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 - Juan C. García

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: July 08, 2020, 07:14:19 AM »
Colourful speck appeared 7.7. on Greenland Ice Sheet, does anyone has larger image of the area? Fournier triangulation has contorted its colours. (I hope this is not volcanic eruption in the making, shouldn't be as Greenland is supposedly volcanically extinct, if it were would be bad omen for its ice).,-2646993.662074549,250535.7290737917,-2543027.7915132567&p=arctic&t=2020-07-07-T04%3A37%3A12Z&e=true

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 07, 2020, 12:19:32 AM »
I'm afraid I don't see it.  As long as we have surface temps at or above zero and insolation, the havoc will continue unabated.  I see no respite.

So, you're of the opinion that a surface temperature of 0.5C and 2.0C will yield the same melt rate, all other factors being equal?

My sense is that a stronger temperature gradient between the ice and surrounding air will lead to a faster rate of energy transfer.
The direct transfer of heat from atmosphere to ice is trivial compared to that delivered by insolation. 

The difference in heat passed to the ice directly from atmosphere at 5c is very small compared to 0c. 

This lack of impact ties back to the total enthalpy available in the air vs the phase change energy required to melt the ice.  The lack of available energy in the air is why surface temperatures even in summer tend to stay pegged at close to 0C, even over open water (especially in fact), as any available heat rapidly gets transferred.  Temperatures much above that are unusual, and typically require extensive melt ponds (which can be quite a bit warmer than the underlying sea water), or massive influxes of heat from farther south.

Even then, the amount of heat being carried doesn't stand up significantly to that from sunlight.
Without insolation, melt rates even at 10c would be measured in mm/day, and we were no where near that.  There isn't enough heat in the atmosphere, and it can't transfer fast enough.

Science / Re: Satellite News
« on: July 06, 2020, 07:46:16 PM »
Could ICESAT-2 replace the traditional NSIDC stats?

It seems IceSat2 uses lasers and does not see anything through the clouds.

It may be better for NOAA to make small satellites with radiometers that will measure the area of ice every hour, and not once a day.

Science / Re: Satellite News
« on: July 06, 2020, 06:23:18 PM »
My last post was deleted due to offtopic (?), so I answered in another thread.

Quote from: Gerontocrat
The current sensors have their limitations, but one must be grateful they exist at all. The NSIDc and JAXA instruments are well beyond their design life and as yet no announcements of compatible replacements to maintain the continuous 41 year record.

Thank you, Gerontocrat.  I understand better now.  It is sobering to think that we may be having thrill flights for the uber-rich up into space soon, and yet we might not be sending anything up there to replace the NSIDC and JAXA instruments.

You are incorrectly informed. JAXA firmly intends to launch into space a replacement AMSR2, AMSR3, around 2023.

This spring there was even news that the manufacturer of the new satellite was selected.

In the near future, we will only lose NSDIC data. They are low resolution, and now are of little value.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 04, 2020, 11:57:29 AM »
The Siberian side using uni-hamburg amsr2-uhh, jun1-jul3. click to run

Also a look at the hudson-baffin area using uni-hamburg amsr2-uhh, jun1-jul3. click to run

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 04, 2020, 03:31:31 AM »

Thanks for your post. Could you share the link of this website?
A note of caution many of the more experienced members don't put much value in this model. There is some disagreement on the mater

probably should start here

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 23, 2020, 11:47:36 AM »
Copernicus offers extremely strong suggestion for the high prevalent Siberian temperatures being exacerbated which will have overspill effect for the melting of the Arctic sea ice for the rest of this season:,36,2020062212&projection=classical_arctic&layer_name=composition_ch4_500hpa

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 23, 2020, 06:34:12 AM »

Spring 2019 (left) & Spring 2020 (right) from ERA5 reanalysis courtesy around the #Arctic. Both years saw regions that were more than 6C above the 1981-2010 average: Alaska & NW Canada in 2019, and western Siberia this year.

Updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Click to size.

PIOMAS gridded thickness data was updated to day 167 (15/16th  of June). Calculated volume on that day was 16.734 [1000 km3], 6th lowest for the day.

Here is the animation of this year's "june cliff" in progress.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2020, 06:22:16 PM »
I think Phoenix was saying the one day loss would have been around 300 (actually it would be 296) to jump the 5-day average from -136 yesterday to -168 today.
Yes, but the NSIDC don't put up a data file with daily area data @

And NSIDC know that daily area data is very prone to error, and 5-day averages smooth most of that away.

I also think NSIDC re-evaluate the current year's data sometime in the following year so I keep the previous 2 years open to pick up any late changes. Not an exact science -melt ponds & artefacts can screw up all the sensors..

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 15, 2020, 06:24:41 PM »
There have been relentless spring-summer-fall anomalies there for a long time. I suspect this year will be the worst too

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 07, 2020, 08:32:21 PM »
Here is another volume chart, in which 2020 is currently at record low. High Arctic seas, excluding the CAB and the CAA. Some of the extra CAB volume is balanced by missing volume in adjacent seas. What does it mean? I am not sure but at the end of the season we will learn some more.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 07, 2020, 08:15:14 PM »
It would be interesting but, I guess, I will not have weekly updated data.

Experimental chart 2. Is it egg or nut?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 06, 2020, 10:46:04 PM »
Regional ice volume. Experimental chart 1.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 03, 2020, 11:10:57 AM »
Thickness map for day 152, compared with previous yeas and their diff's. Click for size.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 03, 2020, 10:47:47 AM »
The volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Click to size.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 03, 2020, 10:28:16 AM »
PIOMAS gridded thickness data has updated to day 152 (~1 June). Calculated volume was 19.6 [1000 km3], 6th lowest on that day of year.

Here is the May animation.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 01, 2020, 01:03:32 PM »
interesting update on methane release from Arctic permafrost

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 20, 2020, 03:27:30 PM »
I do not see it.  There is simply not enough incoming heat radiated into the Arctic to melt all that ice.  Since the beginning of the satellite era, June average ice extent has only decreased 14%, and shows no acceleration.  That is not an extremely large change in albedo.  I disagree with your exponential process, as those areas with open water have resulted in increased cloud cover, tempering the albedo effect.  Hence, albedo is less likely to rule the system.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: May 15, 2020, 10:27:09 PM »
NOAA has updated the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index through the end of 2019.

AGGI2019 = 1.45
CO2 equivalent = 500 ppm

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 14, 2020, 03:21:55 PM »
Something happens this year. Lack of snow in Siberia leads to extreme heatwaves there. And this heat may reach the Arctic Ocean.

The linked opinion piece indicates that some (many) consensus climate scientists err on the side of least drama, ESLD, because they are concerned that the general public 'can't handle the truth'.  However, this piece suggests that effect climate action will not be taken until humankind reaches a tipping point and moves into what the article call 'emergency mode'.  If so then the ESLD behavior of many consensus climate scientists is delaying the transition of the general public into a mode where it can reach the level of commitment needs transform our collective actions/systems:

Title: "Climate change: Are we getting into emergency mode?"

Extract: "Opinion - The poet T.S. Eliot once said that 'humankind cannot bear very much reality'. The truth of these words is about to be tested as humanity increasingly wakes up to the reality of climate change.

In the past, some experts have been concerned that if people are presented with the brutal reality of what may be the consequences of climate change, it may overwhelm them. There may be reactions of panic, denial, despair or a head-in-the-sand approach. However another school of thought, lead by ex-NASA climate scientist Dr Jim Hansen, is that scientists should actually be 'less reticent' when talking to the public.

So as public worry about climate change increases, how will it be manifested? Mass panic maybe? Psychologist Dr Margaret Salamon has another theory. She believes that what is happening now, as evidenced by things like Extinction Rebellion and the school strikes, is that people are adopting what she calls emergency mode. She sees this as a very positive climate change development that should be encouraged. She talks about how the US during the second world war moved full-on into such an emergency mode. It then massively transformed its economy and society in the face of an existential threat. Emergency mode is characterised by focusing on the problem as a top priority; making huge allocations of resources to attempt to reduce it; and, citizens pitching in with their talents and resources to address the predicament."

The linked reference not only finds that the mean annual air temperature, MAAT, in Northwestern Alaska is already within the range that consensus climate models projected would not occur until 2100 following RCP6.0, but also that the projected drainage of future thermokarst lakes will reduce the ability of the associate permafrost areas to sequester carbon in the lake bed sediments as indicated by the following extract:

"Recent MAAT are already within the range of predictions by UAF SNAP ensemble climate predictions in scenario RCP6.0 for 2100.  With MAAT in 2019 exceeding 0 °C at the nearby Kotzebue, Alaska climate station for the first time since continuous recording started in 1949, permafrost aggradation in drained lake basins will become less likely after drainage, strongly decreasing the potential for freeze-locking carbon sequestered in lake sediments, signifying a prominent regime shift in ice-rich permafrost lowland regions."

Nitze, I., Cooley, S., Duguay, C., Jones, B. M., and Grosse, G.: The catastrophic thermokarst lake drainage events of 2018 in northwestern Alaska: Fast-forward into the future, The Cryosphere Discuss.,, in review, 2020.

Abstract. Northwestern Alaska has been highly affected by changing climatic patterns with new temperature and precipitation maxima over the recent years. In particular, the Baldwin and northern Seward peninsulas are characterized by an abundance of thermokarst lakes that are highly dynamic and prone to lake drainage, like many other regions at the southern margins of continuous permafrost. We used Sentinel-1 synthetic aperture radar (SAR) and Planet CubeSat optical remote sensing data to analyze recently observed widespread lake drainage. We then used synoptic weather data, climate model outputs and lake-ice growth simulations to analyze potential drivers and future pathways of lake drainage in this region. Following the warmest and wettest winter on record in 2017/2018, 192 lakes were identified to have completely or partially drained in early summer 2018, which exceeded the average drainage rate by a factor of ~ 10 and doubled the rates of the previous extreme lake drainage years of 2005 and 2006. The combination of abundant rain- and snowfall and extremely warm mean annual air temperatures (MAAT), close to 0 °C, may have led to the destabilization of permafrost around the lake margins. Rapid snow melt and high amounts of excess meltwater further promoted rapid lateral breaching at lake shores and consequently sudden drainage of some of the largest lakes of the study region that likely persisted for millenia. We hypothesize that permafrost destabilization and lake drainage will accelerate and become the dominant drivers of landscape change in this region. Recent MAAT are already within the range of predictions by UAF SNAP ensemble climate predictions in scenario RCP6.0 for 2100. With MAAT in 2019 exceeding 0 °C at the nearby Kotzebue, Alaska climate station for the first time since continuous recording started in 1949, permafrost aggradation in drained lake basins will become less likely after drainage, strongly decreasing the potential for freeze-locking carbon sequestered in lake sediments, signifying a prominent regime shift in ice-rich permafrost lowland regions.

Extract: "The recent events potentially show the fate of lake-rich landscapes in continuous permafrost along its current southern margins, where near-surface permafrost degradation accelerates and permafrost will become discontinuous in the next decades. The colder less dynamic lake-rich coastal plain of northern Alaska may become more dynamic once climatic patterns will have moved towards the middle-to-end of the century.

Under a rapidly warming and wetting climate, in conjunction with ongoing sea ice loss in the Bering Strait, we expect a further intensification of permafrost degradation, reshaping the landscape and a transition from continuous to discontinuous permafrost, and significant changes in hydrology and ecology."

The linked article indicates that:

"The boreal forest that rings the northern tier of the world is burning at a rate unseen in 10,000 years."

This is not good news, especially when we consider that the COVID-19 outbreak in Russia will suppress wildfire fighting effort in Siberia this year:

Title: "Siberian Wildfires Have Burned an Area More Than Three Times the Size of Delaware"

Extract: " Russia has had a rough go of it this year. It set a record for its hottest winter ever and Moscow basically skipped the season entirely. The heat has continued into spring, and now, the Siberian countryside is on fire. Emergencies Minister Yevgeny Zinichev called it a “critical situation,” according to the Siberian Times.

The boreal forest that rings the northern tier of the world is burning at a rate unseen in 10,000 years. Rising temperatures have played a role by drying out forests and priming them to burn and creating conditions where fires are more likely to spread. That releases carbon dioxide, ensuring ever larger fires by heating up the planet further."

The reported recent surge in deforestation of the Amazon rainforest pushes this somewhat fragile ecosystem closer to a climate tipping point:

Title: "Deforestation in Brazil's Amazon surges, Bolsonaro readies troops"

Extract: "Deforestation in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest rose sharply in April, government data showed on Friday, as the coronavirus outbreak keeps many environmental enforcers out of the field and the country prepares to deploy troops to fight illegal logging.

Destruction in Brazil’s portion of the Amazon increased 64% in April, compared with the same month a year ago, according to preliminary satellite data from space research agency INPE.

In the first four months of the year, Amazon deforestation was up 55% from a year ago to 1,202 square kilometers (464 square miles), according to the INPE data."

The linked article presents an edited extract from The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis by Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac; which considers a consensus climate science evaluation of a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050; which is bad enough for most people:

Title: "‘The only uncertainty is how long we’ll last’: a worst case scenario for the climate in 2050"

The linked reference used a survey of experts to indicate that AR5 likely underestimated the likely range of SLR.  For those who do not know it is common for consensus climate science to increase their SLR projections every few years, and I expect this trend for increasing consensus SLR projections every few years to continue until MICI-type failures are seen in the field by which time it will be too late to prevent abrupt SLR:

Horton, B.P., Khan, N.S., Cahill, N. et al. Estimating global mean sea-level rise and its uncertainties by 2100 and 2300 from an expert survey. npj Clim Atmos Sci 3, 18 (2020).

Abstract: "Sea-level rise projections and knowledge of their uncertainties are vital to make informed mitigation and adaptation decisions. To elicit projections from members of the scientific community regarding future global mean sea-level (GMSL) rise, we repeated a survey originally conducted five years ago. Under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 2.6, 106 experts projected a likely (central 66% probability) GMSL rise of 0.30–0.65 m by 2100, and 0.54–2.15 m by 2300, relative to 1986–2005. Under RCP 8.5, the same experts projected a likely GMSL rise of 0.63–1.32 m by 2100, and 1.67–5.61 m by 2300. Expert projections for 2100 are similar to those from the original survey, although the projection for 2300 has extended tails and is higher than the original survey. Experts give a likelihood of 42% (original survey) and 45% (current survey) that under the high-emissions scenario GMSL rise will exceed the upper bound (0.98 m) of the likely range estimated by the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is considered to have an exceedance likelihood of 17%. Responses to open-ended questions suggest that the increases in upper-end estimates and uncertainties arose from recent influential studies about the impact of marine ice cliff instability on the meltwater contribution to GMSL rise from the Antarctic Ice Sheet."

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: May 07, 2020, 02:11:39 PM »
Interesting Sono Motors blog entry on the integration of solar cells in the Sion exterior. This sounds very promising:

The more the battery is charged with solar power, the more efficient is the overall system. That is why the Sion always charges, standing or driving, and even in diffuse light. The MPPT Central Unit is wired in such a way that the solar power can be directly used for the engine and auxiliary units. The solar cells, therefore, support the Sion's propulsion directly with energy from the sun.

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:57:04 PM »
I add the graph for the NOAA gases (20y and 100y CO2 equivalents) from 2000 to 2020.
Please note that the linear fit does not perfectly match the data. The increase is of exponential nature (see my post in the CO2 thread from today).

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May 2020)
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:05:33 AM »
The volume and volume-anomaly graphs. Needs clicks for size and clarity.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May 2020)
« on: May 05, 2020, 10:03:30 AM »
PIOMAS has updated once again. Last date corresponds to day 121 of this year, which in the PIOMAS data is the first of May (ignoring the leap year). Volume (calculated from thickness) was 22.52 [1000km3], the sixth lowest for day 121.
The maximum seems to have been reached on day 105 (15th April) with a volume of 22.96 [1000km3].

Here is the monthly animation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 30, 2020, 03:42:47 PM »
the compaction graph from

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: April 28, 2020, 03:00:56 PM »
Below some excerpts from Why ‘Carbon-Cycle Feedbacks’ Could Drive Temperatures Even Higher. It is a nice summary so do read it.


last September at the National Institute for Space Research in the Brazilian research city of Sao Jose dos Campos. Atmospheric chemist Luciana Gatti was rushing to tell her colleagues the result of her latest analysis of carbon dioxide emissions from the Amazon rainforest, which she had completed that morning.

For a decade, her team had been sampling the air from sensors on aircraft flying over the world’s largest rainforest. Their collating of recent results showed that, perhaps for the first time in thousands of years, a large part of the Amazon had switched from absorbing CO2 from the air, damping down global warming, to being a “source” of the greenhouse gas and thus speeding up warming.

“We have hit a tipping point,” Gatti almost shouted, caught between elation at her discovery and anguish at the consequences. ... But now it no longer mattered if it was a wet or a dry year, or how many fires there were, the sink had become a source.


The scientists are warning that past climate models used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not fully reflected the scale of the warming that lies ahead as carbon sinks die. These revelations are coming from three areas of research:

1 Studies such as Gatti’s in the Amazon, showing forests turning from sinks to sources of CO2;

2 A new generation of climate models that incorporate these findings into future projections of climate change, and whose early outputs are just emerging;

3 Recent revelations that ecosystems are releasing rising volumes of methane, the second most important greenhouse gas and of vital importance for temperatures in the next couple of decades.

The extra emissions, known as carbon-cycle feedbacks, could already be making the prospect of keeping warming below 2 degrees Celsius — the target agreed to in the Paris climate accord in 2015 — all but impossible.


Non-tropical forests remain largely in carbon “sink” mode. But other tropical rainforests appear to be following the Amazon in moving toward becoming carbon sources. Wannes Hubau, now at the Royal Museum of Central Africa in Belgium, reported recently that “overall, the uptake of carbon into Earth’s intact tropical forests peaked in the 1990s” and has been declining since. The jungles of tropical Africa began showing increased carbon losses around 2010, he found.

Another big concern is the impact of thawing permafrost. ... One recent study in northern Canada found thawing had reached depths “already exceeding those projected to occur by 2090.”


The risks of such rapid runaway carbon releases to the atmosphere have been worrying ecologists for a while. That worry is now being reinforced by the projections of a new generation of climate models designed to factor in how ecosystems respond to climate change.

Until now, most climate models have largely confined themselves to assessing how our CO2 emissions warm the air, and how that warming interacts with physical feedbacks such as reduced ice cover, elevated atmospheric water vapor, and changes to clouds. This remains a work in progress. I wrote here on Yale Environment 360 in February how new field research suggests that the ability of clouds to keep us cool could be drastically reduced as the world warms, pushing global heating into overdrive.

When ecological feedbacks have been included in the models, it has mostly been in a very simplistic way. But new models being developed for the next IPCC assessment of climate science are changing that.


Even a scenario that is “reasonably consistent with currently enacted climate policies” could deliver up to 5 degrees C of warming rather than the current estimate of 3 degrees. This, Betts says, is “because the upper end of possible feedbacks results in 40 percent more CO2 in the air than previously supposed: 936 parts per million [ppm] by 2100, compared to a prediction without the carbon-cycle feedbacks of 670 ppm.” (Current levels are 415 ppm, and pre-industrial levels were around 280 ppm.)


The growing concern about CO2 feedbacks comes on top of alarm about trends in atmospheric levels of the second most important greenhouse gas, methane. These are more than twice pre-industrial levels, and after a decade of stability until 2007 they have been rising again sharply. The National Oceanic and Space Administration (NOAA) estimated this month that methane levels in the atmosphere reached a record 1,875 parts per billion in 2019, after the second largest year-on-year leap ever recorded.

How come? Euan Nisbet of Royal Holloway, University of London, says isotopic analysis shows industrial emissions such as those from fracking remain important sources of methane. But the major reason for the recent upsurge is microbial emissions, mostly from the tropics.


None of this methane increase is built into even the new climate models with carbon-cycle feedbacks. These models mostly assume that methane levels in the air will remain stable. But the concern is growing that, even if technology can reduce industrial emissions, a warmer world will drive a continuing surge in methane levels — and more warming as a consequence.

Methane typically lasts in the atmosphere for only a decade – much less than CO2. But while it is there, it packs a big warming punch. Measured over 20 years, each molecule of methane emitted has 84 times more warming effect than each molecule of CO2.

Climate models conventionally assess the warming impacts of greenhouse gases over a century. This effectively tunes them to emphasize the importance of C02, and relegates methane to an also-ran. But if they were tuned to the shorter timeframe, methane would appear almost three times more important.

It seems odd that this shorter timeframe is rarely adopted, given that the world risks exceeding its two-degree warming limit by 2050.
As Nisbet puts it, if natural ecosystems keep pumping out more methane as the world warms, “it may become very difficult to meet the Paris goals.”


Bottom line: we need lots of real carbon and methane reductions this decade.

In fact you can already argue that we have passed the tipping points. If we stopped emitting today we would still be in a world that keeps warming thus pushing up the methane emissions from the tropics and northern sources.

We would still have the amazon and northern permafrost as carbon sources.

We would still have ocean acidification get worse for decades etc.

So we cannot rely on markets to fix it, or technology to fix it.
We need real action which also includes sacrifices. Especially the historical big emitters (see vid above) should invest in going zero first and export those technologies but most won´t because they are captured by the carbon economy.

Hope is important but we have only 1 planet so we are going to have to live here anyway.

So we can´t give up hope anyway...but we need real action and then we have to hope for the best effects from that. 

We already gave the younger generation a huge set of problems to solve and i hope we make the AGW problem as small as we can this decade.

(Just imagine being born now or say 2010 and at age 20 figuring out how we got in this mess. It would piss me off.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 24, 2020, 07:36:14 PM »
Thank you for the chart grixm. It's worrying to see this year leading in that metric. Though it does appear that recent years bunch together come summer.
I join the tanks to grixm for the graph; much appreciated, and definitely timely per concerns further in this post.

I apologize for somewhat lengthy remainder of this post, but i think this is way too important; like, 2020's "must know" thing for the melting season (and for lots of other things too).

This is in response to the reference of "recent years" by Davidsd. This year is much different from recent years, and much more so than lots of people here could probably imagine.

1. China stopped most of its transport and industries for a fair while, and lots of it - half, give or take - are not back even now. This is now being followed globally: fuel burning by mankind is decreasing by the day, as reflected by oil prices;

2. This means less aerosols in the athmosphere, to say the least. Plenty cities in China were observing the stars clearly for the 1st time in decades, so strong was reduction in air pollution there. The normal effect of global dimming at the surface is quite massive on average over continents, too - over 10%, at places well over 15%, as was discovered by both pan-evaporation measurements, other methods and eventually multi-national 4-year INDOEX measurement effort (some details freely available here: ). In the same piece one can also find summary of findings about direct effect of absense of jet contrails, which was found to be much bigger and more rapid in practice than anticipated.

3. As a result, right now (as well as progressively stronger during last couple months as the situation develops) - significantly less sunlight gets "caught" by aerosols before it reaches surface, which means less of cyclones (direct consequence of comparatively less heat content in the air), so more shiny days on average scale, and faster melt ponding / top melt in the local scale. So far, most of GHG effect - in the Arctic as well as around the globe - was negated by aerosols in this way, and lots of it still is, but the changes are big enough to already be a game-changer as far as ASI melting season is concerned as a whole.

To understand the scale and importance of those effects, it is enough to remind oneself that industrial activities since the industrial revolution have injected nearly 5000 Tg of SO2 into the athmosphere, with recent years being ~7...10 Tg/year - and that famous Pinatubo eruption, responsible for significant cooling of whole Earth's climate, released only ~1 Tg of SO2. Thus, even "modest" 10% cut of aerosol emissions by mankind can produce changes comparable in magnitude to Pinatubo eruption - except not to cooling, but to warming the climate. Further details about how aerosols work and plenty references for great number of good papers - can be seen here: .

That same piece also describes timescales relevant for aerosols' lifetime in the athmosphere, which depending on type, size and source of a particle will vary from some hours to some months - with everything tropospheric leaning towards much shorter lifetimes (days to few weeks at best, usually) as precipitation washes 'em down to surface.

Same piece also mentions the following processes, to give a short quote here (by bold):

"In the stratosphere, strong zonal winds lead to fast homogenization of aerosols and tracers in the zonal direction, while vertical and meridional transport is controlled by the BDC [Holton et al., 1995; Butchart, 2014]. The BDC results from the breaking of upward propagating waves in the stratosphere that lead to a diabatic residual circulation [Holton, 2004]. The residual circulation is characterized by ascent over the tropics, poleward motion in the extratropics, and subsidence over the high latitudes, in particular over the winter polar vortex, ...".

So, with rather big uncertainties about how yet worse microbiological situation will become in the following weeks and months, but with rather big certainty that lots of intercontinental jet flights over the Arctic are not happening and won't be happening any time soon, i can easily conclude that "recent years" are not a predictor of anything, now.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 23, 2020, 03:21:28 PM »
latest DMI thickness map
Do you see the blue in the Chukchi sea? I think that's hot pacific water that will be penetrating deep into the CAP CAB this year. As I wrote here before, I believe that the slowdown of the AMOC is causing more pacific water to enter the arctic ocean. That water is also hotter now, so you get a double whammy. And strike three is this missing arm of thick ice that should be protecting the CAB. But that arm is also missing this season.

Increases in the Pacific inflow to the Arctic from 1990 to 2015, and insights into seasonal trends and driving mechanisms from year-round Bering Strait mooring data.

I created a new thread for the Bering Strait a while back because I believe that this will become a serious problem for the Arctic. If anyone is interested in discussing this, let's do it there.,2989.0.html

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: April 22, 2020, 10:05:54 AM »
New Study Says The North Pole Will Be Completely Ice-Free In Summer Before 2050, Even If We Curb Carbon Emissions

The title is a tad sensational.

1) The study points to a likelihood, while the title implies certainty.

2) The study indicates the likelihood declines in lower emission scenarios, while the title implies its the outcome is out of human control.

3) The study is indicating the likelihood of BOE level loss (1M km2 at minimum) while the title indicates complete loss.

It would be more responsible for the journalists and the study authors to better highlight the correlation between emission scenarios and likelihood of BOE 2050.
I don't have access to the study, but Dr. Dirk Notz is from Universität Hamburg, and they have also an internet page saying that:
"If we reduce global emissions rapidly and substantially, and thus keep global warming below 2 °C relative to preindustrial levels, Arctic sea ice will nevertheless likely disappear occasionally in summer even before 2050. This really surprised us" said Dirk Notz, who leads the sea-ice research group at University of Hamburg, Germany.
Here is a link to a freely available draft of the full paper. If anyone has use for it.
And below a pic of Table S4 from the supporting information.
And another one - figure 2 -  from the paper itself.

The updated Fram volume export graph, shows average export levels not abnormal for April.

The updated volume and volume-anomaly graphs (which get bigger when clicked upon).

PIOMAS has updated the gridded thickness data up-to day 106 (15 or 16 April, see previous announcements for the explanation). On that day volume was 22.94 [1000 km3], 6th lowest for the day.

Here is the animation for the first half of April.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: April 21, 2020, 02:24:19 PM »

I also agree with your last point that once we have a BOE, the warming process would seem to have a self reinforcing, "positive" feedback loop, i.e. More open arctic ocean collecting more solar insolation for more and more days in September, then August, and so on.

"a self reinforcing, "positive" feedback loop"?  By September insolation is in rapid decline. At high latitudes the months that matter for AWP are the two months either side of the June solstice, i.e. starting now.

A BOE will certainly be a significant symbol, but the Arctic climate wreckage must surely come from longer periods of open water earlier in the year, as may be happening again this year ?

Jim, I certainly agree that once we have the initial BOE, there will not be a sudden positive insolation feedback loop.   What I intended to convey is that as we get closer to a BOE, there will be an increasing amount of open ocean during earlier and earlier during the summer to get to a mid-September BOE.  It is those times earlier in the melting season that will start getting more of  the impact from the strong arctic insolation period, say from approximately May 1st to August 10th.

Arctic sea ice / Arctic Sea Ice In The Far Past
« on: April 19, 2020, 06:41:35 PM »
6000-7000 YEARS AGO NO SEA ICE IN ARCTIC OCEAN (not even in winter)

We at Sea Research Society have been concerned of the Ice Free Arctic Ocean 7000 years ago and I have raised this issue at the UK Parliament and at the United Nations many times:

"Geological Survey of Norway - Summary: Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free."

However, there is a serious caveat to this darling discovery of climate change denialists (it won their prestigious the coveted global 1st prize for best scientific research to expose "global warming scam"):

1) All year-open Arctic beaches that are lifted off the sea on northeast of Greenland are washed in the tail currents from Iceland and Jan Mayen further in the south. As we know these islands have come about as result of numerous Surtseyan eruptions of gigantic scales. Although recent Surtsey eruptions (from 6.11.1963 to 5.6.1967) caused only tiny heat emission (radial-diffusion from heat spot) to sea water, the spatially far larger prehistoric effusive eruptions of same type caused perpendicular field emissions with heat diffusion happening as evaporation via the sea surface (perpendicular field emission depends strictly on the ratio of heated seafloor's spatial extent to its overlying water column thickness). As of this, the Gulf Steam would then transport heated water northwards where it met at the shores of the Independence Fjord. (There is also sea current forming upwelling polnya here due to bottom ocean water rising in the area to give a localised heating a further helping hand.) So, do not believe 7k ago Arctic Ocean occurring ice-free all year round.

2) The tail-current catchment diffuses in and around North Pole where ice berg dropping stones from moraine (that had melted off from the bottoms of ice bergs) were found in a mixture with tropical algae (Apectodinium) which dies in temperatures below +24C. How could Apectodinium exist if the climate in the Arctic was cold enough for the ice bergs? Add here the perpendicular field emission of heat into sea currents from Iceland - Jan Mayen ridge region and you have a constant supply of winter-steam to precipitate on landmasses to build glaciers and ice bergs and also make tropical plants perfectly happy in this Santa Cloud jacuzzi of polar bears and reindeers. You would then also find coastal areas further away with lots of precipitation and melt with Azolla growing in their breakwaters while ice floes would form even further away, break away from the coast and then drift to warmer waters and drop pebbles to seafloor in area where Azolla could grow:

We at Sea Research Society have been working expeditions to extract Apectodinium and Azolla algae from frozen and freeze-dried permafrost ex-seabed in these elevated sands of Greenland to blow trumpet on Icelands geothermal behemoth on all this.

3) This has certainly been the case in Antarctic, but also Norway (and we propose Independence Fjord too as well as for Apectodinium and Azolla occurrence in ice berg and ice floe filled Arctic Ocean).

"In the Northern Hemisphere, scientists have also discovered fossil evidence of ice age refuges in the high latitudes, where plants such as white spruce trees thrived in places like Norway, despite chilly weather and giant glaciers. These "cryptic refugia" have not yet been directly linked to volcanoes or geothermal areas."

4) Cryptic refugia existed in Norway where spruce trees filled the mountain tops while the fjords were packed to the brim with snow and ice. Glaciers kept forming through the Ice Ages due to westerlies blowing in endlessly snow with a constant flow of latent heat to Norway coming from Greenland Sea. Norwegian refugia is nothing to do with any local volcano but heat from Mid Atlantic Ridge escaping via ocean. Thus, Pleistocene era katabatic winds could not kill trees in warm and moist Norwegian nunataks between the fjords nor blow away their topsoil (unlike in xeric and cold Greenland nunataks). So, Norway's nunataks trees, flowers and grasses retained topsoil tied on the ground - while the less lucky Greenland nunataks received cold and xeric Foxe-Laurentide's katabatic westernlies to freeze-dry all life out of existence in Greenland nunataks to turn them into barren rocky patches in the ice pack that surrounds them. So Greenland mountain top nunataks ended devoid of all trees while Norway's blossomed in flowers and trees all Ice Ages through. Blame the only Islandic ice-Jotuns and Hellheimers for all this Norse mess:

United Nation's Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar authorised the original motion for tabling on the floor of United Nations General Assembly in the immediate aftermath of The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro from 3 to 14 June in 1992 which was forwarded to the UNFCCC's Depositary, His Excellency António Guterres, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations at the Bonn conference proceedings on 10th May 2018 for COP24 meeting at Katowiche, Poland: and

We are in deep waters literally if the Arctic Ocean sea ice melts away summertimes as all the heat and meltwater buildup in low-lying northern Greenland Ice Sheet will be catastrophic with its surface melt, flash floods from the ocean in summer, and water accumulation within the darkened ice and under it.

Veli Albert Kallio
Vice President, Sea Reseach Society
Environmental Affairs Department
The open water may extend to the Pole in Siberian side in September if such pattern will continue. The Laptev/ESS ice is already thin + early surface melting and quick land snow retreat in Siberia

If that happens, would it be the first time the pole melts?
Probably for the first time in about 3 million years, yes.

Possibly, although some have suggested that it may been as recently as 100,000 years ago.

Others as recently as 6,000 years ago.

I've been skeptical of assertions there have been more recent melt outs of the Arctic than during the late Pliocene warm period - which coincidentally corresponds to the last time atmospheric CO2 was this high.

I'm open to the possibility it's happened, but I haven't seen enough yet that's sufficiently definitive to convince me.

Others are welcome to post to that effect and I'll be happy to chew through them.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 18, 2020, 05:48:14 PM »
I took a look at Bremen ice pictures for this date for many years and I have not seen so much light purple - maybe expect for 2007 April but then the weakness was in other zones. Now the Beaufort , the ESS and the Laptev seem very very weak. 2020, 2016 and 2007 shown.

I know it is totally weather dependent but I think we will see a record this year (so true)
I don't see people using this website much, but I like it because IMHO the data matters less than the evolution of the data. Same data sets show trends, and this site's volume trend is showing a record minimum in volume.

I also like the animation this site provides.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 15, 2020, 06:20:27 AM »
I don't get it. How can this scale be in cm? Shouldn't that be decimeter? 72 cm is less than a meter. 70 dm is 7m.
Not much snow in Siberia, is there? But I'm pretty sure that's more than 2 cm...

Dr. Sean Birkel (who singlehandedly conceived, built, and runs Climate Reanalyzer) sent me this reply about the legend on the snow depth map:
"The plotted units were inches, while the title showed cm.  Found the plotted values are in cm set to a cm specific color scale."

   Thus, before the correction the snow depth indicated was only 40% of the actual.  Now corrected.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 12, 2020, 04:52:47 PM »
TB, I hope you can cool down and not take offense. But I also ask you to continue any further discussions of moderation actions to the Forum Decorum thread.

The forum / Re: Who would like to take over the ASIF?
« on: April 10, 2020, 03:34:52 PM »
Very few posters here are neutral.  Neven was a passionate Bernie supporter, and made it known.  He has done a good job here, but he was not neutral.

Quite right, I was far from neutral. Blumenkraft will monitor and moderate the Off-topic category, and I'm quite confident he will do a good job. I hope the job will help him shape his views, as it did mine. Be cause will help out as well, because it's the most difficult category to moderate. Oren will take care of the Cryosphere section, and kassy will keep an eye on the AGW in general category.

I would feel enlightened if you stay as admin in the background to slap some moderators hands if needed. :)

I will stay admin and support the moderators wherever I can.

That's how things stand right now. I will start to implement things later today.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 09, 2020, 08:21:05 AM »
Paul Beckwith is a great wishful thinker.

I'm a wishful thinker too!

Could we possibly take the "alarmist"/"denialist" debate over to one of the Blue Ocean Event threads, and get back to the 2020 melting season in here?

For the record I agree with Peter Wadhams that "the planet is swiftly heading toward a largely ice-free Arctic in the warmer months".

A BOE prediction of his will be proved right one melting season in the not too distant future, but probably not this one. IMHO!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 08, 2020, 04:51:48 PM »
We won’t likely have a BOE this year but what is the chance of us beating the 2012 record in 2020?

*Every* year going forward is a dice roll to beat 2020.  They are slowly but steadily being stacked in favor of beating the record.  As a SWAG, any given year right now I think has about a 1 in 3 chance of blowing by it.  It should be 1 in 2 before we get to 2025, and I expect a BOE around or about 2030.
Paul Beckwith posted a video a couple days ago where he estimated BOE as 2023.

Apparently he thought a BOE could of happened in 2013 after 2012 big melt, certainly did not happen that way, let's see if he's right on this prediction in a few years time!

As for whether this year can beat 2012 then it's a possibility especially if holes start appearing in the middle of the ice pack during June like it did in 2012 and 2016.

I got a feeling the East Siberian Sea ice may melt out quickly like it did in 2017 given how little fast ice there is and the ice does look rather broken up and diffused.

I put Paul Beckwith in the same league as Peter Wadhams, Wieslaw Maslowski, and Jay Zwally.
Dana Nuccitelli discusses these types in SKS:

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: April 06, 2020, 09:07:26 PM »
With the actual values of CO2, CH4, N2O and SF6 for December 2019 (see the posts in the individual threads) there is an annual increase (Dec 2019 vs. Dec 2018) of 3.16 ppm CO2 eq (20 y) or 2.99 ppm CO2 eq (100 y).
This increase is mainly driven (2.69 ppm) by CO2 itself.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 13