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 - scottie

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 15, 2020, 07:50:55 PM »
As a long time lurker and persistent reader of this forum, I think it appropriate at this time to especially thank Oren, Juan C. Garcia, Frivolousz21, Jim Hunt, Born From The Void, Aluminum, A-Team, ArcticMelt2, Gerontocrat, and other participants on the ASIF for their continued outstanding analyses of the Arctic environment.  I also want to thank Neven for making this all possible as well. For people like me publishing these analyses in the concise and straightforward manner is a godsend for us.  The lack of garbage and political interference is indeed refreshing. So, "Thank You" to everyone.....

VaughnAn

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 02, 2020, 06:53:23 PM »
Though ye might like this.


3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 08:44:30 AM »
To be clear: it is NOT appropriate to try and expose users who prefer anonymity, or to challenge them.
(Written in response to discussion now deleted or snipped).
I WILL snip comments when needed. I don't do it much, probably not enough, but I have seen what happens when things are left untended. Comments that could be inflammatory to others or even to one other user will usually get edited before the inevitable backlash and mutual offense taken. It is my professional opinion that this comment "don’t rewrite their comments. We should be able to see what people have said" is wrong. Some statements can be toxic. Sometimes I will just edit out some derogatory words and leave the rest intact. Sometimes I might remove whole sentences (e.g. conspiracy or denial) or even the whole comment (rare).

(Removed part where I discussed the specific issue).

End of discussion, and please leave well enough alone. No need to defend users against my heavy-handed treatment, I have my own inner voice, and if you think some wrong has been done PM me instead of burdening the forum.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 04:52:18 AM »

Announcing to the whole Forum that you want to know the identity of another participant is inappropriate.  in my view, it's grounds for banishment.  But I'm not in charge here. 


Hmmm OK. <snipped>

Anonimity could be extremely important to people. Exposing a climate scientist could cost them their job, funding, public attention that could mean deniers targeting said person and more.

Nobody gets to tell others whether they want to remain anonymous or not.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 20, 2020, 10:43:40 PM »
...

... and now see their hides float down the rapids.
I'm pessimistic about Arctic sea ice and, thankfully, the 1997 - 2002 - 2007 - 2012 series (graphed curve) hasn't yet turned into a BOE.  My hide, nonetheless, has been 'floating down the rapids' of not-accurate-predictions for a long time. [ref: Tor Bejnar | October 10, 2012 at 00:35]

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 20, 2020, 07:13:27 AM »
    +1 Ditto, thanks for addressing the thickness question A-Team.
<snip>
     UCMiami's comments about new ASI conditions creating a need to recalibrate or reinterpret established ASI observation methods seems spot on.
  <snip>   I feel that the last fifteen years have truly changed the nature of arctic sea ice, but a lot of the systems and analysis was established as 'fact' before that change really manifested and to some degree it has yet to adjust.

<snip> "...measures (Piomas and others) are grounded in a 'solid pack' view of arctic ice and I believe struggle to deal with the 'real world' condition of the pack where 'thick ice' is actually a patchwork of loose flows held together by new and thin ice. Images from Polarstern seem to make this abundantly clear."
<wry look>  I tried to provoke a discussion along those lines in the Melt Season thread, but was pretty much told I didn't know what I was talking about.

I think it would be a very good idea, as a lot is happening which categorically *isn't* being captured in our traditional metrics.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 17, 2020, 02:48:31 AM »
A very interesting and important article that was referenced by A-Team and Uniquorn in the Mosaic thread. What the actual melting season looked like.
The first image show the progression that can be seen on Worldview, mostly white to bluish to gray. Click to zoom.
As a reminder, the third image shows the PS floe up close on June 30th.

Quote
Sea Ice Ticker No. 49, 14 August 2020 - The Big Melt

Figure 1: Changes of the MOSAiC ice floe during ~1 month observed with Sentinel-2 satellite images.

Figure 3: A digital thermistor chain unit in the old Central Observatory on 21 July.

When Leg 4 arrived at the MOSAiC floe, summer had already started, and we observed widespread surface melting. On the first walkabouts around the floe, we came across the first melt ponds, a few of which were open, while the others were covered with a thin layer of snow and ice. The snow was already slushy and wet, but still a few tens of centimetres deep. Compared to surrounding ice floes, ours stood out from the rest, thanks to its high abundance of melt ponds (Fig. 1).
 
Since then, air temperatures have been close to or above 0° degrees and the floe began melting from the top, but also from the bottom. The snow disappeared except in heavily ridged areas, where the snow crystals resembled giant jewels. We observed these slow but unstoppable processes with our various tools for measuring the ice thickness.
 
On our transects – regular walks across the floe, always following the same route – we measured ice thickness with the GEM (ground-based electromagnetic sensor)... We recorded a gradual decrease in the average ice thickness: a drop of approximately one metre over the course of July. At the same time, pond depths began increasing, until the first holes appeared in the melt ponds through which the meltwater poured into the ocean below. In some ponds, we recorded spectacular depths of more than 150 cm.
 
While the transect measurements reflect the decrease in thickness, ablation stakes allow us to distinguish between the melting below and melting above. ... We measured an average of ~85cm of ice thinning across our stakes sites from 26 June to 30 July. Surface ablation accounted for seventy-five percent of that thinning, while bottom melting made up the remaining twenty-five percent.
 
The remotely operated underwater vehicle (ROV) “Beast” surveys the ice from below. ... Comparing the maps produced over several dives showed that not all the ice melted at the same speed. Especially the deep keels that extended more than 8 metres into the comparably “warm” ocean were eroding quickly. In some parts of the ridged ice, keel depth decreased by up to 2 metres in just the first 14 days.

Digital thermistor chains (Fig. 3) are another essential tool for measuring changes in ice and snow thickness over time. Over 30 of these units were deployed across MOSAiC’s Central Observatory, which allowed us to monitor the hourly temperature evolution in different ice and snow layers spread out around the floe. Though the data is still being processed, the legs of the DTC unit in the photo (Fig. 4) illustrate the progressive ice surface melting: the tops of the white tubes were initially installed level with the ice surface.
 
In the end, the decreasing thickness, pre-existing weaknesses, and numerous thaw holes in melt ponds made the floe unstable and less able to withstand ocean swell and collisions with surrounding floes. Many cracks appeared, and eventually, our one big floe broke apart into many smaller ones, which will now continue to melt until they disappear completely.






8
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 16, 2020, 07:59:42 AM »
Gentlefolks, this thread is not going well today.

Freegrass you should NOT post when drunk. Some of the stuff you wrote should be deleted ASAP. And stop posting every second message on this thread, this is becoming very counter-productive.

Rod - this forum still has lots of value. I strongly suggest to block users who bug you, and to avoid threads you find useless. It would be a pity if you decided to walk away.

Re glennbuck, it is my professional opinion that you are not Phoenix, and I wish this unsubstantiated accusation would stop being bandied around. Phoenix was a strongly opinionated and disruptive poster that re-appeared this year (after being banned last year as "Rich") and mercifully deleted his account a couple of days before you joined. it might help if you post a bit of background about yourself, but in any case thanks for your contributions, and for your willingness to adapt your posting style to improve usability and minimize overload of threads.

Re number of users, the 3995 figure was not representative and was a result of a bug or a bot attack. this happened a few times during the existence of the forum. In summer 2013 these were 50-60 users online every month, yet 694 in August. This year in January had 200-300 users online every day, but around 1000 on Jan 20-21. It's true that last year saw consistently more users, but the drop hasn't been what it seems, and the number of page views hasn't dropped too much either, except for a couple of monthly statistics which are obviously wrong IMHO. Total number of posts actually increased this year, probably due to the Covid thread. Last year also saw more posts in the melting thread, but it was a mostly unmoderated mayhem, as Neven became overwhelmed by the role, and his father passed away.

I urge all to take deep breaths and try to relax. If your post is going to offend someone, please rethink and avoid posting it. If another's post offends you, please click "Report to moderator" rather than waging online war. And if some users consistently get on your nerves, put them on the ignore list so you are able to remain a valued reader and contributor. I promise not to block anyone ever myself, and to fight the trolls where needed, so don't feel you must do so personally.

Remember, we are all here for an important cause.

9
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 15, 2020, 04:21:14 AM »
WOW! This forum is starting to look like a high school Facebook group!

The bickering and backstabbing and talks about cliques ganging up on people reminds me of when I was 17.

I suggested yesterday to cut the bull shit political threads loose from the Cryospere. There should be two separate forums.

My suggestion was met with lots of resistance. Thank you Oren for so far keeping this nonsense out of the melting thread.

Surprisingly, it seems that many of our members like the drama, and are opposed to separating the sea ice science from all of the nonsense. So, I will grab a beer and a bag of popcorn and watch the drama unfold.

The deniers are opening up their champagne because they can see this site is dying.

It is impossible for any outsider to take this forum seriously when some of the mods and the administrator are acting like children. All of the good posts in the melting thread are tarnished by the political agenda posts in the other threads. 

Maybe forums like this are no longer important because most people are now posting on twitter. That is sad if it is true.

I hope everyone has a great weekend! I’m grabbing my popcorn and beer and waiting to see what happens next.

10
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 13, 2020, 06:02:59 AM »
Michael - it's true that being on the "slow" side of prediction makes one less popular, but do please stay. Science is not a popularity contest.

11
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 13, 2020, 05:55:51 AM »
Michael Hauber has his own opinions, nothing wrong with that.

I do get a strong feeling I am not welcome on this forum and am considering whether I should post again next season.  In the past I have been called a denier and troll to my face.  I don't think that has happened this season, but plenty of non-specific posts about deniers/trolls/nonsense that feel like I am at least on the edge of what is intended.  In particular posts about 'compaction nonsense' where I am pretty sure I was the most vocal proponent of this idea, although some other posters have supported me. 

If the ice does crash in coming weeks and go number 1 by a large amount I will feel really bad and wouldn't be sure if I would have the guts to show my face here again.  At the same time I would look through the available data/images etc to see if I can figure out where my internal model of how the ice should work went wrong and see if I can improve it.

Do the posters predicting a big crash of the ice ever get such a strong feeling of being unwelcome?  How bad will they feel if the ice does what I am expecting?  How much will they learn?  There have been other years where I had predicted no record for various reasons, and felt attacked and ridiculed for it.  Am I over reacting to the various comments about deniers/trolls/nonsense etc?

12
Spotted these cloud formations on Worldview today. First between Svalbard and Franz Josef Land, second between FJL and Novaya Zemlya. I was struck by their small scale "cyclonic" appearance, don't think I've noticed anything like them before. My first thought was thuderstorm, especially the first image. The central structure in each is about 15 - 25 miles across. Just wondering if I'm correct, I'd be grateful for any insight.
These mesoscale lows adre actually pretty common, especially if you look at enough RAMMB imagery. Unfortunately, I don't think they are thunderstorms (not to say nT- storms can't happen in the artic), but isee them as nteresting circulations in the mid or lower atmosphere.
This is from last year.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2649.msg205085.html#msg205085
 
Here's one today on the north coast  of Greenland.

Needs click.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 04:46:33 AM »
It can not be argued that we have (not) seen some extreme surface melting over the last few days.

I added the word "not" that I think you meant to put in there.

I don't think it's very scientific to try and draw boundaries around what can and can not be argued. Clearly there is visible and undeniable evidence supporting the massive extent declines being reported by JAXA. The 2D shrinkage is undeniable.

But there is room for reasonable people to question how much of that shrinkage is due to melting and how much is due to relocation.

There is a lot of evidence which will be forthcoming in the next two months which will shed more light on what has transpired during the GAAC. There isn't any reason to label less common perspectives such as those implied by Nico Sun (and his depiction of a negative current melting energy anomaly) as being invalid at this moment. The likelihood of proof is just around the corner.

I certainly think its fair to criticize and dissect the logic of unpopular arguments, but we should not make declarations that characterize arguments which have yet to be made before the proof. At this point, I don't see proof which enables us to reasonably quantify how much of the extent reduction is due to ice relocation.
When worldview, bremen concentration maps, hycom and the july piomas agree on the impact of the gaac on melt it cannot be argued, the fact that ess concentration is dropping while in a compaction pattern says it all. Furthermore, denying it would be like denying thermodynamics, temperatures have been reliably above the ice melting point, both air and sst, the insolation is high unabated by the usual clouds and albedo is low. Denying physical phenomenons is also the m. o. of climate change deniers, but beyond that it is just plain wrong, especially with the relative wealth of information provided here

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 16, 2020, 11:37:28 PM »
Perhaps it would be best to research how such models work, before making comments in the future.

Dude,

Back in the good old days I discussed the then novel SPIE model with Andrew Slater in these hallowed halls:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,778.msg25903.html#msg25903

If you had clicked the link I helpfully provided above you would have seen that I recently stated that the 2020 blue line "seems rather 'non physical' to say the least".

Nonetheless it is still "currently showing a very early minimum". See below.

Do you suppose that the red line will continue to closely follow the blue line for the second half of July?


 


15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 12, 2020, 11:22:36 PM »
I'm sorry I haven't taken the time to circle back here and engage further lately.

But I'm glad to see some attention being paid to the state of the CAA, because the state of the CAA is not good. The strength of the CAA garlic press has always been the large, contiguous reserves of multiyear ice sheltered in the northern seas and channels or along the CAA/CAB frontier. Last year's crack exposed the core of those reserves to increased open-water albedo and to mechanical fracturing aided by the shearing force of the clockwise pack rotation.

The CAA, in part, had a pretty good winter. But one winter doesn't fix the damage; formerly contiguous MYI is now cobblestones of older (but potentially weakened) ice embedded in a FYI matrix. That's more vulnerable to traditional melt, and perhaps more vulnerable to mechanical pack deformation if we see another full-scale Crack again this year. Which seems increasingly plausible.

Meanwhile, the adjacent Beaufort looks to be in good shape, but it is benefiting in no small part to clockwise-exported MYI from the Crack. Lord M Vader posted a volume anomaly map a couple pages back that demonstrates the high positive anomaly at the western edge of the CAA/CAB boundary and into the Beaufort. The bulk of the Beaufort itself doesn't show markedly high anomalies, but to some extent that is merely because the imported MYI is buffering the region against what might otherwise have been more dramatic melt.

None of that means the Beaufort is in good shape. There's no viable mechanism to ship that ice back east to where it belongs. Whether now or in future, it will melt out. If we see further Crack export from the CAA, the Beaufort may even end the season with quite a bit of ice remaining, but counting that ice as a sign of health for the region is like counting post-apocalypse zombies as part of the "population".

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 02, 2020, 06:34:20 PM »
In case anyone is interested in an on-the-ground perspective on this year's melting season, I put together a time-lapse video using still images from the observatory's webcam here in Alert.  The video covers 12 days from June 18-30, which includes the record-breaking June high temperature of 18.6°C recorded on the 28th.


17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:22:09 AM »
I am at times amazed at the low quality English used by some of the native speakers on the forum

As a university professor in an English-speaking country, I can regretfully confirm that written English is weakening.

On the other hand, in a polyglot community like this one, just getting one’s meaning across is probably enough.

1. People who police others' informal writing on the internet deserve neither to be writing nor reading on the internet. It's petty. E.g., I *teach* EFL, yet rarely ever edit my posts anywhere on the internet and let tons of typos make their way into posterity, and occasional true errors... because it's petty to care about how people write on the internet!

 ::)

Because... (<--- Don't do that, e.g.)

2. Bill is correct. The *only* point of language is to move an idea from one head to another(s). (<--- Don't do that, either.) Anything else is gravy; only formal writing need be as accurate as possible.

3. Playing language cop can get one into some rather embarrassing moments, such as using low-quality English to accuse others of using "low quality English," which, I believe, would mean they used English vulgarities very well. If we are to take your post as written, as opposed to as intended, you have stated in text the opposite of what you intended.  :o

This is called irony. And hypocrisy. (<-- Don't do that one neitherhow.)

So, don't be petty. It's pretty petty. It's a pity and peculiar to be petty per people being pithy with said people's prose, pacishe? (<--- Do this. Have fun, that is.)

 ;)  ;D 8)

Toodles!

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 01, 2019, 04:07:04 PM »
Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent. We may not end up in the top 5 in a sea ice area metric (looking at UH AMSR2 and NSIDC daily data and extrapolating).

Wow, I didn't know you could predict the weather that far out, WD88!

Is it okay if I ban you if you are wrong, come September?  :)

19
Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: July 01, 2019, 06:12:19 AM »
It is quite simple to calculate what it takes to produce SLR of 1m/yr. Bear in mind that this would entirely deglaciate GIS in 6 yr, WAIS in four and all of AIS in under a century.

I) Begin with the radiative imbalance of the order of 1watt/m^2 or about 1e22 J.yr
If all that went into ice melt (far from it in real life) that would be about 6 cm/yr or about the same as MWP1A
So to get 1myr you would need
a) radiative imbalance of 16 watt/m^2 or around 1e23 J/yr
b) all of it going into ice melt

II)  other source of heat of that magnitude in the system is the ocean. So if you can get aroung 1e23 J/yr outta the ocean and put it in the ice sheet you might manage. Sy by boiling the ocean and putting hot water deluge as rain on the ice sheets

III) or you could alternatively create a supervolcano under one of the icesheets, or something like the Siberian or Deccan traps under them

Color me entirely unconvinced. "Everything else is very vague" might be true if you dont know any physics. Or havent read any of the literature.

And if you will not do arithmetic, you are doomed to talk nonsense. What do they teach in schools nowadays ? Clearly not nearly enuf.

sidd

Pages: [1]