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 - interstitial

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero
« on: February 09, 2021, 03:30:14 PM »

Thank fuck I have never breed I would not wish the inevitable dark future for humanity on any offspring of mine

Thank fuck I have. The future is always inevitably dark. Has been for millenia.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: January 20, 2021, 10:28:16 PM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 01, 2020, 08:24:41 PM »
How about:
1. High salinity increases ice melt
2. Warmer water increases ice melt
3. Large amounts of ice melting lowers both temperature and salinity of the surrounding water.
4. Shallow continental shelves allow Atlantic and Pacific ocean incoming currents (higher salinity and higher temperature) to remain in contact with ice while deeper ocean floors and continental shelf drop offs allow those same currents to flow under the upper less dense, less saline and colder surface layer.
5. Surface turbulence (caused by wind/ice movement) will have a greater mixing effect in shallow water than in deep water.
6.Shallow water will also heat more quickly regardless of incoming water than deeper water. And open shallow water will also increase in salinity because of surface evaporation.
7. Arctic shallow water is also almost entirely south of 80N latitude which means it is closer to both Atlantic and Pacific entry points, and is exposed to greater isolation earlier and for longer than deeper Arctic waters.

Conclusion - Salinity, Atlantic and Pacific currents, isolation, bathymetry, turbulence (weather), latitude, and warm/cold landmasses (air masses) all play a significant and varied roll in every melt season. Add in the preceding freezing seasons and the volume/area/extent of the ice pack and maybe we could predict the ending point of each melt season.

(Need a big computer, better measurements, and brilliant programers and we are all set.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 31, 2020, 11:14:49 AM »
Today's images the slow animation covering 25th to the 30th. The a slightly larger version of the animation on my twitter page too.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 11:56:38 AM »
Updates for today, plus a second concentration images with categories grouped in 10s.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 19, 2020, 05:58:27 PM »
Turkey has opened it's first solar panel manufacturing plant.  It has a capacity to manufacture 500 MW of panels annually.

Turkey opens 1st integrated solar panel manufacturing facility
Aug 19, 2020

Turkey on Wednesday witnessed the opening of the country's first and Europe and the Middle East’s only integrated solar panel manufacturing facility, which promises to further develop the country's renewable energy resources.

The facility will be operated through an investment of $400 million (TL 2.9 billion) at a 100,000-square-meter (nearly 25-acre) closed area and will employ 1,400 people, Erdoğan said in his speech.

Turkey has managed to become ninth in the world and third in Europe among countries that have increased their installed solar power capacity since it started bringing solar plants into action in 2014, Dönmez said.

With the commissioning of the plant, the share of solar energy in electricity production in Turkey will increase by 25% and the annual emission of 2 million tons of carbon dioxide will be prevented, the minister added.

Kalyon's facility will produce components for Turkey’s biggest solar power plant, which will be established in the Karapınar district of the central Anatolian province of Konya as part of the first solar Renewable Energy Resource Zone (YEKA) tender with a capacity of 1,000 megawatts.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: August 18, 2020, 10:06:11 PM »
Forget the Trump tweets. This is the Trump action that might actually kill us.

"It did this by using accounting gimmicks in its official regulatory cost-benefit analysis. In technical documents, the administration said it was no longer taking into account harms that climate change might have outside U.S. borders; and also that it was changing the “discount rate” — that is, reducing how much weight it placed upon future costs. It was Trump’s trademark isolationism and short-termism, made mathematically explicit.

The result? The Obama-era estimate of methane’s social costs were ratcheted down from about $1,400 per metric ton to just $55 under a Trump accounting scenario. Incidentally, the Trump administration was admonished for this same phony math in a court case blocking a related environmental rule last month."

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 17, 2020, 09:23:36 AM »
I appreciate your posts. Do you know how to automate gimp?

Chapter 2 and 3 in this link might be a good start:

Since the Gimp Script Fu syntax is not that simple, several things might be easier using ImageMagick in the command line mode:

For ImageMagick, there is also a Python API available, but I am not aware of its quality.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: July 31, 2020, 11:07:30 PM »
Well well,
At least now I know what denier blogs you read. Or at least one of them.

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: July 31, 2020, 08:52:13 PM »

Arctic sea ice / Re: HYCOM
« on: July 12, 2020, 11:44:34 AM »
"Keep up the good work interstitial  :)" +1 and thanks.

Arctic sea ice / Re: HYCOM
« on: July 05, 2020, 11:36:08 AM »
"Any idea what would cause those?" I think massive movements of of water caused by mslp highs/lows passing from land to sea, or vice versa,  or passing over Lomonosov and some by tidal surges in concert with those movements. The movements set up internal waves in deeper layers, these either cancel out or reinforce each other if the second then events like this occur and they're not uncommon in the Canada basin, looking at amsr2 on polarview you can see signs of these events and similar signs elsewhere but without Hycoms model.
Amsr2 data browser
 The ice strength gif of Beaufort shows the ice will not hold a crack, suggesting to me it's very weak.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 05, 2020, 09:24:38 AM »
El Cid,

The literature to date suggests that immunity among those who recover from severe disease fails at about 10% per month. For those with less severe disease it falls off faster. And for those asymptomatic, there appears to be little duration; though they don’t seem to suffer severe disease for what ever reason, whether genetic or other. 

This is not at all surprising for an RNA virus. And vaccine derived immunity is generally much less effective and much less durable than recovering from the disease. With an 85% vaccination effectiveness and an immunity fall off exceeding 10% per month, even without the virus mutating, everyone will need to be vaccinated every 6 months to a year just to provide sufficient immunity in the population to squelch the major virus spread. And that will not be sufficient to extirpate it.

With the D614G variant now displacing the D variant, communicability is reported to be 3 to 9 times as great, though with similar outcomes. At the same time, there has been an unexplained shift to lower death rates (circa 1% from 4.65%).

For the displacement, it is not yet clear whether this is a) displacement, b) reassortment with selective advantage, c) convergent evolution, or some combination of these or other unknown factors.

For the fatality rate decline, it is not clear whether this is from a) the shift to D614G,  b) shifting demographics for those sickened (younger), or c) something else such as older folks being more isolated and younger being more reckless, or something entirely different.

What is being observed is a whole lot more young folks in critical conditions in ICUs and other critical care facilities, and a lot more dying. In Houston and other cities the hospitals are now at saturation.

If before we had an Rt of 0.95, with a 3-9 fold increase in infectivity and no change in behavior, we now have an R0 of 2.45-8.55. (Chicken pox levels of transfer). If that doesn’t scare you, you simply aren’t paying attention.

COVID was an airborne hazard. Now there are strong assertions that the virus is airborne. That might mean the D614G variant is more dangerous as an airborne pathogen. Or, it may just mean that health authorities are beginning to freak out (justifiably) and are trying to make clear to people that they simply must wear masks.

To that point, there are not just the people and political problems in getting people to wear masks. There is the added problem that people in general fundamentally do not understand what masks do, and how they work, and more importantly how they fail. In my own limited excursions out into the world I saw people without masks, people with wholly ineffective masks, people with masks pulled down exposing their noses, and people pulling down their masks to talk.

What those show is an utter lack of basic knowledge or care. In many cases it seems that people are wearing masks more like a talisman or fashion accessory, not as a life saving functional piece of safety gear.

Lacking that basic knowledge, you can guess just how inadequate people’s actions are with contact transfer. Sheesh.

Beyond all of these, we have known since the beginning that 6 feet is not a magic number for distancing. It simply reduces the probability of transfer greatly. Due to particle sizes of droplets and settling velocities and other air phenomenon, infective particles can easily travel 20 plus feet, and have been recorded as causing infections at those distances, albeit at much lower frequencies.

Vastly more important is whether the space is indoors or out and what the air movement is. The particles that can and do transfer infection can hang in the air for hours. Outdoors the airflow dynamics, UV exposure, humidity and particulate levels leading to aggregation and settling all work to greatly lower the risk of transfer. That does not mean the risks go to zero. 

In the US, we had a horrible set of conditions going into the holiday. Many health departments seem to have gone to minimum staffing over the long weekend. That greatly blinds us to what is happening at precisely the time that a wide array of factors are coinciding to cause a dramatic increase in infections.

Do not be surprised by an absolute explosion in rates 7-12 days from now.  And equally do not be surprised by a surge in deaths 6-9 days after that.

It should be clear to people by now that “leveling the curve” was a failed plan from the outset. With that not achieving broad success, some key players now argue we must simply live with the virus, go back to work, and let the old folks die. That is unimaginably stupid. Yet, it is also an expected outcome from picking a bad approach in the first place. Economic pressures were always going to become a major factor.

Yet, the dynamics remain he same. Simply sacrificing a large portion of society also will not work, and will lead to maximum deaths, disabilities AND economic destruction. The worst of all worlds. Yet that is where we seem to be headed.

Until people can grasp that people are not in charge, that the virus is, I see little hope for resolution. Without that understanding and the willingness to take on this problem properly with maximum controls, we are consigned to an on-going tragedy that lasts many years, and perhaps a decade.

People are holding out hope that a vaccine will end this. That is I fear a left over belief from a bygone age in a magic bullet solution. And that is as daft as believing that it will just magically go away.

It won’t just magically go away. There will be massive societal and personal pain ahead. And who knows, if we are just stupid enough - or more properly if we continue to be just stupid enough - perhaps we can look forward to the full collapse and disintegration (literally to break up into parts) of the American empire.


Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: July 02, 2020, 09:56:04 PM »
I think all grids are undergoing  change and meeting resistance from the existing operators who seek to persevere both their profits and their obsolete fossil fuel  centralized generation paradigm at the cost of our climate .
It was not possible to a address Nannings comments with out spending the time to look into the local system and reasons for the failure to advance towards renewable generation.
GSY was just trolling  and added nothing of value besides exposing  more commentators to examples of his idiocy.   

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: June 17, 2020, 08:42:07 PM »
A little graphical history of the SSM after the February calving.
I don't remember if I promised her or not...
Anyway, she' s here.


If one were to zoom in with a powerful enough microscope, they would see that the ice and the brine are discrete entities.

In liquid state, sea water is H2O molecules bound by hydrogen bonds (intermolecular bonds) with salt ions (Na+ and Cl-) dissolved in solution.

During the freezing process, the salt ions and some of the H2O molecules are separated from the rest of the H2O molecules. The crystal lattice of ice is composed of only H2O molecules bound together by intermolecular bonds. Consider this lattice to be similar to a house which is held together with wood and screws.

The brine exists in the spaces within the lattice, but is not part of the lattice itself. The brine is like a sofa inside a house. It fits inside the house, but it is not a component of the ice house and does not impact the strength (heat) required to dismantle the ice house.

As you indicate, the brine does exit the ice lattice over time... by escaping through the spaces in the lattice. Most of the brine exits within a year of ice formation.

The lattice portion of the ice house is the same in the Arctic as the ice in your freezer and melts at the same temperature.

As one who in my chemistry career used salt-ice baths to achieve lower than 0ºC temperatures I wish to correct the physical chemistry referred to in this post.

When water freezes into ice, the hydrogen bonds make a hexagonally shaped network of molecules inherent to the structure of ice.
When a solute is added to water the ordering of the solvent molecules is disrupted. This means that more energy must be removed from the solution in order to freeze it.
When salt is added to water, the resulting ions in the water disrupt the usual network of hydrogen bonds made upon freezing. As a result, the freezing point of the solution is lower than it is for the pure solvent. This is termed freezing point depression.  As the ice warms up the network of hydrogen bonds (referred to above as the lattice) requires less energy to be broken up so the melting point is lower.
Because the solubility of the salt decreases with temperature some of the salt is rejected, forming brine pockets.  These brine pockets get eliminated over time but some salt remains in the ice disrupting the structure. In multiyear ice the salt content will ultimately reach the solubility of the lowest temperature the ice has reached so in thick MYI you'd expect lower salinity at the top vs. the bottom.

Here's an amusing video illustrating the difference in melting between saline and pure water ice.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:00:54 AM »
PIG (Pine Island Glacier):
The component that is fed by the PIG: actually now there are no more problems, that there used to be, and it's becoming more reasonable to call it PIG. Let's keep the contexts where we will have to make the difference between the grunded and the floating part and in these cases we will add this information.
I will therefore no longer use the name MIS, which is becoming obsolete.
It is bordered :
> to the north by the NSM (Northern Shear Margin), which separates it from a small ice shelf to the east and south of Even's Knoll for which I use the acronym NE-IS (Northeast Ice Shelf). If there was a need to name its tributary, which is nameless, one could use the term NE-IS Tributary
> to the south by the SSM (Southern Shear Margin), which separates it from the SIS (Southern Ice Shelf).

The SIS is fed
> by the SWT (Southwest Tributary).
> by an unnamed tributary, numbered by an author, T11. I suggest you use the term SIS Tributary.
> by a small unnamed tributary east of the SIS Tributary, which remains unnamed.

NIS (Northern Ice Shelf) this part north of Evens Knoll is no longer associated with the PIG, excluding this ice rise, it is no longer part of the Ice Shelf associated with the PIG.

Further upstream, just before the grounding line there is an important tributary of the PIG (glacier), it is numbered T9. Sadly in a not too distant future it will become very important (it will assume the function that once was the SWT). I see no other solution than to call it T9 until it is given a name.

For rifts/iceberg fields we can continue to use the term ZD (Zone of Destruction):
> NZD (Northern Zone of Destruction) rifts field North of NSM (upstream)
> SW-ZD (Southwest Zone of Destruction) rifts field South of SSM (upstream)
> SE-ZD (Southeast Zone of Destruction) rifts field South of SSM (downstream)

Important Temporary Elements to Follow for New Calvings :
> points: P2, P3, ...
> the marginal rifts mR2, ...
> central rifts cR1, ...
> SWT/SIS rifts: sR2, sR3, ...
We'll also keep Cork3 and Cork4 in line.

PS: Usually I always note the acronyms in the images and I'll continue to do so, being very vigilant.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 19, 2020, 02:03:07 AM »
Thanks for all the stats, sig. Unfortunately, I am not well enough versed in that field to follow most of the discussion. If you, or someone else who is, could give a 'translation' and maybe evaluation of the various claims, it would be much appreciated.

Okay, wili, I'll try. The problem is that no test is 100% accurate. The question under scrutiny is how likely are they to have a false positive Covid result? The first paragraph of the results section shows how they tested this. They had 30 pre-Covid samples in Stanford; the test said all 30 were negative. The manufacturer said they tested 371 pre-Covid samples, and 369 were negative, i.e. they had 2 false positives, so the test has 99.5% specificity.

In Santa Clara, 1.5% of their results were positive, so they concluded the true prevalence was 1.3% (first figure), then scaled this up based on the population they sampled relative to the population of the county based on zip code, race and sex. The problem is, what if their test really wasn't 99.5% accurate? If it was only 98.5% accurate, then their 1.5% reading could be all false positives (second figure).

The second author (John Cherian) uses a statistical technique called bootstrapping to look more closely at their possible error ranges, especially if they look at the uncertainty of the test accuracy and the sampling before they scale up based on the population characteristics, and arrived at the distribution shown in the third figure, which is spread out more broadly than the authors conclude, and includes zero true prevalence, as Richard suggested. The fourth figure shows his estimate of a distribution of the test accuracy (specificity), rather than being a point value of 99.5%.

There's a sentence in the statistical annex to the paper that acknowledges this issue and sums it up:
There is one important caveat to this formula: it only holds as long as (one minus) the specificity of the test is higher than the sample prevalence. If it is lower, all the observed positives in the sample could be due to false-positive test results, and we cannot exclude zero prevalence as a possibility.

So a lot is riding on those two false positives out of 371 in the manufacturer's test validation. If more people in a population have Covid, this issue of testing accuracy becomes less important. As more tests occur in more jurisdictions and are repeated over time the picture will come more clearly into focus. We just need to be cautious about drawing conclusions too broadly from this initial study, especially before peer review, which would perhaps highlight this or other issues. That's my understanding of it, anyways.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 04, 2020, 03:36:17 PM »
Profiting from misery: How Trump Team is making money from the pandemic

Want to know how it works?

1.) Eliminate oversight of the spending of nearly a trillion dollars of tax dollars:

2.) Aquire the authority to command which businesses get which contracts:

3.) Have trusted people stand up companies through which the money can be funneled (3 week old company, founded through a loan approved via the Coronavirus Stimulus bill, is now the center of medical supply distribution): “I don’t want to overstate, but we probably represent the largest global supply chain for Covid-19 supplies right now,” he said. “We are getting ready to fill 100 million-unit mask orders.”

4.) Have the federal government sell, at a reduced price, it’s strategic stockpile to the new companies, run by your buddies:

5.) Have the states bid on the supplies, driving up the price:

6.) Have the federal government spend taxpayer dollars to ship supplies purchased from China to these brand new private companies:

7.) Eliminate the competition. Attack any company that doesn’t play ball.

As is tradition for the GOP:

...Klein argues that neoliberal free market policies (as advocated by the economist Milton Friedman) have risen to prominence in some developed countries because of a deliberate strategy of "shock therapy)". This centers on the exploitation of national crises (disasters or upheavals) to establish controversial and questionable policies, while citizens are excessively distracted (emotionally and physically) to engage and develop an adequate response, and resist effectively.

Although even in times of peace and calm, the Republican party works hard to a) make sure sure your tax dollars are going to favored individuals and companies, and b) make sure you have to spend your non-tax dollars with favored companies. Michael Lewis detailed in The Fifth Risk how AccuWeather and Sen. Rick Santorum attempted this; it's just one example out of thousands over the years.

Link >>

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: March 19, 2020, 08:21:03 PM »
Greetings from Midway Georgia,
 I've been lurking here for years, but after some 26 tears online, this the very 1st forum that I have ever joined.  This is my 5th attempt to make a post, so bear with me as i learn the ropes :)
 I've been alarmed by the huge export through Farm and subsequent melting signified by the foam left over from the melting ice in the GS as illustrated by the attached image.
 Also included in the image of some beautiful cloud vortices.  It's too bad that they overlay a field of death for ice,-1205274.273347458,1466593.3212968977,-680986.2733474581&p=arctic&t=2020-03-18-T19%3A13%3A07Z


think good thoughts, do good deeds, enjoy good results

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 17, 2020, 02:02:55 AM »
We've done fairly well in the past at keeping our disagreements civil. Everyone is understandably on edge. We can and have done better.

I've found that wearing a mask and gloves keeps everyone at bay, surely not a bad outcome.

The "bus graph" showed everyone masked was OK. Otherwise those within 4.5 meters of the carrier were at risk.

Two of the Scandinavian countries report problems among the young. One reported 50% of the infected were under 60, the other reported the 50% line to be at 50 years. Bad news for the young!

We need more testing and more tracking, testing and isolating of those that have been exposed.

Stay isolated, stay healthy, stay in touch and stay friendly.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: March 14, 2020, 04:14:02 PM »
Just my advice pietkuip, it is one thing to be right and one thing to be smart about it.
State your opinion clearly once (use less harsh language) and certainly don't continue back-and-forth arguing, especially if it's a one-on-one discussion. Readers here have eyes to see and brains to think and they will come to their own conclusions, have no fear. Even more importantly, don't make it personal and don't take it personal.

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:42:19 PM »
GRACE-FO is producing updated Ice-sheet mass loss data at

The full file includes a lot more detail that I have not yet looked at. I think it divides Antarctica up into basins.

So here is a summary graph. There is a data gap from June 17 to May 18, and regularly monthly updates only started this year.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:21:05 PM »
What's new in Greenland is GRACE-FO Data

To May 2019.  To be found at

Graph attached.
Note the data gap June 2017 to May 2018.
Regular monthly data only just started.

You saw it here first - on the ASIF

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 18, 2019, 04:53:18 AM »

a model still are going towards a huge Ridge over two-thirds of the Arctic and now it's modeled that happen within 4 days.

it's not like we haven't seen warm air for a while anyways over half the Articles been blasted however this is a little bit bigger and will cause some major ice lost in the ESS.

is this just paying out and persist in early July we could see the SS collapsed earlier than we ever have seen

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 15, 2019, 12:49:33 AM »
unihamburg amsr2uhh overlaid onto ascat with 100% ice (normally white) set to transparent. The amsr2 overlay is 70% transparent to allow other features of ascat to show through, notably greenland. It also helps to make the 'weather' over open water less distracting.
Similar to last year the wash of warm weather has revealed fractures in the older ice that were not visible previously.
thanks to A-Team for helpful hints, some of which need further work,2558.msg205561.html#msg205561

Antarctica / Re: Halley base shut down and new crack in Brunt shelf
« on: June 14, 2019, 08:01:47 PM »
From Adrian Luckman:  animation of the McDonald Ice Rumples on Brunt Ice Shelf

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 14, 2019, 07:16:57 PM »
Via Rasmus Tonboe and Steffen Olsen on Twitter:

A modest melt pond off North West Greenland, quite possibly somewhere near Qaanaaq according to Ruth Mottram:

But we do have to pay the bill.

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:21:16 PM »
Here I am testing an AI algo for removing passing weather artifacts from a Smos-Smap ice thinness color overlay on Ascat for 66 days beginning April 1st and ending June 5th 2019. Smos-Smap v205 looks like it will be continuing throughout June and maybe the whole summer.

See #27 for a similar overlay ending two weeks earlier; note its original color key survives intact whereas Ascat processing map of sigma-0 is quite complex though original brightness values can still be read if a copy of the original layer is left floating underneath as the cryptic active layer.

The basic idea is that passing polarization in the atmosphere confuse the satellites more and more as the melt season progresses. This gives rise to rapidly moving artifacts that only last for a few frames. Colors persist and grow outwards from where the ice is genuinely thin. Oddly AMSR2, while having weather artifacts of its own, has them at different places and so can be used to screen Smos-Smap but here one wonders if it is a swath timing issue.

Another approach that helps later in the season is to discard isolated colors in the central basin. Operationally, the contiguous (connected) color picker in Gimp can select the valid thinness fringing the ice pack and near troublesome island polynyas like Wrangell's. At any rate, the second mp4 below had many of the putative artifacts in the original mp4 removed.

However there is always the risk of removing something unusual and newsworthy like a newly healing lead or thin ice at the Pole so it may be better just to view as-is with the understanding improbable isolated colors are likely just passing weather not representing anything in the ice.

Thinning has really accelerated in the last 4-5 days on the Svalbard-FJL line (gif). The beige in Smos-Smap turns to color at 0.5 m and below. In other words, a lot of ice was very thin already, in the 0.5 - 0.7 m range.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Do we make too much of 2012 ?
« on: June 07, 2019, 01:10:09 PM »
Do we give too much importance to ASI extent and we should focus more on ASI volume?

Find me daily volume numbers to drool over and I'll stop salivating over extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 05, 2019, 03:36:27 PM »
HAH! Caught in the act!

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:07:52 AM »
The worst short-term consequence of climate change is the rise of the Internet troll as a full-time job  :P Thank godNeven for keeping this place clean.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: May 28, 2019, 03:07:44 PM »
Animation of the Arctic Basin (with exaggerated contrast) sea ice concentration compared with 2016.

Click to start.

Policy and solutions / Re: When will CO2 emissions peak?
« on: May 28, 2019, 10:15:29 AM »
CO2 emissions could peak this year, if the US China trade spat turns into a trade war and in turn provokes a financial and economic crisis (dodgy loans again). Some sort of economic downturn is overdue. 

But that could be a temporary peak, as to get world GDP back onto the infinite growth path quick and dirty economic stimuli are applied. I.e. rather than accelerating investing in emission reduction such as renewable energy production, EVs and energy efficiency, and CO2 sink enhancement measures such as forestation, the opposite will be done.

There will be CO2 emissions for many years yet. The effectiveness of the CO2 sinks will decline. I do not believe in the magic bullet of CO2 capture and sequestration. So atmospheric CO2 ppm will increase for many years yet, possibly at a reduced rate from its current rate of 2.5 to 3 ppm per annum.

What happens to the planet and the biosphere will depend on the final maximum value of CO2 ppm plus the other greenhouse gases, and I will be a long time dead and buried by then.

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 25, 2019, 06:09:18 PM »
Here I am testing another double-masking of Ascat, this time with U Bremen SMOS-SMAP new thinness product instead of UHH AMSR2 low sea ice concentration and open water. This product is provided at a very generous scale of 1173 x 2170 png, a big improvement in resolution (if it is real and not just a rescale). It comes with a satisfactory land mask too. png archive back to 31 Mar 2015

Because thinness and concentration are fairly similar in location in that edges of the ice pack have thinner ice as well as lower ice concentrations, it isn't feasible to triple-masking because of the extensive overlap in areas affected.

This combination of two satellites seemed to have extended the season well past the previous SMOS-by-itself terminal date of May 1st. However farther along in the season as melt ponds and liquid clouds become important, both the SMOS-SMAP thinness and Ascat products will likely deteriorate (or the former not even be archived).

The mp4 shows 53 days from April 1st to May 23 of 2019. A larger view is needed because ice thinness in peripheral seas such as Bering, Barents and Kara is more important than in the central Arctic Ocean this time of year. Both SMOS-SMAP and Ascat have a few missing days or partial images which I replaced by adjacent complete ones; this happens as well with UHH AMSR2 but less frequently.

The May 23rd looks like it has a blob of weather in the northern western Beaufort interfering with proper thinness determination. Ice thinness doesn't change as rapidly as weather or melt or and persists from frame to frame. These artifacts could be edited out manually or by AI per the criteria stated.

On scaling, SMOS-SMAP needs an enlargement of 104.414 to fit the smaller AMSR2uhh whereas Ascat needs 228.084 so to match SMOS-SMAP to Ascat requires 228.084/104.414 = 218.442 magnification of Ascat. I measure from the Aleutians to southern Sweden to get the largest pixel lengths to compare as this reduces percent error in the scaling ratio.

The AMSR2 masking shown a couple of posts back covered 30 different days so I am not reposting it here. "30 days of Ascat land and water masked to 24 May 2019.mp4"

Combined SMAP–SMOS thin sea ice thickness retrieval
C. Patilea et al U Bremen AWI 28 Feb 2019 free full text

Consistent Combination of Brightness Temperatures from SMOS and SMAP over Polar Oceans for Sea Ice Applications
AU Schmitt, L Kaleschke April 2018 free full text where to get the pngs

The passive microwave sensors Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS) and Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) provide brightness temperature data at 1.4 GHz. At this low frequency the atmosphere is nearly transparent and in polar regions the thickness of thin sea ice can be determined up to 0.5m for an extended period into the spring.

The thickness of ice partly determines the resistance against the deforming forces of wind and ocean currents. Even a thin layer of sea ice inhibits evaporation, reduces heat and gas exchange between ocean and atmosphere and increases the albedo. Sea ice — even if thin — also provides a solid surface for snow to deposit on, which further reduces heat exchange and increases albedo.

SMOS has been developed for retrieving soil moisture by inferring the surface emissivity which is correlated with the moisture content and sea surface salinity and link measured brightness temperatures with sea salinity through the dielectric constant of the water in the first few centimeters [[to which upwardly extruded brine or melt ponds might contribute]].

Effects of decimetre-scale surface roughness on L-band Brightness Temperature of Sea Ice
M Miernecki, L Kaleschke et al  03 Jun 2019 free full text

Sea ice thickness measurements with L-band radiometry is a technique which allows daily, weather-independent monitoring of the polar sea ice cover. The sea-ice thickness retrieval algorithms relay on the sensitivity of the L-band brightness temperature to sea-ice thickness. In this work, we investigate the decimeter-scale surface roughness as a factor influencing the L-band emissions from sea ice.

Most affected by surface roughness is the vertical polarization around Brewster's angle, where the decrease in brightness temperature can reach 8 K. The vertical polarization for the same configuration exhibits a 4 K increase. The near-nadir angles are little affected, up to 2.6 K decrease for the most deformed ice. Overall the effects of large-scale surface roughness can be expressed as a superposition of two factors: the change in intensity and the polarization mixing. The first factor depends on surface permittivity, second shows little dependence on it.

Every presidential candidate for 2020 except Warren and Sanders is sucking on Wall Street teat:

" “In the past, there was no candidate who didn’t come to New York, Chicago, L.A. for money,” says Lasry. “Today, there are two candidates who aren’t doing that—Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders.”  "

"Buttigieg, Biden, Gillibrand, and Booker are meeting with bankers and investors to talk policy or raise money. Those four campaigns didn't respond to requests for comment. "

"Buttigieg, Myers has had John Hickenlooper, the ex-governor of Colorado, and Jay Inslee, Washington’s governor, drop by his office for what he calls policy lunches. He says the idea isn’t to get them to go easy on Wall Street. What he really wants is to resist what he sees as the party’s socialist tilt while fighting Trump. "


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:59:51 AM »
be cause: can only guestimate area that heads out of the basin but it is a lot
Right. Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season. By translocating thicker, older ice into zones that will melt out later in the summer, or exporting ice altogether out of the basin via the Fram, Nares and Svalbard-FJL chain plus blocking Kara Sea ice on the import side, wind-driven ice motion may challenge conventional bottom and top melt this year as the leading ice volume loss mechanism.

The first image below shows  on mid-basin Atlantic-side feature drift (boundary between old and new ice) over the the last 195 days using twenty-day contours.

A similar area of ice ahead of the front has been (or will be if wind patterns keeps up) irreversibly displaced out of the basin. This area can be measured, not adjusting for compression or extension, by lifting geo-referenced Ascat images onto Google Earth Pro for its ellipsoidal (WGS84) area and length calculations (2nd image shows the 7.109 million sq km polygon of relevant Arctic Ocean.

Wx predictions are the proverbial drunk looking for her car keys under the street lamp because the light is better there -- winds thousands of meters above the ice are easier to predict than the 0m winds, yet only the latter actually move the ice pack (by coupling to pressure ridges and floe edges rather than flat pan).

You can see this on any given day by comparing ice motion vectors observed by OSISAF/NSIDC to winds GFS or ECMWF are showing, before or after reanalysis (3rd image). Surface currents are negligible (or as oceanographer R Woodward notes, induced by ice keels) outside the intake funnels of the Nares and Fram and inconsistent Bering Strait flows to/from the Chukchi. Note the ice pack has a certain amount of mechanical rigidity, leading to cohesive motion despite a heterogeneous stress field.

The Arctic Ocean is seriously 'under-instrumented', meaning models have never had sufficient calibration or feedback guidance. On the rare instances an instrumented ship has been out there in May (eg N-ICE spring 2015), measurements departed markedly even from nearby land stations like Ny-Ålesund. However nobody ever fixed a weather model or reanalysis based on a basin instrument account.

Help is in sight (with a 2-3 year delay?): this Sept, AWI's Polarstern will drift for a full year on a thick Siberian-side floe (lol !) to collect "direct in-situ observations of the climate processes that couple the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, bio-geochemistry and ecosystem ... to enhance understanding of the regional and global consequences of Arctic climate change and sea-ice loss and improve weather and climate predictions.

This won't be meagre point weather and ice properties because they are going out to a 50 km swath radius on both sides of the drift track. The 4th image shows a hypothetic drift trajectory. They'd have been home early this year whereas in 2017/18 the ship would hardly have moved in the hoped-for direction:

233 days of anti-transpolar drift 2017-2018.mp4,2278.msg155398.html#msg155398

The Oden made a remarkable observation of open water at the north pole on 25 Aug 18, photographing a walrus there, messing with a research sled. Ask yourself how much open water there had to be regionally for a walrus to swim to the NP on that date and when it last ate: the water is 4,087 m deep whereas the deepest walrus dive ever recorded is 500m.

This and a few little things like ice thickness went seriously under-reported (except by Jim Hunt and twitter). This has really got to change -- scientists chewing on their cud for years (buffing their journal articles) while leaving everyone else in the dark.

I had an identical experience trying to get even the most mundane CTD casts from the Polarstern when by great good fortune they were able to reach the Weddell Sea during that unprecedented reversal of the Fram in Feb 18 attributed to a sudden stratospheric warming. A cr*ppy article by another research group ensued who also couldn't get the data. Where is the public benefit in  hoarding?

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: May 13, 2019, 06:34:27 AM »
Next, I would like to make the same analysis with NSIDC data, with its much longer record (though at lower resolution). Tomorrow.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: May 13, 2019, 06:14:10 AM »
In the Ross Sea, there seems to be a change to lower minimums, and especially a marked change of a later refreeze (around day 133) - the years since 2016 are 0.5 million km2 lower than the years up to 2015.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 02, 2019, 07:04:23 AM »
Bimonthly BOE evaluation.

April 30 extent was 12,305,376 km^2. With on average 136 days to go until the end of the melt season on September 13th, we now require a daily drop of -83,128 km^2 for a BOE to occur. (See Attachment 1).

Surprisingly, there were several days of extent gain in April, and several days of low extent losses. Total extent loss in April was -1,069,805 km^2. And total extent loss so far this season is -1,965,745 km^2. This has resulted in the current average daily drop of -40,691 km^2. This is the 2nd fastest rate of melt from maximum to April 30th, behind 2010 at -43,748 km^2. Although, keep in mind that 2010's maximum was reached on March 31st. (See attachment 2 with graph :D).
Fun Addition: If the month of May ended today, 2019 would have the 3rd fastest rate of melt, behind 2010 and 2014.

Looking only at the month of April, we have averaged -35,660 km^2 per day (much slower than the March powerhouse of this season). This average daily drop places April 2019 as 7th out of 13 (2007-2019) in average daily April melt. (See Attachment 3).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 30, 2019, 05:05:23 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT :- 12,359,667 km2(April 29, 2019)
Including 2016 [2015-16] in the "JAXA ARCTIC Extent Gain (+) Loss (-) in Km2" chart would give a feel for the horse race these next two months.  [2018 is so 'last year'  :P ::) 8) :o ;D]

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: April 23, 2019, 01:49:47 AM »
The Antarctic Bedrock data was over 10 times harder to align than Greenland. There are hardly any landmarks, just plain white and with fast ice or ice shelfs you don't even know where the land begins. I had to use huge area images to align islands and then cut it down to individual glaciers. The bedrock resolution is just 1km/px as opposed to 0.15km/px for Greenland data.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: April 14, 2019, 11:18:18 PM »
A comparison of mercator(model) 318m salinity, feb1-apr13, 2018 and 2019. The reason this thread was started.

Policy and solutions / Re: Concentrated Wealth and Carbon Emissions
« on: April 14, 2019, 11:06:52 PM »
What is the goal of corporate power?

BTW, a great documentary I watched 15 years ago (how time flies!) on the subject of corporations is called... The Corporation. It was one of the first in a series of documentaries that completely changed my world view.

I've only seen part so far.  I agree that it conveys critically important messages.  I'll be watching the rest.

My point about this is that even if we magically equalized all wealth among all citizens--then without serious reform of corporate governance, we'd still have Exxon wanting to drill in the arctic and paying lobbyists to ensure that they'd be able to do so.

In Germany, corporations are required to have representation on their Boards of Directors from labor (so I've read).  Brilliant idea for reform.  There's no reason why corporations couldn't be required to also have representation from consumers and/or public policy experts, and/or ethicists.  That might change corporate behavior.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 09, 2019, 04:14:21 PM »
<snip, off-topic discussion, too many words; N.>

Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential
« on: April 07, 2019, 10:37:28 PM »
Thanks for the patience and support everybody.

Here is the AWP NRT link:

By the way I added a website icon which should be displayed next to the page name in the tab. Right now it's some melting sea ice in Beaufort Sea (2016) at super low resolution. Maybe I make a logo in the future.

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: March 30, 2019, 10:51:07 AM »
Even cheaper than carbon capture: pooling all available resources towards solar and wind generation, batteries and grid interconnects, will mean that we avoid emitting lots of that CO2 to begin with.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: March 28, 2019, 02:17:41 PM »
New Sea Ice comparison tool showing the number of Ice Free Days in a year and the anomaly compared to the long term baseline of 1979-2018.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: March 26, 2019, 04:37:00 PM »
Harbour Air to convert all its seaplanes to electric for first all-electric airline
Being billed as the “world’s first all-electric airline,” the partnership will see MagniX convert all of Harbour Air’s more than 30 seaplanes to electric. The planes will be powered by MagniX’s magni500, a 750-horsepower all-electric motor.

Harbour Air operates the largest all-seaplane fleet in North America. It flies 12 routes in the Pacific Northwest in Canada and the U.S., from cities like Seattle, Vancouver, and Victoria and smaller destinations. The company says more than 500,000 passengers fly on its 30,000 commercial flights each year. Founder and CEO of Harbour Air Seaplanes, Greg McDougall, said of the partnership:

“Harbour Air first demonstrated its commitment to sustainability by becoming the first fully carbon-neutral airline in North America in 2007, through the purchase of carbon offsets. Through our commitment to making a positive impact on people’s lives, the communities where we operate and the environment, we are once again pushing the boundaries of aviation by becoming the first aircraft to be powered by electric propulsion. We are excited to bring commercial electric aviation to the Pacific Northwest, turning our seaplanes into ePlanes.”

MagniX CEO Roei Ganzarski said,

“In 2018, 75 percent of worldwide airline flights were 1,000 miles or less in range. With MagniX’s new propulsion systems coupled with emerging battery capabilities, we see tremendous potential for electric aviation to transform this heavily trafficked ‘middle mile’ range. We’re excited to partner with Harbour Air, a forward thinking, like-minded company that is dedicated to bringing environmentally conscious, cost effective air-transport solutions to the West Coast of North America. This partnership will set the standard for the future of commercial aviation operators.” ...

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5