea before the season is over.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 26, 2020, 05:16:24 AM »
On the other side of the screen you see a blast of warmth coming in from the Atlantic over Svalbard. That's coming from a long way away and it isn't getting any local land based boost. It's either coming from Scandinavia or the Atlantic (not sure which or both) with a lot of atmospheric assistance from a massive high pressure system that extends all the way from the mid-Atlantic to the Kara Sea and a low off the coast of Greenland.

The Arctic ocean, being as it is sheltered by landmasses on most sides, mostly misses out on this massive advection of heat from the southern oceans. The only real front open to the oceans is the Atlantic, with the shallow Barents sea and the Svalbard / Franz Josef Land barrier stopping the warm currents from properly entering the Arctic.

In the interest of keeping this thread on topic, I reply here if you want to continue.

Regarding the concept that a land barrier is an impediment to Atlantic water entering the Arctic, I diagree. The Spitsbergen Current brings enough warm Atlantic water to the Arctic to melt all the ice many times over. The defense mechanism against the Atlantic water is the less dense fresh water lens at the surface. Uniquorn might be a good person to comment on this.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 26, 2020, 04:59:45 AM »
in the interest of not interrupting the melting season thread, I'll choose to reply to Binntho's comment (highlighted in bold below) here.

By way of background, I had previously commented on Freegrass' gif identifying the heat on the Pacific side as emanating from land and the heat from the Atlantic side being of indeterminate source, either from Scandinavia, the Atlantic or both. Since correctly identifying the origin or source of heat is important to understanding the hypothesis, I choose to reply here.

You may not be aware of the massive heat conveyor belt called the North Atlantic Current, and further south commonly referred to as the Gulf Stream. The oceans carry vast amounts of heat from mid latitudes northwards, both in the Pacific and the Atlantic, and the heat that makes the North Atlantic such a relatively balmy place has it's orgins mostly on the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico.

I'm aware of the AMOC. Let's see if we can make a connection to Freegrass' gif which is depicting what may happen in the next 5 days.

Over the ocean conveyor you wil often find a low-pressure conveyor, where one low pressure area after another is carried northwards, essentially being the mechanism by which the high temperatures of the ocean surface is spread outwards to warm the British Isles, Scandinavia, Iceland and Svalbard to temperatures that are far above what is found elsewhere at the same latitudes.

You are describing a general condition. Still no connection to the Freegrass's gif which demonstrates the current non-recurring event of atmospheric heat intrusion from the Atlantic. Said event is coming from a system dominated by high pressure over the area from the Atlantic to the Arctic, not the low pressure system you describe.

In the Pacific, the North Pacific drift carries heat from mid-latitudes north and east towards the Canadian Pacific coast and southern Alaska, again making those areas much warmer than they otherwise would have been. The warming effects of the oceans can be seen by comparing average temperatures on the western and eastern boundaries of the northern reaches of each ocean. The warm currents hug the eastern boundaries due to the Coriolis effect, keeping them considerably warmer.

Again, you are attempting to explain a general situation, not explaining the current activity which I have characterized as origininating from land based heat. If you want to dispute that conclusion, let's have the discussion.

The Arctic ocean, being as it is sheltered by landmasses on most sides, mostly misses out on this massive advection of heat from the southern oceans. The only real front open to the oceans is the Atlantic, with the shallow Barents sea and the Svalbard / Franz Josef Land barrier stopping the warm currents from properly entering the Arctic.

In my understanding this is simply incorrect. The Spitsbergen Current brings a steady supply of incoming Atlantic water into the Arctic unimpeded by land. There is enough warm water of Atlantic origin beneath the Arctic surface to melt the surface ice many times over. The impediment to this incoming water melting the ice is the cold fresh melt water lens at the surface.

If the Arctic was not so sheltered behind the massive landmasses of Asia and N.America with their cooling effect, we would probably see BOE every year.

Let's try to explain the Arctic as it is. Not hypothetical scenarios.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 26, 2020, 03:34:28 AM »
Thanks for your interest and suggestions Oren. I will peruse the blog and read the ASIF thread you suggest.

I have seen similar animations of sea ice export over past decades before I found my way to ASIF and acknowledge that ice export is a significant alternative means of transport. Instead of bringing heat to the ice, export transports ice to the heat. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility of massive export events leading to eventual BOE.

In terms of attempting to prove whether the hypothesis is accurate, I don't have a vision of a classical research paradigm where i'm a principal investigator doing all the work and then presenting my findings for someone else to read.

I'm thinking more in terms of a classroom setting where everyone puts themselves in the role of investigator and putting out an idea for them to consider as we all watch the experiment unfold together.

For example, Freegrass posted a 5 second gif today on the melting season thread which depicts the GFS 5 day wind and temperature forecast for the Arctic. It's a wonderful example which demonstrates the heat intrusion into the Arctic from multiple different sources and how the heat is more pronounced at the perimeter of the Arctic, especially in proximity to NA and Siberia. The general phenomena of heat from external sources dissipating as it approaches the center of the Arctic ice seems well documented. There are hundreds of examples of this to be observed every melting season with few exceptions.

A basic understanding of this seems to be accessible to most interested and curious lay people if they are guided to look for the source of heat and mechanism of transport into the Arctic.

The order in which the ice is lost is also instructive and already well documented. It is an annual recurring pattern that inner basin ice is lost first near the coast of NA and Asia and proceeds closer the pole as the season progresses. There are certainly exceptions to this general rule, but the general pattern doesn't seem to be too controversial and is easily accessible to a layperson through observation of recent history.

The situation of ocean heat intrusion is not as easily documented for a lay person. Here i would ask people to evaluate based upon less direct observation. Instead I would guide them to look at the result and use deductive reasoning. If a significant pause is observed where the ocean bathymetry transitions from shallow to deep, then there is reason to consider the connection. Especially given the understanding that stratification is relevant to melt.

I suppose the hypothesis has two separate elements. One element pertains to the outcome (slower rate of progression than the previous linear assumption) and the other relates to the root cause (distance from NA / Asia and non-linear bathymetry). The outcome has the potential to smash the entire hypothesis if the ice moves much further into the Arctic this decade.

If the coming years do not show much further progression of ice loss, then we can be right about the outcome and still wrong about the root cause. In that case, it would be important to evaluate alternative hypotheses which propose to demonstrate that other factors are more important than distance from land based WAA and the transition to deep bathymetry.

I hope others will take these ideas as an invitation to offer their own ideas as to why the melting stops where it does at seasons end. It's an interesting topic.

I care more about the outcome than the root cause. If the ice holds up longer significantly longer than people think based upon completely different factors, I will be very happy. During the interim between now and when the future reveals itself, I'll suggest that there may be merit in promoting possibilities that give people reason to hope that sea ice disaster will be averted. The presence or absence of hope could potentially be a factor in the outcome.

Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 25, 2020, 07:53:53 PM »
Cool stuff, I enjoyed the read.

Could you sum up your hypothesis in one or two sentences?

Basically, the hypothesis is that the incremental degree of difficulty in melting the final 4k km2 of Arctic sea ice represents a non-linear progression.

A BOE will always be theoretically possible in the short-term with unpredictable weather variation (2007, 2012, etc.) but not the result of the near term chronic progression of AGW.

I'll try an analogy....

When he was 20 years old, Novak Djokovic rose from a top 15 tennis player to top 5 and was rapidly improving. A linear progression would have seen rise to #1 within the next year. He quickly rose to #3, but it would take him 3 more years before he could surpass Federer and Nadal in the rankings.

In that case, the difference in quality between the #2 and #3 player was greater than the difference in quality between the #3 and #15.

Djokovic is the analog for AGW. Federer and Nadal are the CAB / CAA. We know who wins eventually, but the rate of future progression is dependent on the quality of the opponents who have yet to be conquered. The remaining Arctic has totally different physical characteristics from the previously conquered regions and should be evaluated independently.

Arctic sea ice / DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 25, 2020, 04:21:43 PM »
Hypothesis (definition) - a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

The subject suggested to be explored here is not proposed to be a theory. The scientific method typically proceeds in the following order.

Observation => Hypothesis => Experiment => Review Results => Theory


It is clear that there is a lot of interest in the future of the Arctic sea ice. Both within the context of a longer term future and within the context of a single melt season. This is obviously an important topic because Arctic sea ice is an important element of Arctic ecosystems and a component of N. Hemisphere weather systems.

The primary factors influencing the Arctic sea ice future appear to be the chronic progression of AGW and weather variation. Given the high degree of volatility in weather patterns, predicting the future of the sea ice with any degree of precision is not considered likely at this time (at least not by this author). Nonetheless, it's may be worthwhile to pursue inquiry which helps us to move in the direction of better understanding the factors which influence the progression of sea ice loss.

I've only been actively following the discussion here at ASIF since early 2019, prior to the commencement of the melt season. At the conclusion of the season, I asked myself the following questions. WHY is the ice remaining in the regions where it still existed and WHY did the other areas become ice free?


There was basically little or no ice remaining south of 75N.

There was no ice remaining adjacent to continental land masses in N. America and Asia, but there is a lot of ice adjacent to Greenland.

The areas where sea ice loss penetrated N. of 80N were primarily those where the ocean was of relatively shallow depth.


What is the causation for the location of the sea ice at the minimum?

The hypothesis includes the rationale that there is no sea ice adjacent to N. America and Asia due to frequent warm air advection as the continents heat up during the spring and summer. Ice adjacent
 to Greenland and smaller land masses near the CAA are not subject to the same magnitude or intensity of warm air advection.

The hypothesis also includes the rationale that bathymetry influences the progression of melt. The low density cold fresh water on/near the surface provide a layer of defensive protection against warmer saltier water below. Without being an expert on the details, it seems possible that the deeper water is more resilient because there is more room for layer stratification.

The observations led me to question an alternative hypothesis that the Arctic will lose ice in the future at a linear rate which is reflected in losses from 1979 until today. The possibility exists that the remaining regions of the Arctic (primarily CAB, CAA and N. Beaufort) are fundamentally different from the regions that have lost ice in recent decades and future ice loss will be at a much reduced rate.

Note: just to be clear, I'd like to re-emphasize the distinction between that which I hope to better understand and predict (the chronic progression of AGW on sea ice loss) and that which I don't intend to try and predict (short-term weather variability).

Almost forgot - The acronym DHACSOO stands for Distant From Heat Advecting Continents and Shallow Open Ocean.

Why a separate thread ?

in order to determine if a hypothesis has any predictive value, you have to kick the tires. I welcome criticism and observations that might be disruptive on other threads.

The hypothesis heavily emphasizes the distinction on areas based upon their likelihood to retain ice at the annual minimum. The hypothesis might indicate that the 2020 melting season is currently substantially less advanced than the 2019 melting season at a similar point in time even though 2019 is ahead in aggregate Arctic ice loss.

It may be useful to explore alternatives measures of the strength of a melt season while it is in progress.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 25, 2020, 04:58:17 AM »

Slater's model has picked up the current preconditioning  and thinks it is favourable for strong melting way into July.

It predicts 7.34 m km² for July 13th, currently nosediving ...

LOL. The ice apocalypse is a cottage industry. I'll take the over.  8)

PS - There's a dedicated thread for Slater and another dedicated 2020 prediction thread.
Phoenix, I will not tolerate more such posts with no content and inflaming language that stirs up this thread for no good reason..

Perhaps you can help me iterate to a better approach Oren.

I'm interested in the science and educational aspects regarding Arctic sea ice and the relationship of the ice to the larger AGW / ecological collapse taking place. Good scientific inquiry involves the freedom to explore and evaluate all possibilities and there is value in presenting alternative hypotheses and kicking the tires. Criticism is important in the scientific process.

I'm obviously occupying a role here which is questioning the rate at which the sea ice is projected to disappear. Both in terms of it's total disappearance (BOE) and within the context of a single season. While a good scientific setting would encourage the exploration of alternatives, I seem to be something of a conspicuously lone voice here for the alternative hypothesis that the rate of ice loss is slowing.

Sometimes there is a tension between what people want to hear and the free scientific exploration of unpopular possibilities. For whatever reasons, more people here may have some psychic vested interest in a quicker collapse. At least one person has declared they are rooting for it because it would be simply cool to observe. I think its fair to say that the ASIF community taken as a whole is well ahead of the scientific community literature in terms of its outlook on the sea ice.

I'm willing to take and respond to the criticism associated with presenting an alternative view, but if I'm the only one on the thread who takes up the alternative view, then I wind up having a disproportionate share of the conversation and annoying people who are in the market for the story of more rapid ice loss.

My suggestion is to create a separate thread which can serve as something of an experiment to more fully explore the alternative hypothesis and evaluate the 2020 melt season within the context of that hypothesis and learn. If users want to come and characterize the observations as bullshit, that's fine with me. That's part of the scientific process. But I'm human and I want to be able to call bullshit as well from time to time and this thread isn't the place to do that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 02:21:53 PM »

... Baffin, Hudson, Laptev and  Kara combined are ~ 500k km2 ahead of 2019 and is offset by Bering being ~ 60K behind 2019. Knowing where 2019 ends, we know that 2019 is going to catch up at least 400K in these seas. The current 100k lead is vapor.
My bold. I believe that the two statements i enhanced with bold text - can not be true simultaneously. Those seas are either 500k km2 ahead - or 100k ahead. I am surprised to see such "wordplay" in this topic. I think it has no place here.

FT. 100k refers to the lead of 2020 vs. 2019 over the entire Arctic. 500k refers to the lead of 2020 in a specified subset of Arctic seas where we know the end result in 2019 is close to zero. Therefore, we know that with respect to the end measurement of just that subset of seas, 2019 will make up ground The 100k and 500k are mutually exclusive measures. Not a contradiction.

Of course, 2020 can counter by making up ground in other places like the CAB as bbr has suggested. In order to finish ahead of 2019 at the minimum, 2020 must make up ground elsewhere. That's just math. Of course this is possible. I'm not intending to put any constraints on the possibilities...just highlighting the math.

At this point I've made my point enough about a perspective that 2020 is not a monster at this time. I am content to let this go and move on if there are no more questions or challenges. If there are follow-ups, I'm also happy to take them.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 01:34:25 PM »
the 100k lead is not "vapor".

150k of the lead is Hudson alone.  That's vapor ! 8)

Also, bc's sig line reads "....2019+2=2021". It's already in the prophecy that 2020 won't be noteworthy for sea ice.  8) 8)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 23, 2020, 06:42:29 AM »
Ice thickness is virtually tied with last year at this time and a bunch of other years in the last decade or so.

There is nothing else to say about this.   There is absolutely nothing showing that last winter had some special impact more than any other recent winter.

I don't even understand what the argument is at this point.

And there is certainly no bullying going on here.

Aggregate (pan-Arctic) thickness may be similar between 2019 and 2020. I'm making the argument for thicker ice specifically in the regions where ice is most likely to remain at year end as part of a larger argument that the degree of difficulty in establishing a low minimum in 2020.

Is there more ice in the Beaufort and CAB in 2020 than 2019 at this point in time? Yes.

Are the Beaufort and CAB buffers to melting CAA ice? Yes.

Will the Beaufort, CAB and CAA have >= 90% of the ice at the minimum? Almost certainly.

Your assertion that there is nothing to substantiate the thicker ice in the CAB is wrong. A quick look at the DMI 80 temperature charts from 2016 through 2020 will show that this was the coldest winter in the last five. The 2020 PIOMAS thread volume and thickness charts support this.

Your assertion that winter temperature is not relevant to spring ice thickness is just flat out comical. As Binntho points out, temperature isn't the only variable, but it is the dominant variable.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: May 21, 2020, 12:56:41 PM »
In the case of the Michigan dam inadequacy, the dams are not even owned by the public.

The problem in the US is near complete regulatory capture and lack of ownership / responsibility for public welfare. The problems with the Edenville Dam were well documented, but the buck doesn't stop anywhere.

Thank you for doing this Niall. This is a great example of resourcefulness.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 03:05:47 PM »
According to, the max wind speeds per the ECMWF on the NE Greenland coast are now 85 knots. That's 98 mph or equivalent to a class 2 hurricane.

I'm not big on hyperbole, but this isn't funny. Have a look.,80.069,-6.372,5,m:fTAaftZ

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 02:51:54 PM »
Lol no but most of us live for anomalous events never seen before.

I'd like to see what it will take to collapse the basin ice near melt out.

Your enthusiasm for anomalous events is duly noted and entertaining Friv. And I totally appreciate and respect your contributions to the subject matter here.

At this point, in terms of the expectations of the readers of this thread, avoiding a BOE may be a more anomalous outcome than seeing a BOE. It would be anomalous in terms of humans getting their act together and proactively addressing a problem.

Selfishly, I hope that your wish to see an Arctic melt out goes unfulfilled. Nothing personal. Just pulling for a different kind of anomaly.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 05:11:09 AM »
From Climate reanalyzer, 10 day NH temp

Again, for the benefit of those learning....

The GFS image being presented here is comparing forecasted temperatures from the GFS model to the average of years 1979-2000. The midpoint of that range is 30 years ago.

The earth as a whole is increasing in temperature by ~ 0.2C / decade or ~ 0.6C in the last 30 years. With Arctic amplification, I'll swag it and say the Arctic has increased by ~ 1.5C in the last 30 years. In a normal year (by current standards), the average situation for this image is a significant positive temperature anomaly. We should expect to see a lot of red in this image on a regular basis.

On top of that, we throw in the potential errors in the current GFS model itself as mentioned in my previous post.

The truth is that we probably do have some positive temperature anomaly in the Arctic relative to even recent years, but perhaps not as much "wow" as the image suggests.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 04:46:08 AM »
Over in the data thread, Gerontocrat is emphasizing the positive Arctic temperature anomaly.

For the benefit of lurkers and newcomers, I would like to emphasize that the Arctic is still largely a wilderness and we are short on real temperature data. There is considerable disagreement between the GFS and Euro models about the temperature data with the GFS running notably warmer in general.

Niall recently posted an actual data point from the research vessel Polarstern demonstrating that the actual temperature in a single location was 4C lower than what the GFS model was spitting out for the same time and location.

In the case of temperatures, the data thread is not sharing observed results. Nor is it a model consensus. It's just one version of a story with multiple perspectives.

My hunch is that the lower temperatures from the euro model are more accurate, but I acknowledge that I have a bias that I want that data to be more accurate. I don't want to see the imminent demise of the ice and I'm interested in the possibility that something something approaching a BOE is still avoidable.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 12, 2020, 03:24:05 AM »
Fairbanks hit 82F (28C) yesterday, record for the date is 84F.

Central Alaska is the primary heat source for the melting event taking place in the Chukchi and ESS. Facilitated by the Arctic high and Bering / Siberia low which is pulling the air from AK toward Siberia.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:27:06 PM »

I wonder why people think that the landmasses of Alaska and Sibera are more significant sources of heat in summer, than are the open ocean areas surrounding the ice. The open ocean absorbs much more solar energy than does dry land, has a much higher heat capacity, and has the ability to move the heat to the ice directly rather than going through the ethereal media of air.

You're arguing a completely different point. Yes, the ocean has a higher heat capacity than the land. That's why the ocean retains it's heat and the land contributes heat to the atmosphere where it can slide over and melt the ice at the surface.

The issue in the ocean is completely different. There is a shit ton of heat below the Arctic that can melt it many times over.  The obstacle is a fresh water lens at the top which is less dense than warm salty water below.

Please explain the physics of the ocean overcoming the density gradient.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:28:40 PM »

Real data is sparse. We do have the Polarstern reporting currently at 83.5 N 13.1 E

Its temperature at 9UTC today was -13.4 C. Using Nullschool, the GFS model is showing a temperature of -9.3 C for same time/location. 

850hPa temps are useful to help show the expected air mass moving in. But it should always be remembered that these are temps at circa 1500 metres, way above the ice.

Marvelous !! Actual surface data showing a 4C discrepancy from the GFS model (which runs hot in this instance).

I found similar discrepancies between the GFS and ECMWF (also a model) on You provide a single corroborating data point regarding the better accuracy of the euro model.

Thank you Niall.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 12:22:14 PM »
...You are blaming the US...

No, Phoenix. It's an observation, not an attempt to blame anyone.

It's more than an observation, it's a criticism and a judgement and a completely unnecessary / gratuitous association to US culture.

The irony here is that you have a European person reacting adversely to an American's use of raw language and you use it as an opportunity to point out that American's are prudish about language.

Personally, I value Friv's positive contributions to the forum and the colorful remarks when they are accompanied by at least some useful information. In my experience, he understands what's going on significantly better than the average melting season contributor.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 09:59:21 AM »
Why was it allowed?

I don't think moderators should censor language.

The beeping of words like 'fuck' is a US thing, the forum is international though. Why would we adopt US behavior which is ridiculous in the first place?

I for one don't mind this kind of vivid language at all.

Probably best not to make generalizations about other countries and their citizens.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 09:06:40 AM »
Holy mother fucking shit!!!

Frivolousz21, why are you writing such bad language? Because of some surprising weather?
Are you trying to provoke? If so, why?
I don't like those words one bit.

I am surprised that this is not moderated.
I see that oren has posted already in that thread today, and that means that he has read it, I think. Why was it allowed?

If uniquorn is right with "respected" then perhaps in the moderators' views, some are more equal than others? I wish that that is not the case.

For what it's worth Nanning, I also had a reaction to the post and the lack of moderation. For me it was not so much about the language, but the fact that there was no information related to sea ice referred to in the post. There is no intention in such a post to better inform the community or promote discussion. It is gratuitous.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 08:35:24 AM » has a nice feature that allows a user to toggle back and forth between GFS and ECMWF forecast models.

They feature is revealing a substantial difference between the models as it pertains to current warmth penetration into higher latitudes. GFS is showing >0 all the way to the north pole while ECMWF is not showing anything remotely close to that.

Please remember to incorporate an appreciation for a level of uncertainty in the forecasts being presented, particularly when there is strong model disagreement. Those Climate Reanalyzer images are based upon the projections of the GFS model. They are not facts.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 02:43:32 AM »
    Climate Reanalyzer GFS

   a) Strong positive temperature anomalies for next week over most of the Arctic Ocean (ArcOc)

   b) Surface temperatures warm enough to advance ice melt over large areas of ArcOc

   c) A persistent high-pressure system over the ArcOc for the next week or more, resulting in what I interpret to be large areas of clear sky -- during mid-May with solar shortwave radiation within 6 weeks of annual max, thus beginning of the 3-month period of highest solar gain.  (The color scheme is subtle but if I remember correctly, the CR creator told me the light blue indicates clear skies over ice.)

   d) A persistent low-pressure system east of NE Greenland that creates a strong windfield on May 10-13 for increased Fram export.

     Any one of these four would be noteworthy on their own.  The combination seems remarkable.   

Certainly some impressive weather conditions. But I'll share the more conservative view.

The euro forecast for >= 0C temps in the Arctic is not as ambitious as the GFS you're sharing. We'll get the facts in a few days.

The extra solar radiation due to clear skies is probably not a game changer with the Arctic Basin still covered in ice and having a high albedo.

The winds set to push ice through the Fram are truly impressive. Forecast peak  is 55 kts. We'll be in turbo mode for some days. Looks like a high intensity, short-medium duration event.

The areas where ice is most likely to remain at the minimum are the deep CAB and the regions of the Beaufort and CAA which are adjacent to the CAB. Those areas are looking better protected than at a similar point in 2019 and shouldn't be substantially impacted by this week's conditions.

So far 2020 is reminding me of the parable about the tortoise and the hare. Some definite sprinting at the moment, but also some extended periods of napping.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 10, 2020, 09:52:03 PM »
Has transport out of the Fram been higher than normal this year or lately? That's one part of the arctic I know little about.

It has had both fast and slow phases. Wipneus has an excellent chart for that in the PIOMAS thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 09, 2020, 04:55:01 AM »
For those marveling at the intense high pressure system evolving in the Arctic at 1055+, there was a more intense high just last month in Nunavut that approached 1070.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 08, 2020, 08:51:03 PM »
You have the high pressure system bringing in heat on the pacific side that will spread over the CAB, and you've got strong winds blowing ice out of the Fram and towards the Barents sea.

 It's really crazy the winds that are predicted.

Heat from the Pacific spreading over the CAB in early May would be a rare observation. What's your source for this and how are you defining the CAB?

Instead of using adjectives like "crazy" to describe the winds, maybe you can try objective descriptions like location, duration and wind speed so people have a better idea what you are referring to?

Science / Re: 2020 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 08, 2020, 03:26:52 AM »

A one-year reduction in CO2 emissions is perhaps of not great significance - to consider it as more than a welcome blip is to grasp at straws?

Agree 100%. The potential value of the Covid related decline is if people step back and realize how little it means in the big scheme of things and grasp that we need a more comprehensive approach.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 08, 2020, 02:38:45 AM »
Truly some exceptional regional melting conditions in the coming days.

The forecast for the massive high pressure system is holding up and the Euro model has it peaking at 1055+ over Victoria Island in the Western CAA. At the same time, there is a low bottoming out at 965 in the Bering Sea adjacent to Siberia. That's an exceptional pressure differential. In between, there are temperatures well above average in Alaska.

That pressure differential and the migration of the low into Siberia is going to facilitate the transport of that Alaskan heat across the Chukchi and well into the ESS. The caveat is that this looks like a short duration event lasting a few days.

The Bering Sea will see sustained heat influx and we should see a rapid decline there in the data thread in the coming weeks.

In the big picture of the Arctic melting season, this is a high intensity, short duration event aimed at the periphery (south of 80N) of the Arctic. The CAB is in much better shape than most recent years as you can see from Oren's recent PIOMAS posting. It's going to take sustained intense melting / transports conditions to make a serious dent in the CAB this year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Melting Season Predictions
« on: May 05, 2020, 09:12:25 AM »
Early season absolute extent/area figures are not that important.

The data thread tells us year 2012 has 15th lowest ice extent in early May. Difference to leading years 2016 and 2019 is over 800 000 km2. Yet 2012 holds the Sept minimum record by a significant margin.

The data thread also tells us what a huge outlier 2012 was in terms of ice loss. In terms of remaining melt from this point in the season forward, 2012 beats every other year in the last 13  years listed on the data thread by over 1M km2.

If we were to match the second highest melt year of the last 13 (2007) from this point forward, we still won't be close to a new record. Something well out of the ordinary must happen.

Pages: [1] 2