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 - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: Today at 03:24:20 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.

2
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: May 26, 2020, 05:50:41 PM »
Yes, thank you Paolo. I recommend adding a legend somewhere though.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: DHACSOO - A Durable Arctic Hypothesis
« on: May 25, 2020, 11:47:52 PM »
Some advice:
As background, take a few minutes to study the dynamic behavior of past melting seasons and movements of multi-year ice.





To corroborate the working theory, find a way to quantify where indeed is ice more likely to survive at the annual minimum. This can be done by gridded computing, by animation, by picking certain locations and manually counting the years (e.g. since 2007) in which they were ice covered, or even by using crude regional area and volume statistics . But not quantifying this at all makes the hypothesis into an assumption.

Also, read the Slow Transition thread from start to finish, very relevant. When Chris Reynolds came up with that theory he quantified a lot of its underlying assumptions and postulations. You can also read the posts on his old blog, DosBat.

4
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: May 25, 2020, 07:37:29 AM »
There is at least one "population" thread (possibly two or more) where this better belongs. I recommend to move it there.
I should note that it seems widespread agriculture in Africa did not begin with European colonization, but much earlier.
Some relevant info is found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Africa
In addition, are you sure about this European-induced shift from communal tribes to single-family units?

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 25, 2020, 06:20:12 AM »
A better approach would be to limit the amount of posts hashing the same postulation. This is not the first time somebody came up with the idea that the rate of loss will be slower, and you are not a lone voice in thinking that, rather you are a lone voice in voicing it so much.
Wait for new data, or find old data and present it originally. In the meantime, don't try to respond to any and every post that differs from your opinion. If you must respond, do so in one such post per day. If you prefer to post endlessly on your favorite subject, feel free to open a new thread where it will not disrupt.
Using the quoted example, S. Pansa came up with an interesting fact relevant to the thread's subject - Slater's model's prediction is nosediving. The late Slater's model is well known hereabouts and did not need much explanation. Whether its prediction is good, bad, wrong or right doesn't matter. Your response, OTOH, did not provide any new information. Do I think the model is the holy grail? No, the opposite. Did I respond? No, I did not have anything new or interesting to contribute on the subject.
If you believe most people here come for the drama and are ice doomers, you believe wrongly. Most readers of this thread come here with an open mind, have no preconceived notion of what is going to happen, If they have one they change it monthly, and are humble enough to realize the Arctic is greater than them and is always full of surprises.
Maybe you have not read Friv for enough years to realize he is the first to throw a wet blanket on people's new record expectations, as soon as the evidence points in that direction. His personal wishes and love of drama notwithstanding, science is the judge.
From what I have seen so far, it seems you have built a preconceived notion of how the season will end, and constantly look for various reasons to support this conclusion. You are not being reprimanded because of your claims or opinions, but because of the way the discussion is being held. Take a breath, stick to the science, follow up on your claims and items of interest from time to time, bring new perspectives, and keep an open mind.
If you think current Beaufort volume or extent or whatever predicts Beaufort extent at season's end, why not analyze this quantitatively using past data?
If you think extent correlates with continental temperatures, why not quantify past temperature data of various weather stations, correlate with CAA and Beaufort ice, and compare to the current year so far?
I hope I have made this clear enough. You are a prolific poster with a good scientific approach, which is why I took the time to write such a lengthy post of explanation. But you must make some changes, as outlined herein.

6
I hope you revisit these snow predictions in June and in August. I'll reserve my doubts until then.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 11:18:47 PM »

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..

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 04:52:14 PM »
Extent is the most widely watched measure. Simply put, low compaction (area/extent ratio) signals a high risk of upcoming extent losses.
For a given amount of area, indeed lower compaction means the ice is more vulnerable.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Melting Season Predictions
« on: May 24, 2020, 03:24:13 PM »
Done, sorry hadn't noticed this until Niall pointed it out.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 03:21:58 PM »
Quote
So, 2012 is one good "hindsight" about how much melt work a season can do. 
Indeed F. Tnioli, and very well explained, good post.

To your point Phoenix, yes it's true that early losses in peripheral seas such as Okhotsk, Hudson and Baffin are less meaningful than the same losses in the Inner Basin.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 09:20:50 AM »
Average AMSR2 area contribution in mid-Sep (sorted, unrounded, km2):
CAB: 3,300,562 (max 3,606,190)
CAA: 169,524 (max 244,075)
Greenland Sea: 100,082 (max 179,770)
ESS: 65,956 (max 227,358)
Beaufort: 61,956 (max 189,835)
Laptev: 31,930 (max 112,984)
Baffin: 16,394 (max 31,070)
Barents: 7,976 (max 59,347)
Kara: 6,513 (max 28,714)
Chukchi: 3,619 (max 13,253)

Beaufort is indeed a variable sea, thus important to deciding the minimum, but the ESS is more variable, and the Laptev is also a respectable region of interest. In addition, the actual date of the minimum matters a lot and can vary by 2 weeks.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 08:29:08 AM »
the areas of the Arctic likely to retain ice at the minimum (CAB, CAA and Beaufort).
Get your numbers straight. The areas most likely to retain ice at minimum are the CAB, the CAA and the Greenland Sea. Of the 8 years in the AMSR2 record, 5 had near-zero ice area in the Beaufort in early Sept, the rest had 150k-200k. The ESS had 3 years with 150k-250k, 3 years with 50k, and only 2 at near-zero. The Laptev is also sometimes a contributor, and even the Kara and Barents with some small amounts.
Later I will calculate average contributions to the Sept area minimum, of course you can do that yourself by downloading the file from Wipneus.


https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/amsr2/data/UH_AMSR2_3.125km_Area_Extent-v0.0.txt?attredirects=0&d=1

Moderator Note: everybody understands your theory by now, you don't need to post so many posts defending it, unless new data comes up.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: May 24, 2020, 08:12:54 AM »
A more detailed response to the "June elbow", using the regional NSIDC extent graphs:
* Okhotsk and Bering mostly melt in April and early May.
* Kara and Laptev only start melting in June, the same applies to the Beaufort and Chukchi.
* The landlocked and huge Hudson (forgotten in my earlier response) also starts melting only in June, but then has extensive and predictable losses.
* The only seas losing extent linearly during May are Barents, Greenland and Baffin.

Thus when the main engines die out but the other haven't begun we get the May slowdown, in turn causing the June "elbow".
I get the feeling that if Hudson Bay was taken out of the stats, that elbow could disappear.

14
Thanks for the weather updates and analysis. Just please don't start with that old theory. "Early growth in snowpack by August as most of the rest of the Arctic becomes completely overwhelmed in heat" will not happen.

15
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: May 23, 2020, 05:09:13 PM »
Thanks for all the updates here. I am very concerned (again). The abrupt new calving points to the fact already discussed herein that the PIG is very far from stable at the moment. The speed of events is disturbing and feels like a slow-motion collapse. Calving used to be spaced over several years, and then we had to wait months, now it's something new every few weeks, not to mentioned the bits and pieces that break away almost daily. It's true that this thread's coverage is much more detailed than in the past, but I think that hardly explains the new phenomenon.
Indeed it is possible that the significant loss of buttressing/friction on the south side, while the north side is still going along as it used to, is creating a host of new stresses on the main ice shelf and could lead to further disintegration.
In addition, any newly calved iceberg is immediately swept away, preventing a buildup of iceberg mélange that could slow down the process, unlike the behavior at next-door neighbor Thwaites, and unlike the behavior of some past PIG icebergs. These days they are smaller, immediately shatter, and also seem to be shallower so that none have been grounding anywhere.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 23, 2020, 03:46:13 PM »
"Overall, the geographic distribution of the covariance between clouds and sea ice confirms the response of clouds to the sea ice loss once again. The correlation coefficients between the sea ice anomaly and cloud anomaly are negative in most areas but positive in some areas. The region of negative correlation is more significant than the positive area. The nonuniform regional covariance reveals that the response maybe influenced by other factors such as atmospheric circulation. The significant but nonuniform response of clouds to the sea ice retreat may influence the albedo feedback."

Confirmed referring to this previous study:

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009JD011773
Having had a chance to take a look at this previous study, it is immediately apparent that the described cloud effect is not relevant to the melting season.
Quote
Abstract
[1] Recent declines in Arctic sea ice extent provide new opportunities to assess cloud influence on and response to seasonal sea ice loss. This study combines unique satellite observations with complementary data sets to document Arctic cloud and atmospheric structure during summer and early fall. The analysis focuses on 2006–2008, a period over which ice extent plummeted to record levels, substantial variability in atmospheric circulation patterns occurred, and spaceborne radar and lidar observations of vertical cloud structure became available. The observations show that large‐scale atmospheric circulation patterns, near‐surface static stability, and surface conditions control Arctic cloud cover during the melt season. While no summer cloud response to sea ice loss was found, low clouds did form over newly open water during early fall. This seasonal variation in the cloud response to sea ice loss can be explained by near‐surface static stability and air‐sea temperature gradients. During summer, temperature inversions and weak air‐sea temperature gradients limit atmosphere‐ocean coupling. In contrast, relatively low static stability and strong air‐sea gradients during early fall permit upward turbulent fluxes of moisture and heat and increased low cloud formation over newly open water. Because of their seasonal timing, cloud changes resulting from sea ice loss play a minor role in regulating ice‐albedo feedbacks during summer, but may contribute to a cloud‐ice feedback during early fall.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 23, 2020, 03:39:19 PM »
Concerning the albedo:

"As the surface changes during the melt period from snow-covered sea ice to partially snow- melt pond-covered sea ice to totally open water, the albedo of this heterogenous surface will decrease. Because the cloud albedo lies between the albedo of snow and the albedo of dark open water, an increase in cloud cover due to loss of sea ice coverage is expected to partly compensate for the associated albedo decrease and tend to restore the TOA albedo during the sea ice melt period to the pre-melt value."

They conclude:

"Previous studies already show that a warmer Arctic is cloudier and that the corresponding cloud forcing changes from warming the surface to cooling the surface in different seasons. The interactions between the clouds and the surface are complex and play an important role in the Arctic energy balance. This study presents the local character of the damping effect by the clouds in the Arctic climate system. The albedo feedback is one of the most pronounced positive feedback in the polar regions. Clouds can damp this positive feedback: cloud formation can partly compensate for the change in albedo due to the melting of sea ice."
Far be it from me to question established science, but one must use science along with the details it includes. Let me just say I am not convinced by the bolded part. If clouds appear a month after open water, and considering that open water is a much delayed reaction to insolation, and considering the shortness of the insolation period in the Arctic, then cloud feedback is very weak compared to the albedo feedback. What they measured - clouds forming in August-mid October as a reaction to ice loss in July-mid September simply cannot support the above conclusions. Albedo improvement should have been multiplied by insolation level to achieve meaningful results regarding the strength of the effect. This is especially true since the last part of their cloud window is after the freezing season begins, which is when I would expect clouds to make a significant effect, and not a good one as they would tend to insulate the water and slow heat loss to space.

I will also add that the common wisdom on the forum seems to be that cloudiness increased since 2013, while they only covered the period up to 2015, potentially missing this supposed trend. So maybe there IS a trend of increased clouding that IS relevant to the melting season and actual albedo-insolation feedback, I am just saying this study does not prove it.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 23, 2020, 11:47:29 AM »
Very interesting discussions going on here, and very relevant to the upcoming season.
Just please do not slip into a flame war, no one is cherry picking or bullying. There is also no need to be defensive of one's theories and expectations, as I said already the Arctic can fend for itself.
I remind that more detailed discussions can be had in other threads. Do we have a La Nina or El Nino? There's an 2020 ENSO thread. Status of Arctic rivers can be discussed in detail in the "River ice and discharge" thread.
Effects on the melting season are of course welcome here. I recall 2016's "melting success" was explained in part by the monster El Nino that year, but as far as I can tell neither La Nina nor El Nino have a direct predictable effect on sea ice.
Regarding rivers, I wonder if there is near-delta water temp data (and anomaly) for the various Arctic rivers, besides discharge data.
As for thickness/volume/winter temps, this is an unresolved question. I once tried to correlate regional PIOMAS thickness/volume at certain times with resulting sea ice area at later times of the season for the same regions, and surprising could not find much predictability there. It doesn't mean there isn't a correlation, just that I could not find it with my limited analysis.
I remind that the DMI N of 80 is a misleading chart, due to its peculiar weighting method. Each latitude slice gets the same weight, despite 80-81 being 60 times larger than 89-90. This means the DMI measure is heavily skewed towards the North Pole, and does not tell the whole story regarding the High Arctic in general, some of which is down even to 70deg in the Beaufort-Chukchi-ESS region.  FDDs are another interesting approximation but with its own limitations. PIOMAS does a much more detailed job of calculating energy transfers and ice movements, but it's not the holy grail, it has limited resolution and suffers from inherent data limitations. Cryosat and SMOS measure the ice directly, but with their own known limitations. Snow thickness is the biggest unknown for all of these methods.
This year was colder near the Pole as shown by DMI, but also had a lot of ice movement from that location both to the FJL-Svalbard region and into the Fram. So this may have reduced or negated the advantage of low winter temps.
I think it is quite safe to say that Beaufort ice is indeed thicker this year, and is also starting its movement and breakup (with the resulting area loss) rather late compared to the leading years. This could indeed have a strong effect later on. The other volume anomaly near Svalbard seems doomed, at least as of a month ago and given what we know has happened since then. Of course, there is no telling what will happen from here on.
I think it is also safe to say that summer variability in the Arctic - albedo preconditioning, temperatures, cloudiness, export - is much higher than winter variability, partly because of the diminishing returns of cold temps on further ice thickening. Thus a strong melting weather like 2007 and 2012, or a weak season like 2013 and 2014, makes much more of a difference than the wintertime effects. To wit, both 2013 and 2017 started the year with unprecedented low volume, but ended up with much higher ice than expected.
So it is obvious the season is still side open, with the ice enjoying some strengths and some weaknesses. Of these, the early preconditioning and the Beaufort "fortress" seem to be very important factors, but which of them will prevail depends on June and July.

Note: the source of "my" thickness maps is the PIOMAS April update.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 22, 2020, 06:37:06 PM »
A. Is there indeed a trend of increased cloud cover? Can this be supported by data?
B. 2016 nearly broke the 2012 area record, even with a cool and cloudy summer. So I wouldn't count on this to save the ice, even if such a trend emerges.
I posted this earlier, and will re-post for your benefit:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44155-w

"Based on CALIPSO satellite observations of cloud properties, this study found that cloud coverage in ice-free regions in the Arctic linearly increased with the area of ice-free water during the melt seasons in the past 10 years, while sea ice coverage varies significantly year-to-year."
Thank you. I missed this the first time around.
It is interesting though how the little details in the article are not a perfect fit for the summary quoted above.
By "the last 10 years" they mean 2006-2015, although this was published in 2019.
By  "the melt season" they mean:
Quote
Anomalies (in absolute units) of cloud fraction obtained from CALIPSO observations during the summer and fall seasons (July to October) and sea ice concentration. The anomalies are calculated by subtraction of the 10-year (2006–2015) average. The cloud fraction is the average between August 1 and October 15. Sea ice concentrations are based on the average of the period from July 1 to September 15, which covers melting season.
As most insolation occurs between mid-May and end-July, their finding is not as relevant as might seem at first glance.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 22, 2020, 04:00:07 PM »
The CAB is the reservoir of most of the season ending ice. At 4/30/2020, PIOMAS was indicating ~ 500 km3 more ice in the CAB vs. 2019 and ~1,300 km3 more vs. 2017.  The Beaufort also was running a few hundred km3 above those years. You might characterize these as "slight" differences. I don't.
The well-placed extra volume in the Beaufort could well have a significant impact on the melting season. 2016 was quite delayed by very thick ice in the Beaufort ("Big Block"). However, looking at the placement of the extra volume in the CAB during April does not inspire much confidence, especially as May saw a very strong export event right from the anomalous region and into the Fram. Certainly the upcoming PIOMAS update will be very interesting.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 21, 2020, 03:10:42 PM »
A. Is there indeed a trend of increased cloud cover? Can this be supported by data?
B. 2016 nearly broke the 2012 area record, even with a cool and cloudy summer. So I wouldn't count on this to save the ice, even if such a trend emerges.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 21, 2020, 03:06:31 PM »
Welcome Butterflyy.
This theory is best discussed elsewhere. Note that its more extreme version (the "Quebec reglaciation") has been promoted all over the forum by a certain user  and is frowned upon by the new moderator.  8)

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 21, 2020, 08:09:53 AM »
The Laptev, Kara, and Barents should all be near 0 by 6/30 or earlier. I would imagine that would be a first?
The Barents is always near 0 by June 30th. The Kara could conceivably get near 0 by that date, seeing as it started early. I will go on record here to claim there is zero probability of the Laptev doing so, regardless of what Hycom may indicate.

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: May 20, 2020, 11:14:30 AM »
So peak oil demand will lead to a spike in prices that will help grow EVs and bring about peak oil demand. Logical.
One must face realities. Should there be a spike in oil prices, investments will come roaring back. Oil's demise will not come from a lack of supply. And EV growth could slow because of low oil prices, though I hope not.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 19, 2020, 12:30:59 PM »
In the first half of May 2020 was lagging 2016 and 2019 in the High Arctic Albedo-Warming Potential indicator, which basically multiplies open water and latitude-based insolation (developed and calculated by Nico Sun). However, there's a long season ahead and the recent snow conditioning over wide parts of the High Arctic is much more important at this stage.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Arctic for Amateurs and Newbies
« on: May 19, 2020, 04:02:45 AM »
when there is surface melt and the melt ponds then re-freeze, does that ice melt any easier than if it hadn't melted in the first place?
Yes. The albedo of powder snow is very high, around 0.85, reflecting most insolation. The albedo of sea ice is lower, around 0.60. The albedo of a refrozen melt pond is yet lower, around 0.50. Therefore most times new melt ponds will form over a refrozen melt pond, rather than in an unmelted patch of snow or ice nearby.
Also check out https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/processes/albedo.html

Quote
does the top inch of a .1m block of ice melt easier than the top inch of a 2m block of ice?
Good question, that depends, but probably yes. Ice melts when its temp rises to the melting point due to energy from above and below. Thicker ice may have a lower core temp than thinner ice, delaying the process a bit. Thicker ice may also insulate the top layer from the energy supplied by the ocean water below. There are also the issues of albedo, transparency, absorption by seawater and other stuff beyond my pay grade.

27
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: May 18, 2020, 04:36:17 AM »
from my highschool class mate:

prince
Wow. I'm in awe.

28
Quote
Because printing money is a huge transfer of wealth from those who own nominal assets (bonds, cash) to those who are in debt. 
In the past few decades money printing mostly drove up asset prices relative to cash, rather than create general inflation which affects consumer prices and wages.
Thus the transfer effected by massive printing served to enrich those who made massive leveraged speculation, owning assets while being in debt.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 15, 2020, 08:01:04 PM »
I moved the posts to the Melting Season thread where they belong, thank you BL for the heads up.

30
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: May 15, 2020, 01:10:10 PM »
A romantic at heart, here's another one of my favorite love songs.
Harvest Moon - Neil Young (1992)


31
The limit is when the users of the currency lose faith in it as a store of value and a means of trade. It could be next year or in a millenium.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Melting Season Predictions
« on: May 15, 2020, 02:59:59 AM »
P.A., I would much prefer that the person who opened the polls last year (JCG) will do so this year as well. Both because they deserve to continue the tradition, but also because things should happen at the same seasonal timing and with similar format and title as has been found to work in the past, along with lessons learned. So I'd rather you remove the poll from this thread.
If JCG is not interested (which I doubt) then the poll(s) should be opened at a similar time and with similar expiration as previous years, in a separate thread titled accordingly, to enable wide participation and enable comparison of poll results between years.
I thought this thread was quite useful in and of itself, by venting away some of the long term speculation off the melting season thread, and also giving people a place to discuss their thoughts freely for the coming season, even if they are quantitative or necessarily based on data.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 06:42:30 PM »
Let's not get bogged down in the discussion on GFS long-term forecast reliability. It can be continued elsewhere. And bear in mind newbies and lurkers are not easily misled, especially after reading several warnings on the same issue.

34
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 13, 2020, 12:53:41 PM »
Yes, I am walking on eggs. Too many edits and some posters are apt to walk out. Too few edits and some others are apt to do the same. Friv will be Friv but his contribution IMHO is immense, others may manage to contribute greatly without using expletives. Those who can avoid them, please do.

35
The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: May 13, 2020, 10:27:29 AM »
More announcement than suggestion, but I have bolded (made sticky) several important threads in the Cryosphere section to help people navigate, especially beginnners. If anyone is bothered by this change please let me know the reason.

36
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 12, 2020, 03:17:54 AM »
Thanks BL, much appreciated.

37
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 07:39:51 PM »
It's kinda funny, I was just about to edit the expletives+video out of this post which I found to be offensive to the general spirit of the complaints on this thread, unintentionally I'm sure. And then I discovered I do not moderate this section of course.  :-[ And then I recalled the moderator is the author of said post.  ???
I still like you Blumenkraft... but you need sometimes to be more considerate of others' feelings even when it requires curbing your great sense of humor.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 06:05:01 PM »
Thank you bluice.
All, please remember this thread is not to be bogged down in back and forth arguments, so once something becomes a thing take it elsewhere. And please be aware that someone will always disagree, no need to get defensive or personally respond to every point. The melting season knows better than us all and often patience is the best tool in the ice enthusiast arsenal. If you're right, you'll be proven right. If you're wrong, you'll be proven wrong. And if it depends on weather and luck, best not to make big predictions. Let the thread breathe, wait for new data to come in, I promise it will be interesting.

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 11, 2020, 12:37:29 PM »
I have moved two good posts to the melting season thread where they fit better, but then realized a part was pertinent here:
It is 1030 am. & still no JAXA data - patience is a virtue?


40
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 12:34:32 PM »
Gentle folks, please put this matter behind you. No need for more responses, as it seems flames are starting, never a useful thing.

41
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: May 11, 2020, 11:10:49 AM »
I apologize to all who are offended by Friv's language. I agree that on a scientific forum such language should be frowned upon, though I have no problem with it in my personal life. However, Friv has been entertaining melting seasons since 2011, always posting only when things get interesting, with a smattering of these very same F/S words over the years, along with liberal use of ALL CAPS, !!!, blowtorch and brutal and killing, cryptic short messages and general hyperbole. This has always been tolerated by past moderator(s) because of Friv's unique contribution and perspective regarding weather forecast analysis and melting season evaluation, the entertainment part for sure, and the silent understanding that "Friv will be Friv". I will say upfront that I do NOT intend to strictly censor Friv, and I recommend to all who are offended by his posting style to consider adding him to the ignored user list.
What I WILL do:
* I will make a small edit to the offending message.
* I will write Friv a friendly PM on the subject.
* I ask other users who respond better to such requests, to avoid using swear words in general and in Cryosphere threads in particular.

I also ask other users to "hang in there". The times are trying and nerves are fraying. But the planet, the environment, the climate and the future of humanity are important, and each of you has unique contributions and viewpoints and without you the community will be much diminished.

42
Welcome, ZeaLitY.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 05:51:07 AM »
Snow cover in Alaska has been decimated in the past few days.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2876.msg263656.html#msg263656

44
Snow cover in Alaska has been decimated in the past few days, judging by the snow depth in Bettles Airport, down from 50cm to 11cm. A couple more days and it's gone.

In the meantime, snow cover in various Siberian stations is stable.

45
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 10, 2020, 06:51:16 PM »
SH, I beg you to reconsider, as your valued contributions will be sorely missed. Stop reading the COVID threads  if they bring you to despair (I understand the feeling). Focus on the Cryosphere, an ice therapy.

46
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2020
« on: May 10, 2020, 04:10:01 PM »
Not odd at all. El Nino will not inhibit hurricane activity because with high confidence there will not be one.

47
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 10, 2020, 12:42:13 AM »
I am getting somewhat tired of this. Almost every time a new fact is posted in this scientific thread on this scientific forum ( e.g. a dangerous but rare condition affects some children) someone starts ranting about fear mongering and Trump and the media and what have you. Surprisingly that someone is the respected admin who taught us so diligently not to derail threads and not engage in meta-discussions... can't this be discussed elsewhere? Leave this thread for science.  What is the R? The IFR? Do lockdowns make a difference? Does reopening make a difference? What do models say? What is the disease progress or decline in various countries? What various policies are enacted?
E.g. Do you think IFR is lower and flu-like? Post statistics models and estimates supporting this. Is anyone on this thread fear mongering? Report them to moderator! Will the disease affect Trump reelection? Discuss in the politics section. Do Trump's policies affect disease progression? Discuss here. Massive transfer of wealth? Discuss in the COVID economics thread. But for heaven's sake please let this thread breathe a little.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 09, 2020, 08:23:15 AM »
F. Tnioli, I hope you continue posting (staying within the guidelines of course) as you are a longtime contributor with often unique perspective.

49
The forum / Re: Suggestions
« on: May 09, 2020, 01:22:19 AM »
Noted. I use discretion as sometimes posts are a mix of valuable and OT stuff. In addition, there is no option to simply move a message to another existing thread, this would have been very useful, especially on occasions when my time is limited and/or I use my mobile which makes copying and editing a real pain.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 09, 2020, 01:13:18 AM »
Quote
Please note, i am not asking to explain every little detail in this topic. I ask to use non-contradicting terms. Like, instead of "melt ponds confuse sensors" - say, for example, "technology limitations disallow reliable total Arctic ice volume measurement after mid-April based on those sensors". Like, instead of "SMOS stopped" say "SMOS measurements stop being used for calculating total ice volume mid-spring due to growing measurement errors which currently we're unable to remove". Etc.

If we'd be failing to avoid "contradicting per common sense of a non-scientist" statements here - even when such contradictions are in error de-facto - then what exactly this topic is for?
Thank you for the better description of SMOS cutoff for Cryosat, and other SMOS limitations. This is what should have been posted in the first place if you find the original poster was not accurate enough. Clarify, explain, bring more info, make better wording. And do not hint the cutoff is to hide something or that somebody was lying because they used inaccurate terminology.

Back to what this topic is for - bringing information, data, analysis and commentary about the Arctic sea ice melting season that is just beginning in earnest.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22