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 - Alexander555

Pages: [1] 2 3
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 22, 2020, 06:58:15 PM »
The number of viruses you are exposed to is indeed a factor.

The higher the number, the more likely you get infected.

For example, if you are in the same room with an infected person, but only inhale viruses, it's unlikely to get infected. There is a very low number of viruses in the air. But in a droplet the infected person coughed out, there are a lot of viruses. If they cough in your direction and a droplet hits you, the likelihood of getting infected by that is very high.

Consequences / Re: Global recession
« on: March 20, 2020, 09:04:03 PM »

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 09, 2020, 03:13:11 AM »
Linear growth in South Korea rather than exponential for a week now, that's some glimmer of hope at least.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 29, 2020, 11:04:30 AM »
... Iran is THE problem ...

No, the virus is the problem.

Xenophobia and racism is also a big problem. As seen here!

Jesus man! Take some medication. Iran clearly has no clue what is going on, they don't have it under control and they endanger billions of people with their stupid, irresponsible behaviour. There is absolutely ZERO XENOPHOBIA in my sentences. These are facts, clear as daylight and does not matter to me whether they are Persians, Africans, or "Caucasians", if people do stupid things I will say so.

Imagining something behind the words that are clearly not their tells much more about your psyche than anything else...

EDIT: case in point:

We know from the Chinese example that quarantines work, and only the most strict quarantines work, but they work well. But Iran says:

"Among those currently in isolation is the head of Iran's taskforce on Covid-19, Deputy Health Minister Iraj Harirchi, who declared that "quarantines belong to the Stone Age" a day before admitting that he had tested positive for the disease."

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: August 16, 2019, 07:35:21 PM »
I think Greta is a great leader. A beautiful human. I wish her a safe and unbothered crossing.

Guadalajara, Mexico, sweltering through a hot steamy summer, has 3 feet of hail dumped on it.
We should build the wall out of ice for the added ALBEDO bonus.

D10 forecasts are becoming quite aggressive with impending snowfall. 00z CMC shows deep falls across very wide areas.

Therefore I think it is unlikely we see a SWE max until at least D10+ although there is probably one coming soon thereafter (within a week or two?). Last year we saw four maximums with the highest occurring in early April for North America.

We are about 150KM^3 ahead of 2018 at the moment as well -- about 11%.

Last year saw a slight overall gain in March (with maxes intermixed). It would be quite interesting if this year added substantially more mass as it would indicate that this "reaction" can indeed be sustained much later into spring if sufficient momentum is built up. Maybe the near complete melt-out of the Bering and its potential non-recovery (unlike 2018) could be the push needed for that to occur (+blocking, +water vapor, +northerly winds sweeping down from Greenland into North America).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 26, 2019, 01:35:28 PM »
How is the Bering Sea doing compared to last year ?
Bering is on the high side compared to all recent years, though low compared to 2012 and 2013. All in all, seems normal. I wonder if it will go higher in Feb-March, or plateau at current level generating another low maximum. My bet is on going higher.
Shown is AMSR2 sea ice area, courtesy of Wipneus.

Consequences / Re: 2018 ENSO
« on: November 26, 2018, 06:43:14 AM »
I can do this 2 or 3 times a week.

The link for the charts and updates is

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 25, 2018, 07:43:38 PM »
Boston and Buffalo are totally different animals, though, as is their snow. Boston sees much heavier snowfalls of higher density (usually 10-12:1 ratios, I'd guess). Buffalo can easily do 20:1 or better as most of its snow is derivative of lake effect. All else being equal, 100" in Buffalo probably has about 50-75% of the water content of 100" in Boston.

Beyond that, Buffalo has the infrastructure to deal with snow removal -- and it isn't that big (1 million people). Boston has 7-8 million in its greater metro area. So many more streets to clear, so much more electric infrastructure, and all dependent on everything functioning cohesively.

As 14-15 showed, it would take more than 100", probably 120-150" to have truly crippling / life-threatening impacts, and the other qualifier is that DC-NYC need to be socked in as well -- not with totals as bad as Boston, but just enough so that there are not enough snow removal resources to cope with worsening totals. The thing is, if the threshold of life-threatening impact is reached, it isn't just a few hundred people affected -- it is the entire metro region! The logistics of population also mean that smaller cities are inherently less vulnerable to impact from this kind of event (I could see Worchester etc doing fine while BOS freezes and starves).

As I said, many will find this idea far-fetched, however, the records of February 2015 indicate, to me, such an idea is not insane but rather, inevitable.

It is important to note that the old 30-day record for Boston prior to 2/2015 was 58.8", which was... almost doubled... by 2015's 94.4" in 30 days. So what happens when 94.4" in 30 days is broken? I would guess it is by a total in the approximate range of ~120".
You will not see mass starvation in Boston even with 120" over 30 days. Your imagination is wild. After the 2015 record snow, I am sure the city equipped itself with yet more snow equipment and resources. A city of 8 million not only has more challenges, but also more money and management to handle them. But in any case, starvation is a very slow process, and food doesn't spoil so quickly when snowed in, even if there is no electricity. (I can't believe I am even discussing this).

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: November 10, 2018, 08:29:46 PM »
The price of oil has gone down for 10 trading days in row ... the longest streak since 1984.

Funny how Goldman Sachs was promoting $100 oil just 6 weeks ago.  It’s almost like they were trying to sucker some retail investors. 😉

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 08, 2018, 08:13:04 AM »
Gawd! Get me my fainting couch. bbr has posted some research.
Get your fainting couch ready again. I think there is a good chance Boston sees 120-150"+ this winter and ends up completely paralyzed.

Snow-atmospheric coupling = impending catastrophe. We are so f*cked! 2017-18 was incredible and we are already so BEYOND last winter. WTF

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 30, 2018, 07:08:49 PM »
It has been more or less like this since the beginning of June, and gave that very long heatwave in Europe.

Finally the Brits and Swedes got to experience real summer! 8)
My friend in Scotland kept whining all summer about the unbearable 25 C temps :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 28, 2018, 02:38:00 AM »
!gerontocrat is not allowing for the freezing thread to open!

What a cuck! Trying to fry humanity so he can make an extra buck. The worst of the worst. It is obvious that if gerontocrat was not a Big Oil Shill he would have opened the freezing thread.

Edit: how do you sleep lying on those piles on cash, while the world burns?

Unfortunately for me - control over the freezing thread is a power denied to me. I have to get my kicks in other ways, grinding the faces of the poor into the dirt, dinner with the Koch Bros, a burger and a beautiful chocolate cake at Mar-el-Largo while Trumpy lets me push the button to launch some cruise missiles at some innocents somewhere.

All that oil money gets to be a problem. Having to bribe both Republicans and Democrats gets to be a bit expensive - I mean Judas only cost 30 pieces of silver. Those were the good old days.

The trials and tribulations of the 1 percent - you don't know how lucky you poor people are.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 23, 2018, 05:01:12 PM »

Well, according to TropicalTidBits most of the CAB north of 80 is above freezing, and the coldest spot (just north of 80 on the Canadian side) is only at -3 or so, far above what is needed for a re-freeze.

But the northernmost part of Greenland and Ellesmere Island do come closer to the -11 or so required to freeze sea water (as I understand it), although presumably no sea ice will form on land.

Last year one of the first areas to show early freeze were the bays and inlets of Ellesmere. Frazil ice can form when it gets to -7 C and by early Sept last year Eureka had consistent temps in the region of -7 C to -10 C and ice was observed in Nansen Sound. That's what air temperatures you need to get freeze started and we are not at that stage yet.

There are many mountainous areas on Ellesmere Island and Tropical Tidbits or Nullschool will often show pinpoint areas which are down to -10 C, even in Summer. But these low temps are not present at the coastal points.

I better keep quiet now as I know the freezing thread has not started yet and this seems to be a sensitive topic at this time of year !  :)

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 21, 2018, 08:03:27 PM »

Pssst!  Alexander555, Neven prefers (and many of us appreciate) that bare links not be posted to a conversation.  Giving the title and a couple of sentences to explain why we might want to click on this would be appreciated.  Many thanks.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 19, 2018, 01:10:10 PM »
The animation below highlights residual sea ice of intermediate concentration for the first 18 days of August. Here land, open water, and solid ice (80-100%) are masked, leaving the ice in between to display (inverted from the original UH AMSR2).

As noted last year, this coming month is a window of vulnerability for intermediate ice, with wind and waves the principal issues rather than diminishing air temperatures and insolation. Strong winds with long persistent fetches suffice to churn the ice and mix surface waters, there is no requirement for these winds to originate in another great arctic cyclone.

The central dark region in the final frame suggests the lower bound at the minimum. It's possible though that the Banks Island portion will become isolated from the main CAB and indeed be entirely exported out through the Amundsen Gulf.

Day to day change is fairly slow but the second animation shows quite a bit has happened in the first 18 days of this month.

If the lift-off continues offshore along the CAA creating a whole ice pack detachment (WIPD), it will become possible for the first time to entirely circumnavigate the ice pack staying within the Arctic Basin. This was nearly attained on August 18th as the dotted line route shows below. (Here it is assumed that sufficient open water can be found within ice of <20% to allow passage.)

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: July 24, 2018, 07:12:50 PM »
Japan needs to get it's Yen/Yang back in balance.

Floods, heat waves, typhoons... All they need is another mega earthquake topped off by a major volcanic eruption and they will have a Royal Flush.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 16, 2018, 01:39:08 PM »
What was the NSIDC minimum area for 2017 ?

minimum NSIDC extent/area with date below.

Note that 2018 area is still last in ranking, but  only 200k above 1980 annual minimum, that could change any day now.

NH Extent
1 2012-09-16 3.339905
2 2016-09-07 4.144993
3 2007-09-14 4.146931
4 2011-09-08 4.332572
5 2015-09-08 4.387092
6 2008-09-18 4.548265
7 2010-09-19 4.589683
8 2017-09-12 4.611109
9 2014-09-16 4.988244
10 2013-09-13 5.039617
11 2009-09-12 5.046571
12 2005-09-20 5.314284
13 2002-09-18 5.625038
14 1999-09-12 5.676431
15 2006-09-14 5.746404
16 2004-09-18 5.770495
17 2000-09-11 5.942586
18 2003-09-17 5.969052
19 1990-09-21 6.010841
20 1995-09-04 6.012446
21 1993-09-13 6.161196
22 1991-09-16 6.258512
23 1998-09-17 6.293315
24 1984-09-16 6.396239
25 1985-09-09 6.486437
26 2001-09-19 6.567265
27 1997-09-03 6.601921
28 1989-09-22 6.888294
29 1987-09-02 6.889959
30 1979-09-21 6.895215
31 1981-09-10 6.901518
32 1994-09-05 6.933656
33 1988-09-11 7.048098
34 1986-09-06 7.121551
35 1996-09-10 7.146860
36 1992-09-07 7.158961
37 1982-09-13 7.159853
38 1983-09-08 7.204490
39 1980-09-05 7.533277
40 2018-07-14 8.315115
NH Area
1 2012-09-12 2.228429
2 2016-09-06 2.463209
3 2011-09-05 2.916451
4 2017-09-11 2.939311
5 2007-09-07 2.954993
6 2010-09-07 3.071674
7 2008-09-08 3.079552
8 2015-09-07 3.139137
9 2009-09-08 3.547109
10 2014-09-09 3.576643
11 2013-09-08 3.607877
12 2006-09-22 4.082958
13 2002-09-05 4.098445
14 2005-09-03 4.134433
15 2003-09-05 4.155104
16 2000-09-03 4.235279
17 1999-09-16 4.318875
18 1998-09-11 4.346996
19 2004-09-07 4.375240
20 1995-09-29 4.410301
21 1991-09-18 4.463582
22 1993-09-06 4.488183
23 2001-09-16 4.592484
24 1990-09-21 4.661325
25 1984-09-13 4.691219
26 1994-09-05 4.854227
27 1989-09-11 4.872464
28 1997-09-17 5.008589
29 1985-09-10 5.043057
30 1981-09-07 5.068809
31 1992-08-31 5.084517
32 1982-09-12 5.112870
33 1988-09-03 5.209891
34 1996-09-08 5.297000
35 1987-09-02 5.339545
36 1983-09-02 5.357635
37 1979-09-19 5.413227
38 1986-09-11 5.495114
39 1980-09-05 5.588796
40 2018-07-14 5.767418

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July)
« on: July 03, 2018, 04:26:30 PM »
PIOMAS gridded thickness data has updated, the official volume data not yet.
Calculated from thickness I get 13.8 [1000 km3] for 30th June, fifth sixth lowest place.

Here is the animation. As PIOMAS uses NSIDC sea ice concentration, I watched for some visual disturbance on the 27th. I don't see much there, perhaps you do.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 02, 2018, 08:19:37 PM »
Folks, all these D5 weather forecasts need to be revisited at day 5 as a second post to determine if they indeed had the anticipated effects on the ice (meaning an observable change in one of the direct satellite products we commonly use). Otherwise it is just a lot of hot air and rapidly depreciating hectares of forum space.

We can monitor Arctic ice change without the weather forecasts but change without attribution doesn't move our understanding forward. The weak link is not forecast accuracy but rather coupling to the ice.

This close to the solstice, insolation is putting vastly more heat into and under the ice than low conductivity air. Clouds can mitigate insolation or make it far worse for the ice, Hyperion @ #1517 posted a rare in-depth discussion of the issues there. We've been at this far too long to still be saying 'low pressure bring clouds bring low melt'.

ESRL provides daily net energy flow maps and forecasts that have never drawn interest here. These have a model component to be sure but are have to be better than just intuiting radiative transfer.

Winds are very important to floe dispersion and hence to melt. We started looking at this cyclone situation back on June 30th (mp4 repeated below, units are wind power density), with predicted unravelling of the (exclusively Kara Tongue) ice edge and interior north of Svalbard-FJL. That seems to be gathering steam on July 1st as expected, with several more days of the same likely to follow. Here Sentinel-1AB and UH AMSR2 are used as the before and after monitoring tools as Ascat and Jaxa products are largely featureless in this region.

Jaxa is back in business! The muddy grays there do a good job at defining at-risk ice. We are seeing very rapid disintegration of sea ice concentration in the central Beaufort as well as south Kara in addition to late-stage melt on the Siberian side and inside the CAA.

Technical note: the non-contiguous color picker in gimp or photoshop though not imageJ can exploit the color complexity of Jaxa RGB. Below the fiducial gray was examined at multiple sites using the averaging capability of the picker, radius 15 and the HSV/RGB foreground value readout. The picker radius was set at 12 in the color cube after some experimentation, the selection grown 1 pxl to pick up strays, edited with the loop tool to remove land artifacts, then filled with a dimmed line pattern and flattened. The boundaries of the at-risk area are too complex to pick manually, especially for the time series necessary to mitigate passing weather artifacts.

To convey wind speeds more effectively, short bursts of nullschool (resp. windy) are captured at 3 hr intervals for five days and concatenated to a mp4 in a semi-automated manner, as described over at Dev Corner. After prediction expiry, the winds can be revisited by backing up nullschool to the required range

H's post, minor edits: 'The situation with clouds and inbound/outbound energy fluxes is far more complicated than what you can tell by eyeballing visible and infrared Worldview imagery. Seeing cloud cover across most of the Arctic basin in true color Terra, 3-6-7 Terra, andBand 15 VIIRS cannot be interpreted as favorable to ice retention. There is only a narrow range of very small liquid water droplet cloud at that has a beneficial effect on radiation fluxes and it must be at least a kilometer up to not be subject to wind waves that are rolling it down on the ice surface.

Ice crystal clouds are unfavorable as they let in most of the high energy part of the spectrum but blocks outgoing long wave radiation. It may feel cooler to you under ice crystal cloud than a clear sky but you will sunburn just as fast. And bottom melting is likely to be enhanced. Low-level large water droplet cloud like fog or anything even a little gray, also blocks outgoing long wave, and very efficiently absorbs all incoming solar spectra but for a few narrow bands of visible spectrum.

If there is any air movement then the droplets and worse liberated vapor transfer the energy to the ice. And the absorbed spectra are re-radiated as long wave radiation, half of which get down to the surface anyway. So if it is below freezing at 850 hPa, there is no cloud cover beneficial to ice, ditto any significant air movement near surface ditto. Comparing total atmospheric column cloud water with total precipitable water shows there is far more water as vapor than cloud these days over the Arctic.

Whether directly on the ice or at altitude where the long wave can deeply penetrate the ice, this is very bad for ice as the latent heat when it condenses and later freezes is enormous.  You may not feel the heat of being cooked by microwaves but you are. And you may feel cold in humid or foggy conditions when the air temp is low (but above freezing) but you are warmer, the ice is colder, so it feels warm.'

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 01, 2018, 03:44:42 PM »
Here is 6/19-28 2018 minus 2012. I would call this severe abrupt and apocalyptic climate change. We have clearly hit an inflection point re: continental albedo and sea ice. Maybe the Mayans were right after all and this occurred in 2012?  :o

You post a one week temperature anomaly and compare this to a random single year and conclude that is a "severe abrupt and apocalyptic climate change. "

This is weather and I am really tired of this nonsense appearing on the 2018 Melting Season thread.
Is it just weather? It wasn't just one week. The entire month of June has featured the same pattern. Parts of Quebec have averaged almost 20C colder this June than they did in June of 2012. I would call a 6-year change in summer temperatures of 20C across a 30 day period "apocalyptic" but I know people are still debating whether a "2C limit" on AGW is appropriate to prevent apocalyptic climate change so maybe we have different standards.  LOL

Oren: the comparison was the same period (6/19-28). ESRL maps are limited when you subtract one period from another to 20 days in all (so 10 from each year).

It is preposterous to me how people on this forum claim to believe in climate change etc but if you point out what is happening it is "omg enough of that be quiet this is a sea ice forum" as if the current situation had nothing to do with abrupt climate change. Perhaps this is why the liberals have no solution to the problem, they are even more ignorant than the conservatives who at least pretend it isn't happening in order to justify their stupidity.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 24, 2018, 04:26:51 PM »

Looks like fresh snow fall over the Atlatic side near the pole.

But there is either fresh snow or a frozen over top of the ice sheet.

Something Is gonna have to happen for any chance of a no benign melt season. And soon
Are you sure? Gfs says its above freezing up to 850hPa and well above right out to the pole. And this extending right to the coast 90 west and east. Except for a little spot above Greenland that is. But with ice salinity what it is these days, -0.3 to -0.5 is about as warm as you can get on its surface, cause thats what temperature it melts at. When I look at incoming cloud water, total precipitable water, three hour precipitation accumulation and relative humidity at all levels,  I see a broad stream of warm low level moisture coming in and condensing on the ice, or directly above it as warm fog. A huge energy input given the area and windspeed. The only place that might have a dusting is that spot just above elsemere. Peaking at 1.6 mm 3hpa. Because that's the only place over the ice there is humidity, cloud, and low temperature from this system. And only at high altitudes.  But SMOS from yesterday and surface temps all point to soggy waterlogged ice that would melt any snowflakes in less than a second. Plenty of salt wicking and diffusing to surface. Very likely all of it is suffering surface melt even if surface temps were below -1. And bottom melt too induced by the energy input of the water condensing, and solar irradiance directly to the ice and efficiently transferred by the rolling fog. Chances are you are confusing a slushy field compacted by the winds for a dusting of snow or frozen ice sheet.
How about you get out your calculator and estimate the volume of ice melted by that water vapour input Friv? Its pretty easy. Approximately ten times the mass of the incoming TPW-TCW times approximate mean windspeed in metres per second times width of the flow in metres. Times 3600 times event duration in hours. Trust it more if you do the calc yourself, I assure you.
Betcha SMOS tomorrow will show the whole area soggier than a boiled biscuit. 8)
Click to animate the naughty ezgif

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 19, 2018, 02:32:37 PM »
Thank you oren, gerontocrat, Wipneus -- my extent of understanding is expanding.  Learning can be embarrassing because one makes mistakes, but it is a whole lot easier when one has understanding, patient mentors.

A. You are mixing JAXA extent and NSIDC area.
B. The algorithms have different resolutions, so will produce diffetent results for the 15% rule.
C. The data comes from different satellites with different microwave wavelengths and all that stuff.
D. Different coastal masks and other minor issues.
Wipneus can explain in full, but even when you compare extents they will be very different.

That sums it up nicely.

Gridsize is probably the main cause: 25x25km for NSIDC and 10x10km for Jaxa. The instantaneous field of view (IFOV) sizes differ even more: up to 45x73km for NSIDC.

That means NSIDC will see more extent along the ice edge (the mentioned 15% rule) and that more microwave emissions from land (land spill-over) is contaminating the measurements over water (land is seen as >>100% sea ice concentration).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 13, 2018, 07:09:30 PM »
The exact details of the metrics are not important unless you are in a boat trying to avoid sea ice. What's important is how the ocean/ice/atmosphere/biosphere system is changing as GHGs add planetary heat. We are arguing over fine details about sea ice extent that are insignificant to the big picture. The amazing Greenland vortex we have seen this late spring is a very anomalous feature which our discussion is ignoring while we argue over details about extent and area that will be wiped out in a few weeks time.

The 90 pattern of winds and currents has been very efficiently transporting cold water into the Labrador sea, followed by deep convection as it mixes with warm Gulf stream water. This weather/current pattern is speeding up the rate of transport of Gulf Stream water across the temperate north Atlantic then up the coast of Norway. There has been a stunning anomalous amount of northwards heat transport in the north Atlantic over the past 90 days that will affect the Arctic for many months.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 13, 2018, 07:03:28 PM »
[quote author3=Lord M Vader link=topic=2223.msg158597#msg158597 date=1528902581]
Daily NSIDC Extent reveals an UPTICK of +17K. How unusual is this during the months June-July when the melting is at its largest pace?
Dispersal could do this, especially considering how fragmented the ice is.
Add to this quite a fierce warming event on the Russian side - even more melting & dispersion. Presumably if that warmth continues it will start to appear in extent data in the next few days.

if not - I will stop making comment entirely and just post the data.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 04, 2018, 09:21:12 AM »

~60mb pressure gradient and a closed circulation all the way up to the 200mb level. Yikes, I'm definitely staying up for the 00z ECMWF tonight to see its take.

Aperson or bbr2314, if you would have time. Is it possible to describe the things you are talking about in other words. And what the impact is.

In the Sea Level Pressure charts posted above, the pressure difference from high pressure (~1025) to low pressure (~965) is around 60 millibars.

In these graphs you will see isobars of equal pressure drawn around the high pressure and low pressure centers. The tighter these isobars are, the faster wind flows along them. In the northern hemisphere, low pressure rotates counter-clockwise, and high pressure rotates clockwise, so this should let you figure out the direction of the wind.

The wind that flows along the isobar contours of constant pressure is known as geostrophic wind. See this for reference:

From this exercise, you can work out how strong wind is blowing and where it is bringing air from just by looking at the Sea Level Pressure charts. This lets us figure out that lots of heat is being brought in from the midlatitudes with strong winds in the charts posted above.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 04, 2018, 09:12:38 AM »

~60mb pressure gradient and a closed circulation all the way up to the 200mb level. Yikes, I'm definitely staying up for the 00z ECMWF tonight to see its take.

Aperson or bbr2314, if you would have time. Is it possible to describe the things you are talking about in other words. And what the impact is.
The impact of this would be sustained days of 100K+ losses (IMO). EURO follows GFS.

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: May 30, 2018, 09:11:19 PM »
@Neven, why is US California electioneering in Arctic Cafe?

It's what I would do in a café.

'What? You know someone in California? Okay, call them while I get you a beer!'

Do you know people in California who may not know about this, Susan?
It's a  café, not a bar or a pub.

In my local pub we try to avoid politics and religion especially when the alcohol really starts to flow. (Mind you - there is always one who just can't  resist.......  Ho hum)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic sea ice minimum early prediction
« on: May 29, 2018, 05:30:18 PM »
... and thus they can provide a handy corrective to human psychology, which is biased towards excitement and drama.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 27, 2018, 04:49:43 PM »
   t raises the question as to the extent that the surface currents of the Atlantic ocean gyre are bringing extra warm water to the Svalbard region.  One would expect a continuous strong positive anomaly between the two areas if a lot of extra heat were being transferred thus.   
Not really pagz. The warmest water is saltier and denser. The colder water flowing over the top insulates it preventing it radiating heat into space and being tubulated by wind and wave and losing heat by evaporation. Also the cold surge from the northwest and the warm surge from the Southwest are kind of like putting an open tube of toothpaste under a bladder of water, and then stepping left and right foot either side. Really salty and hot water could get a good spurt on from this. Making it past the faroes rise when it may have turned back south into the Atlantic. Re published.I ment  when did the data series end? We are seeing a hysteresis bifurcation. This is fast paced action here. Dorothy, meet Mr tornado.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 27, 2018, 12:51:08 PM »
Thank you, Hyperion, for your reply and the useful information regarding the atmospheric weather systems moving energy from the Middle Atlantic towards the general area of Svalbard.  To clarify, my comments have all been with reference to ocean surface currents, which generally travel at least an order of magnitude slower than atmospheric storm systems, but which are important because they transport enormous amounts of energy.
Anomaly maps often require nuanced interpretation, but the significant gap in positive anomalies between the huge warm patch in the Middle Atlantic and the west coast of Britain and Ireland (the last image in your second post, showing Atlantic SSTA) at least raises the question as to the extent that the surface currents of the Atlantic ocean gyre are bringing extra warm water to the Svalbard region.  One would expect a continuous strong positive anomaly between the two areas if a lot of extra heat were being transferred thus.  That said, this SSTA map is just one small slice of data.
As to the Nature paper on the slowing of the Atlantic Ocean's circulation being out of date (it was published in April 2018), if there are more recently published studies showing that Atlantic circulation has speeded up recently, or indeed whether any oceanic gyre has speeded up recently, I would be most interested to read them.  Such information could be of immense significance for the Arctic ice sheet.
I am puzzled.  Hasn't recent research indicated that the AMOC (which includes the Gulf Stream, which is part of the North Atlantic oceanic gyre) has slowed in the past decade or so?   AMOC going AWOL?  Clarification would be welcome.
Sure Pagophilus, there may have been some Gulfstream slowing at the time of publication of that paper. But now. Well we just ain't in Kansas anymore. :'(
The cyclone cannon that has fired up off new York is spitting a new one towards the south east coast of Greenland every couple of days. These have been sucking all the moisture and heat out of the tropical Atlantic and sweeping the warm tropical water along for the ride. Over the past couple of weeks they have been getting their tops ripped of by upper level winds about between Iceland and Greenland, though often reforming near Svalbard. Its striking how there is a strong river of air straight lining from the Western tropical Atlantic to nth of Finland at all tropospheric altitudes more often than not recently.
The anti clockwise rotation of these cyclones has also been persistently sucking northerlies down the west coast of Greenland. Some pics from this week:

The comment about this area being the same latitude as Paris is appropriately meaningless as it ignores entirely the climate of the planet.

I'm not sure how a factual statement can be "meaningless", and "the climate of the planet" is exactly what the factual statement regarding latitude is highlighting, i.e. how the oceans can have vastly different effects on areas receiving the same amount of solar irradiation on a yearly basis. Which is of course extremely topical for our discussions on the future of sea ice.

So perhaps it should have been in another thread, e.g. "highly meaningful melting season chatter".

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 14, 2018, 08:53:21 PM »

The Archipelago is till solid, above 1980's average.

The Central Arctic is very interesting. The February temperature spike really clobbered it, but recovery was complete. But now there is a significant early area loss. Will the much higher area loss so far in the 2010's be repeated.


The Hudson is a consolation prize for bbr2314
Melt is late.
Is late ice melt and above average snow + late snow melt a result of the persistent cold in the NE quarter of Canada, or
Is  persistent cold in the NE quarter of Canada and late ice melt a result of above average snow + late snow melt ?

The Okhotsk melted late and area is now well below the 2010's average.

The St Lawrence melted a week or two early and area is now just bouncing around.

I think I will give the graphs another outing just after May21 - one month before solstice - if people think they are useful.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 14, 2018, 08:29:38 PM »
ATLANTIC side graphs

The first image is just the Baffin, significant as when it melts out it unplugs the numerous passages into the Arctic Basin proper.

It has been very cold in that N.E. quarter of Canada. Melt is also late in Greenland. Now warmth is starting to show in the Baffin.

Next is the Greenland and Barentz Seas

The Greenland Sea area is still 50,000 km2 greater than on March 1 - the Great Late February temperature spike. I guess there is warming heading north meeting additional ice down the Fram Strait.
The Barents Sea reached a maximum above the 1990's average in early April, but is now reducing strongly.

Next are the Kara and Laptev Seas, both at or above 1980's average. AGW, what AGW?

Too much like hard work. Another coffee required.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 14, 2018, 08:03:49 PM »
While area is lower than every year except for 2016, it seems the timing of the onset of serious melting is similar to most years on the chart.
It depends on which bit of the Arctic you look at, so here goes:-

JAXA AREA as at 13th May 2018

For a change, graphs, lots of graphs so probably several posts.

I have taken each sea and ordered them into - Pacific, Atlantic, Central, and the others (sort of bit players).
For each category I have put them into the order in which the melt usually happens.


The first image has the Bering and Chukchi.

It was as good as over for the Bering by the middle of April (less than 10% of the maximum in the 1980's). Probably 7+ months with ice less than that. If 2018 is now the norm, maximum sea ice will be well under 50% of the maximum of the 1980s.

The Chukchi (after a blip down in late Feb) started losing area consistently about one to two weeks earlier than average and is now well below the 2010's average. How far down will it go?

The next image is the Beaufort and East-Siberian.( We who live in the west say the Beaufort in in the far west of the Arctic, Russians say the East-Siberian is in the Far East.Different points of view).

Both seas have been making a mockery of the expected effect of invasion of warm water from the Pacific, though the Beaufort has just started to lose area.

The next post will look at the Atlantic side. I'm off for a coffee.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 12, 2018, 05:29:21 PM »
A look back at Beaufort Sea for previous years on this date. Worldview terra/modis May11, 2000-2018.

bottom left corner of 2012 image flood filled

Pages: [1] 2 3