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 - Simon

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 20, 2020, 06:42:23 AM »
Too much heat stored. May, July, August were the warmest on record north of 70 latitude, June was the 2nd warmest, September the 3d warmest. We remember the GAAC and early ice retreat. It was really warm and not the all heat was spent to melt ice like in 2012 but rather stored in the ocean. If we compare with the 2016 autumn precondition now it looks much worse so the Arctic will have to dodge a cannonball once again in the melt season

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 18, 2020, 09:23:46 PM »
The world’s best solar power schemes now offer the “cheapest…electricity in history” with the technology cheaper than coal and gas in most major countries."

https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-is-now-cheapest-electricity-in-history-confirms-iea

https://webstore.iea.org/world-energy-outlook-2020

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 16, 2020, 07:49:54 PM »
meanwhile - the here and now from https://www.iea.org/reports/monthly-electricity-statistics

July 2020 electricity production. All OECD, China India and USA.

Fossil fuels still rule, OK.

Coal comes back for a third month - dominates India & China.
Natural Gas continues its relentless rise in the OECD especially the USA.

Solar + wind up a bit.

As the IEA World Energy 2020 Report says ...
"As things stand, the world is not set for a decisive downward turn in emissions…"

There is a Guardian Article which suggests Australia should worry about coal exports to China - but looks more like medium to long-term and China expanding its domestic coal production.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/china-losing-interest-in-australian-coal-isnt-about-diplomacy-its-simply-market-dynamics


4
The politics / Re: Abortion
« on: October 12, 2020, 11:29:41 PM »
I agree and thus locking this topic.

If you're pro-life, you cannot vote for either Biden or Trump. They're both lying conmen.

5
The politics / Re: Abortion
« on: October 12, 2020, 10:59:43 PM »
Tom you have been asked before not to post about these belief type things before.
If you go on the internet you will find many things you do not agree with.
We know your point by now and most don´t care because they have different values.

This is not the place for those discussions.


6
The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: October 12, 2020, 04:21:43 AM »
So Tom would vote for satan himself as long as he is pro life ?
Absurd but logical result of his position.
I know this is off topic...but it is part of why alt right has such power in the us
FWIW nz is debatable one of the most free society's on this earth  m
We are democratic socialist with a free market high leval of freedom for all along with universal health care no fault accident insurance and comprehensive socal welfare
From what I know of jesus and his teaching he would have been closer to us than to what the USA has.
 I am atheist but I have always thought to not believe in something you must have knowledge of what it Is you don't believe in
So spent a long time trying to understand who jesus was and what he had to say
Most of which I agree with I just do not add the Devine to who he was
As many of the writers of the USA constitution also thought

This is part of the discussion around the alt right and us political discourses
The mod on here is because who is from what I understand a Christian I could respect...

7
The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: October 12, 2020, 02:35:41 AM »
Tom, aren't the words of your own Pope a bit more weighty that some church bulletin?

Quote
Pope Francis has released a new papal document in which he criticizes everything from the toxicity of social media to Catholics’ single-minded focus on abortion...

"Our defence of the innocent unborn, for example, needs to be clear, firm and passionate, for at stake is the dignity of a human life, which is always sacred and demands love for each person, regardless of his or her stage of development.

Equally sacred, however, are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection."

I'm wondering how such clear papal proclamations are being taken in by you and the folks of similar mind in your circle. Do you just blow off the Pope when he isn't saying something you want to hear?

https://www.vox.com/2018/4/11/17220108/pope-francis-catholics-conservative-abortion-gaudete-exsultate-twitter-church-apostolic-exhortation

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 11, 2020, 01:42:04 PM »
Latest Five Day Forecast
Wind + Temp @ Surface
Large GiF!
The central Beaufort should finally see surface freeze, and the tail should lose its shape (already begun yesterday), thanks to the very low temps. However big trouble is coming from Laptev and the ESS, with some temps even rising above zero. So not much growth this coming week. 2020 will probably be lowest on record in both area and extent.

9
The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: October 11, 2020, 01:01:41 PM »
Any attempt to shift the discussion to the "alt-left" is disingenuous and should be treated as such.

It's the usual trolling by Tom_Mazanec.  That guy has been spouting far right-wing propaganda all over this forum. 

I'm glad I live in Western Europe and not in the USA.  Here in Belgium we had an openly gay prime minister a few years ago and now we have a transgender minister, and nobody had a problem with that.  And we have very liberal laws on abortion, euthanasia etc.  I cannot imagine any of that happening in the USA: there would be nonstop protests from right wing religious zealots.

Unfortunately, the far right-wing party here in the rich northern part of Belgium has been steadily gaining support in recent elections and polls.  They're thriving on anti-immigration rhetorics.  They're pretty much the same people spouting conspiracy theories, climate denial and anti-science, and they are increasingly derailing facebook and twitter threads.  Not as bad as in the USA, but it's becoming increasingly worrysome.

10
The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: October 09, 2020, 12:47:16 PM »
Hullo Moderators

- please get this thread off the unread posts list.

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 25, 2020, 02:25:48 PM »
Monthly update from US Energy Information Administration (EIA)
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

Solar + Wind - in my view the ones that matter most as the low-cost growth potential is huge.

June 2020 energy produced from solar+wind 26% higher than June 2019, at 406 trillion Solar+wind 12 month trailing average up 15%. This indicates energy production rate of increase is accelerating.

However, still, a way to go before wind+solar > coal, and a long way to go before natural gas pushed off its perch.

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:35:09 AM »
Ralfy,

Ah, I see it. His numbers are from a paper by  Ferroni and Hopkirk which has been debunked.

If it looks and smells like BS it probably is.

Looks like he has removed all comments. He's just another BSitter who has given up BSitting because it's increasingly obvious BS.


13
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:08:27 AM »
Ralfy,

I'd be very wary of quoting Euan Mearns, he is strongly anti-renewables and pro Nuclear.

His articles are lengthy and sound convincing , but usually have an obvious fatal flaw which I pointed out in the comments.

He gave up up posting in summer 19. Some of my point-outs are there,  most have been deleted.


14
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 11:03:21 AM »
They are definitely not interchangeable unless components like electric motors have been developed that can replace diesel-powered ones for heavy equipment used in mining, for engines in container ships, and more.

Ummm
see this?
 
Its diesel electric .
As is all the big mining hardware and trains etc.
Battery tech is improving  fast as billions is being spent by the automobile industry.
Land based mining is not going to be difficult simply swap out the diesels for battery's .
Off shore shipping is another kettle of fish .
The future  is to use some form of manufactured fuel from renewable energy.
 

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 10:42:38 AM »
Ralfy,

The EROI argument was put to bed some years ago. The energy input constructing and installing Wind and PV is paid back in a few months of operation.

On the money side “Induced energy”- (If you spend money, you create work and knock on consumption) – the cheaper the energy the lower the induced component is.

The transition is do-able. Scotland is at nearly net 100% renewables for electricity, though there is still a way to go on heating, cooking, transport.

Over consumption of non energy resources is a different and harder to solve problem - how to persuade 7.5 bn people to consume less stuff.

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 09:53:41 AM »
Again it's as if you do not realize fossil fuels and renewables are interchangeable.
Mining equipment can be replaced with electric motor and battery operated equipment. This will enable much better working conditions especially underground, and will be cheaper.
Most manufacturing can be made with electricity.
Trucking can be made electric easily.
Shipping energy is the hardest to replace, but still possible. But then again, solar panels are much lighter than oil and coal and take up much smaller volume so the problem is not gigantic.

All that is needed is first and foremost to deploy renewable electricity production in much larger numbers that cover not just electricity demand growth but also existing electricity production to enable stoppage of new fossil fuel plants and faster closure of existing such plants. Hint: This will happen faster if people from the peak oil crowd and from other agendas stop spreading anti-renewables stuff.

They are definitely not interchangeable unless components like electric motors have been developed that can replace diesel-powered ones for heavy equipment used in mining, for engines in container ships, and more.

As pointed out several times, one study mentioned here states that a full transition is possible, but the lag time is lengthy:

https://www.businessinsider.com/131-years-to-replace-oil-2010-11

And because energy returns are lower, buffer stocks are needed, which is why several interviewed in a 2006 Four Corners documentary about peak oil argued that the transition should have started in the 1990s.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the move to renewable energy should not continue, but it is very likely that it will not maintain a global capitalist economy that needs a lot more energy and resources, which is the point of this thread.
It is very difficult to discuss, when you continue to rely on sources from 10 and 15 years ago, in a field that is changing so fast.

But let's at least summarize the things we seem to agree on:
* A full renewable transition is possible, but the lag time is lengthy.
* The move to renewable energy should continue, but it is very likely that it will not maintain a global capitalist economy that needs a lot more energy and resources.
* The transition should have started a long time ago.

It seems to me that for you these points stem from physical limitations on renewables. I believe that the main limitation is people's and governments' decision making, and there are no serious physical limitations. It is possible and doable to make a full renewable electricity transition in a decade and a full renewable energy transition in two decades, if humanity decided this was World War III. Then the lag time would not be lengthy, negating the first point. And if that were to be done, the higher needs of the future population could be met from an energy standpoint, negating the second point. Obviously, it would have been easier if we started a long time ago, so the third point needs no discussion.

In the real world this crash renewable program will not be happening due to politics, short-term thinking and human nature, thus the three points stand.

But even if this program was put in place, humanity would still be facing many other obstacles stemming from climate change and carrying capacity limitations, though certainly abundant clean energy could help in facing these obstacles. Human population is simply too high for this planet, but that is the point of a different thread.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 13, 2020, 09:15:50 AM »
It wouldn't be much of a rebound anyways when you consider how thin all of the ice is.

What good is 4 year old ice that's under a meter thick
It’s more resilient than FYI under a meter.

That difference is more academic than practical, at 1m.

Quote
Anyway, the notion that Western CAB ice is homogeneously under a meter thick is misleading.
I can imagine a field of mixed floes of different thickness, surviving tall  ridges, ... the closer to CAA the thicker and older in average.

*Mostly* true, I'll agree, but I think you are overstating  how much of that melange is actually MYI and of significant thickness.

Quote
The region between the NP and the Beaufort sea has suffered surface melting but has stayed relatively protected compared to the other side of the NP. It stayed substantially colder during July even when it was 24/7 under the sun.
Now this 1 millon km2 of extent has several years of being stretched, exported to Beaufort sea or the CAA channels until it completely melts. It is a region of slow turnover time compared to the Gyre or the ice on the transpolar drift. It is a buffer against abrupt apocalypse scenarios.
You are making an awful lot of assumptions there, in the face of evidence - like the melt out of thick, MYI north of Greenland this year - which don't support your rosy interpretation of the ice's survivability.

Other posters have pointed out that Transpolar drift is broken.  The Gyre is broken.  Pretty much every mechanism we are used to watching and basing assumptions on, is broken.

And then there is the raw question of how much what we see in models is diverging from what's actually visible where we have "feet on the ground".

The only buffer we have against "sudden apocalypse" scenarios is the weather. 1 million km2 of 1m thick MYI or the equivalent simply doesn't have the thermal inertia to stop an apocalypse if the weather isn't cooperative.

The net enthalpy in the system has exploded, between additional solar uptake, and the huge inputs implied by the salinity data we see around Atlantification, as well as less dramatic inputs through the Bering strait on the Pacific side.

At this point, it really all hinges on seasonal uptake and existing heat.  Not extent.  Not area.  Not thickness.

We burned through ~15,000 km3 worth of ice this season already.  The ice you are citing (1,000,000 km2 of more or less 1m thick MYI) would represent less than 7% of that.

Even if I'm generous, and assume say, an average of 3m thickness, (which is VERY generous), we are talking about less than 20% of what has been lost this season already (PIOMAS figures).

It's not a bastion.  It's barely a cushion.  At best, averaged out, it's about 4 weeks of melt.  That's how thin a margin the Arctic pack's survival hinges on.

So back to my point... even if you are correct about quantity, at this stage in the evolution of the Arctic, it is weather, not ice volume which will determine any given year if we can avoid a BoE. 

That's been true pretty much since 2012.  Many of us have been holding our breath every year since 2012 in fear of a BoE.  So far, we've lucked out.  Increasingly, the deck is being stacked against us.

Some years ago, during one or another poll, I indicated that I thought there wouldn't be a BoE until sometime after 2029, and probably not before 2050.  At this point, I'll be surprised if we make it to 2029 *without* a BoE.  MYI won't help prevent it.

Weather will be the determinant of the pack's survival, not the existing ice.

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 12, 2020, 10:37:03 AM »

It's as if you do not see that fossil fuels and renewables are interchangeable from an energy standpoint. The peak oil crowd, dealing with diminishing returns and EROEI and hoped-for physical limitations for years and decades, often has trouble grasping that oil can be eliminated with not much harm done, and a lot of good. I wish that oil would have run out a long time ago, but it didn't, and we are stuck with the consequences and with the need to stop consuming it long before it runs out, not because of peak oil and EROEI, but because of pollution and AGW.

To your point, higher returns for renewable energy could easily mean (and should mean) replacement of fossil fuel energy infrastructure, cleaning up the global energy use, and not necessarily increasing energy consumption.
In parallel, global energy demand is growing, due to rising affluence and population growth. Renewable energy growth should be high enough to cover both the energy demand growth and the need for replacing fossil fuel infrastructure. As renewable growth is currently not high enough, reduction in consumption is indeed very much needed in parallel, to enable a shorter transition period until fossil fuel use is eliminated.
However, calls for consumption reduction should not be instead of renewable energy rollout, which needs to happen fast in any case so that fossil fuel plants and engines can be shut down. And denying the physical ability of renewable energy to power energy demand will eventually lead to a slower rollout, thus advancing AGW.

Only if renewable energy components don't need mining, manufacturing, and shipping across extensive supply chains stretching tens of thousands of km, which in turn require extensive fossil fuel inputs, and for a global market that doesn't have a lot of infrastructure in place, and which in turn will require even more fossil fuel inputs, not to mention the same for consumer goods that will use that energy.

Even the computer that you're now using involves such! Claims that one wishes that we had run out of oil a long time are are absurd.
Again it's as if you do not realize fossil fuels and renewables are interchangeable.
Mining equipment can be replaced with electric motor and battery operated equipment. This will enable much better working conditions especially underground, and will be cheaper.
Most manufacturing can be made with electricity.
Trucking can be made electric easily.
Shipping energy is the hardest to replace, but still possible. But then again, solar panels are much lighter than oil and coal and take up much smaller volume so the problem is not gigantic.

All that is needed is first and foremost to deploy renewable electricity production in much larger numbers that cover not just electricity demand growth but also existing electricity production to enable stoppage of new fossil fuel plants and faster closure of existing such plants. Hint: This will happen faster if people from the peak oil crowd and from other agendas stop spreading anti-renewables stuff.

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 05, 2020, 09:03:05 AM »
I agree with your conclusion but not with your method ralfy. This is a scientific forum and this is the renewables thread, not the consumption thread. You use a 2013 article as your EROI source for renewable energy. People have pointed out this source is seriously out of date, and yet you seem to ignore this information while sticking to the conclusion, which is quite obvious but not necessarily due to EROI.

EROI is just a part of a much larger equation. Energy is partly interchangeable with other industrial and societal resources.
Prices are often a proxy for these resources, which is why I used them in my criticism.
But even EROI in itself will change dramatically when panel or turbine efficiency is much increased, manufacturing methods streamlined and improved, and useful life significantly increased. If you want EROI, find an updated source that uses 2020 numbers, and is not biased trying to prove humanity needs to tone down consumption. Again, don't let the obvious conclusion drive a faulty justification.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 05, 2020, 08:39:04 AM »
The extended models are beginning to show the most impressive GAAC of the season forming.
CMC on potential GAAC....!
<snip>

<snip>

<snip> Real danger for the ice that heat will transfer to the cooler Beaufort and yet again the whole basin is ridiculously above average for September.

Actually, the real danger is... Dipole.

That's what the models are hinting at (but is far from certain), from what I see in the un-snipped image I left.

At this stage, even "blistering" heat isn't going to advect enough heat to seriously affect the pack.  That's going to have to come from the ocean.

A strong dipole down the Atlantic front and back towards the ESS across the pack could disrupt it, cause compaction and damage, pulling more heat up from depth and continuing bottom melt by providing a source of heat greater than the out-going heat loss.

If it were not for the wind, at this stage of the season, a strong high pressure system would be a godsend as it could bring clear skies and nothing to impede outgoing heat.

We will have to see how things play out.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (September 2020)
« on: September 04, 2020, 06:00:47 AM »
PIOMAS is missing whatever happened north of Greenland to the pole and it's also not getting the obvious low ice areas on the north coast of Ellesmere Island. To misquote a famous songwriter, "Something's happening and we don't know what it is do we Mr. Jones."

I'm not sure what's more important than the unprecedented melt region the Polarstern blasted through between Greenland and the pole, but I hope that they are studying that more important thing.

I find this PIOMAS volume map disquieting. The results do not appear to fit what we have observed.

We wait fof cryosat and icesat 2 in October and get real volumes.

Combine cryosat and smos for thickness and ice sat  for snow depth and we have a great product

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 04, 2020, 05:56:30 AM »
Ralfy you really need to move on with your analysis of renewable energy. Links from 2013 are not going to cut it, even if they are from scientific American. There has been so much progress, as evidenced by the crash in prices per MW and MWh, that 7 years is like an eternity.

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 01, 2020, 07:51:31 PM »
The Netherlands will have the world's largest offshore windfarm operational in 2023.

https://constructionreviewonline.com/2020/08/netherlands-plans-to-have-the-worlds-largest-offshore-wind-farm/

Quote
Netherlands plans to have the world’s largest offshore wind farm.
By Cukia M
Aug 31, 2020

The Netherlands has announced plans to construct the world’s largest offshore wind farm that will be located in the country’s Dutch North Sea. The wind farm named the Hollandse Kust Zuid 1-4 offshore wind energy project will be constructed by Vattenfall without any subsidy and will have a capacity of 1.5 GW, making it the largest offshore wind farm both in the Netherlands and on the globe. It is expected to begin operations by 2023  with 140 11 MW wind turbines from manufacturer Siemens Gamesa, which will be the first to be installed offshore.
...

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 01, 2020, 07:48:23 AM »
The ice "rebounded" in 13/14 because the weather in JJA was very favorable for it to do so.


This summer also saw the warmest MJJ on record.   By a lot.  It torched all summer until the very end of July.


25
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 29, 2020, 12:41:29 AM »
These numbers are confusing. Storage should be measured in MWh, not MW.
The maximum discharge rate (in MW) is an important spec of a storage system but is not its headline number which should be storage capacity.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 28, 2020, 04:42:34 PM »
You might like to read about Dinorwig pumped storage in North Wales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Impressive

Yes - But not quite so impressive as China with 22 Sites in operation and an additional 32 sites at completion or near completion stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 28, 2020, 05:49:47 AM »
Could be an early minimum.

With that anti cyclone dominating while we lose insolation

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 08:44:30 AM »
To be clear: it is NOT appropriate to try and expose users who prefer anonymity, or to challenge them.
(Written in response to discussion now deleted or snipped).
I WILL snip comments when needed. I don't do it much, probably not enough, but I have seen what happens when things are left untended. Comments that could be inflammatory to others or even to one other user will usually get edited before the inevitable backlash and mutual offense taken. It is my professional opinion that this comment "don’t rewrite their comments. We should be able to see what people have said" is wrong. Some statements can be toxic. Sometimes I will just edit out some derogatory words and leave the rest intact. Sometimes I might remove whole sentences (e.g. conspiracy or denial) or even the whole comment (rare).

(Removed part where I discussed the specific issue).

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

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 04:52:18 AM »

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


Hmmm OK. <snipped>

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

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

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 04:07:16 AM »
Most contributors choose to remain anonymous.  There's nothing wrong with that, and it may be prudent, in many cases.

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

<Removed all personal references. O>

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 12:04:43 AM »
All, please try to focus on the actual melting season. Discussions of upcoming freezing season, and what is expected next year, are speculations better belonging in another thread.

32
Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: August 22, 2020, 07:14:51 PM »
I attach Nic Lewis critical review as a pdf. Pretty devastating!
Following various strands from typing "Nic Lewis" into the search engine and you get connections (including collaborations in writing articles)... to

- Judith Curry,
- Ross McKitrick -  an Associate Professor in the Economics Department at the University of Guelph, Ontario, and is affiliated with various climate inaction groups.
- Marcel Crok, THE SUPER BAD GUY OF THE CLIMATE DEBATE by Anthony Watts / March 8, 2018, <snip, N.>
- March 2014 – Nic Lewis co authors a Global Warming Policy Foundation report that takes the most optimistic paper on predicted warming from doubling of CO2 [from pre industrial levels] and without feedback.

You can add American Enterprise Institute and and and and..

So what the hell are you doing bringing this guy as an authoritative source to this forum?

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 17, 2020, 11:12:41 AM »
JAXA data still only up to the 15th - but you've gotta take what you can get...

JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  4,963,420 KM2 as at 15-Aug-2020

- Extent loss on this day 76k, 14 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 62k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 9,484 k, 569 k, 6.4% more than the 10 year average of 8,915 k.
- Extent is at position #3 in the satellite record
- Extent is  229 k MORE than 2019,
- Extent is  320 k LESS than 2016,
- Extent is  414 k MORE than 2012
- Extent is  185 k LESS than 2007
_____________________________________________
On average 89.6% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 30 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 3.93 million km2, 0.75 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.

For a record low, remaining melt needs to be  72.4% or more above average.
For the 2020 minimum to be above the 2019 minimum of 3.96 million km2,  remaining melt needs to be  3.1% or more below the previous 10 years average remaining melt.
______________________________
N.B. Click once on an image to make it full-size

34
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 14, 2020, 02:06:29 PM »
Best of luck, b. c.

I appreciate all you guys do

35
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 14, 2020, 01:54:00 PM »
As it seems I am to be sole moderator of this section which includes the cesspool that is American politics , any perceived fails in forum decorum can be brought to my attention by using
1 , report to moderator , or 
2 , posting on this thread ..

to everyone .. enjoy the forum while trying to maintain decorum . b.c.
Good luck! If I were you, I would remove American and other politics from this forum. There are other places to discuss this.

This is the Arctic Sea Ice forum. The discussion should be about the Arctic, the Sea, The Ice, and the Forum. Leave American politics out of it. We need to unite around the Global Climate Crisis, and not be divided by noise...

36
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 14, 2020, 01:06:59 PM »
Ok, so don't admit it. I know for a fact that you talk about certain members with other members behind their back in private messages. That is bad behaviour for a moderator, and I'm glad Neven took away your moderator privileges.

Full disclosure:

I did talk with FG about if GlennBruck is the reincarnation of Phoenix. I told him that i don't think that. FG took great offense with me saying that and is harassing me via PM ever since.

FG is doing this for some time. Harassing me via PM, apologizes, and when i say something he doesn't like the harassing PMs start again. It should be obvious by now where neven got this ridiculous idea that i'm building some kind of movement here. That he is falling for this bullshit is stunning, but not surprising to me.

For the record, i don't engage in this kind of wire-pulling.

37
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: August 14, 2020, 12:50:24 PM »
May not be the right thread but as Arctic summer sea ice is being referred to, the latest modelling indicates circa 2035 for its first disappearance.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/08/200810113216.htm

2035 seems about right, right around there is when the trend line for arctic sea ice volume at minimum reaches 0.

Of course that assumes we don't have a fluke event like 2012, which would bring it about sooner.

38
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 14, 2020, 12:07:08 PM »
BTW, there have been some obstacles (fuck Brexit), but i'm happy to report that Gero finally got his money this morning. YEY! \o/

39
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 12, 2020, 12:00:05 PM »
Yeah, it's bluice unfortunately, another fine casualty of the forum's coronavirus crisis.
I am sorry to have to write this, but anyone who feels they cannot bear to read Neven's Covid-related posts anymore - I implore you to put our esteemed admin on ignore rather than quit the forum completely. The forum is much more than its creator and long-time leader, and the environmental and long-term subjects discussed are not going away anytime soon unfortunately.
I have stated my great respect for Neven, who has written so much about Arctic Sea Ice and related subjects, and who has created an environment of scientific debate that is rarely matched on the Internet, devoid of deniers and guided well over the years. I do think he has his head screwed the wrong way around regarding Covid, and am certainly saddened by this, but he has his reasons and reasonings and that is that for now.

If you feel the urge to go to your profile for a certain final action, do this instead. Click on profile - buddies/ignore list - edit ignore list - add member. And survive to post another day.

40
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 12, 2020, 11:15:23 AM »
Quote
I continue to maintain that if the IFR is higher than 0.2%, it's because the population is (made) unhealthy. And that makes it comparable to a bad flu season, which would be much worse if it were novel.
This part is not logical:

The population IS unhealthy.
Thus the IFR IS higher than 0.2% and is at least 0.5% for existing populations in developed countries.

The virus IS novel.
There is NO vaccine that reduces both infections and mortality.
There is NO partial herd immunity from last year's Covid season.
There is NO disappearance of the epidemic during summer.
Thus infection rate, and total number of infections, are MUCH higher than the flu.

Bad flu season does NOT kill the same number of people as this bad Covid season, given the same population.
The flu kills 0.05%-0.1% at most even for the unhealthy societies you speak of. Nor does it infect as many people. Nor does it require the same percentage of hospitalizations and resulting stress of the healthcare system. And yet you maintain it IS comparable, when clearly it IS NOT. Thus you undermine the rest of your points, which is a shame.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 11, 2020, 09:19:31 PM »
This post is good enough to be here. In "The 2020 melting season" thread, the post will be lost in a week (too many posts there).

Following a heads up from a certain Mr. Watts I bring you news of an interesting new article in Nature Climate Change:

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/08/past-evidence-supports-complete-loss-of-arctic-sea-ice-by-2035/

Allegedly:

Quote
Using the [UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre climate] model to look at Arctic sea ice during the last interglacial, the team concludes that the impact of intense springtime sunshine created many melt ponds, which played a crucial role in sea-ice melt.  A simulation of the future using the same model indicates that the Arctic may become sea ice-free by 2035.

https://www.bas.ac.uk/media-post/past-evidence-supports-complete-loss-of-arctic-sea-ice-by-2035/

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 09, 2020, 09:33:10 PM »
This remarkable freeze/melt cycle has been unfortunate but perhaps inevitable, putting us literally in uncharted waters with regards to massive climate change impacts.

It’s easy to forget, as the post-BOE forum properly notes, that once upon a time the Barents, Baltic, Bering, Baffin. Chukchi, and Kara hosted millions of sq km of year-round ice. (And that not so long ago, 1000 m thick ice gouged the Lomonosov ridgetop.) On 08 Aug 2020, 38% of the remaining ice (the Arctic Ocean basin, was open water. Vast areas of tundra are free of reflecting snow as well. We’re already well into BOE in most respects.

What’s going on at the moment is baffling, notably between Greenland and the north pole. It’s clear we don’t really understand the current physical state of the ice. Thus even if surface weather were predictable three days out, where things will end up by mid-October still remains up in the air.

However we do have a good grip on some of the pre-conditioning events that have brought the ice to its current state:

-1- The melt season really began in the previous freeze season, even earlier. Vast areas of surprisingly thin 0.3m ice remained in the Laptev when the Polarstern moored on Oct 4th. That and a slow start to freeze-up are documented by thousands of km of ship thickness transects with no graduating SYI floes thick enough to stand on for Mosaic. (T Krumpen http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-2173-2020)

-2- The TransPolar Drift over winter, as accurately imaged in Ascat time series, bore little resemblance to recent years in two key respects: months of very rapid Fram-ward displacement and extensional engagement of ice to the pole and beyond. Often the ice drift is just circumpolar.

-3- The whole icepack does not rotate CW with the TPD but rather participation is demarcated by immense  curvilinear leads, newly visualized in a dockside posting by L Kaleschke and enhanced on the Mosaic forum by directional convolution. These fracture lines, coincidentally or causally, approximately delimit the puzzling openings to the pole above Morris Jesup. A lot of MYI ice between Greenland and the pole was fractured by lead formation.

-4- Missing this year was any significant CW rotational movement of thick ice out of the western CAB. While this ice has never moved further than a half gyre in the last ten years of tracking, commonly a strip of CAB ice moves to inevitable melt in the warmer open seas of the Chukchi (which might be called internal export).

-5- Export out the Fram was robust during the TPD, pushing everything ahead of a 500 km east-west line through the initial position of the PS to oblivion in the Greenland Sea. Behind this line, newly formed Laptev ice filled the growing open water gap to shore. However, since mid-May, export out the Fram, SV-FJL gap, Bering Strait, CAA garlic press and Nares have all been inconsequential (and will remain so, too little time is left).

-6- A record heat wave off Ellesmere in mid July coupled with persistent easterly winds melted vulnerable matrix ice joining floes, enabling churning of offshore ice into residual rubble. The observed movement to the west is not unusual but it was far more narrowly restricted to the CAA coast in past events. The main CAB ice pack, being no longer attached to coastal land or ocean bottom, might be set adrift to elsewhere by persistent winds from the south. We’ve not yet seen that game-changer.

-7- The Pacific-side cyclone centered on July 27th hit like a tornado at 75º/-160º decimating the ice, on Sentinel-1 and WorldView, making clear that error-prone thickness and area/extent whole-ocean numbers don’t capture key issues such as ice mechanical strength, internal pressure or response to stress.

Both the Chukchi and slow-melting Beaufort were pre-conditioned by dispersion for flash lateral and bottom melt after the storm; note insolation today at 75º surprisingly is still 64% the strength the week centered on solstice (4th image below) but has to get through clouds and escape low angle surface reflection.

Are these independent events or somehow consequent to a single master change (such as breakdown trend of equatorial heat gradient as manifested in the jet stream)? Yes to a certain extent but this view has to be distinguished from the slot machine model put forward by Csnavywx in #4662.

That is, the multi-decadal downward trend of ice has created a set-up for which a coincidental confluence of bad weather events over a single freeze/melt cycle sequentially sum to an ice disaster. Even bland weather from here to October may suffice for a seriously below-trend outcome. Regardless of how the season turns out, as @Zlabe notes, fractional BOE has gone on all summer.

The files below expand or animate with a click. File names explain the topic addressed. I thank uniquorn for valuable discussions. Clouds are removed by setting a sequential five day AMR2 stack to 'darken only' in gimp.

43
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: August 07, 2020, 06:48:09 AM »
Yes, you're absolutely right.
As I only monitor the four gases whose concentration NOAA regularly publishes (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) their sum is smaller than the sum of all greenhouse gases. Therefore I talk about the "NOAA gases" in my first sentence.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 07, 2020, 05:41:26 AM »
This is why the SOUTHERN CAB is ruined.  This is why I can't understand how anyone can think the thickest ice didn't get hit hard.



From nsidc:

Quote
Figure 5b. This figure shows melt pond fractional area anomalies for May (left) and June (right). Red colors show more extensive melt ponds relative to the 2002 to 2020 average, whereas blue colors show fewer melt ponds than average.

Credit: Sanggyun Lee, University College London
High-resolution image

45
Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?
« on: August 06, 2020, 07:45:33 PM »
More radiative forcing of the "NOAA gases" (CO2, CH4, N2O, SF6) in Apr 2020 than in Mar 2020 or in Apr 2019.
The values [W/m²], change to Mar 2020 and change to Apr 2019:
CO2 2.159   (+ 0.022)    (+ 0.035)   
CH4 0.520   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.004)
N2O 0.205   (+ 0.000)    (+ 0.004)
SF6  0.0053 (+ 0.0000)  (+ 0.0002)
sum 2.889  (+ 0.021)   (+ 0.045) (rounding difference)
The relative annual increase is 1.58 %

46
Science / Re: Trends in atmospheric CH4
« on: August 06, 2020, 07:36:11 PM »
It is the fifth of the new month. Therefore the monthly averages of the "NOAA gases" are available. Here is the value of CH4:

April 2020:     1876.3 ppb
April 2019:     1865.3 ppb
Last updated: August 05, 2020

This is an annual increase of 11.0 ppb. This increase is in the upper half of what has been observed in the last years.

I set an index = 100 for the 1980 average [1601.2 ppb]. April 2020 is at 117.2 compared to that index.

Attached the development since 1980. A much more complicated pattern than the CO2, N2O or SF6 graphs.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 04, 2020, 06:20:45 AM »
The 00zgfs dipole is only quasi and weak but its in perfect position to finish off the Chukchi, Beaufort, and Western CAB.

The wind shift takes place between hour 48-60. By hour 72 warm compacting winds will be at hand.

After hour 72 we will start seeing 75-100K loss days on jaxa.

Probably a couple century breaks.



48
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 04, 2020, 05:45:46 AM »
Attached

This means that in terms of ice area NSDIC in the Central Arctic 2020 is in 7th place after 2016, 2012, 2011, 2007, 2017, 2013.

How is it in 7th place?
Meaning that at its current 2243K CAB area 2020 has already passed the minimum area of most years, except these 6, according to NSIDC data.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 06:50:59 AM »
Here's the video (gif was waaaay too big) of the concentration and MODIS data side by side for July. Let me know if there's any suggestions on improving it.

YES. A whole month of weather and its effect on compaction; clear to see the actuality and compare.

Suggestion 1 (if I may be so bold)
- In the posting a side by side graphic would give an immediate visual that the posting is a 'comparative' video
- Would it be possible to just have a side-by-side static image for the posting with a click to open in a seperate window and then click to play? It might save some bandwith for the Forum (I think)
- Could a 'running date' be added to the video sequence?
- Perhaps a weekly posting and a final posting running a full months sequence?

Suggestion 2 (If you tell me to 'get on my bike'...no offence :) )
Could you do a second set of side-by-side comparative videos for the Jet Stream and the weather over the arctic? I just have a gut feeling that the correlation is very strong - then one has the full set of data. How the weather in the Arctic is being formed and how the weather is impacting on the ice. Why not go the full hog and add the ice compaction run for a full-house? It would be a fantastic predictive tool if there is a strong correlation

IF you think that this is a good suggestion please use the live Jet Stream feature at:-
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/08/02/0000Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-6.72,57.59,847
I think the video graphics are great on this website, it really gives a sense of what is happening. The key is side-by-side. 2020 would be a great year to record in this manner because of its unique features.

It's a BIG ask but I THINK it could very interesting, instructive and visually exciting to see it all together.

Again +1 for the latest original contribution (whether or not you tell me to 'get on my bike)

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 05:40:17 AM »
The Area around Cape Morris Jesup is breaking up all the way across to the Weddell Sea!

You can see at the top of picture in the Weddell Sea open water around 342 miles from the North
Pole, Cape Morris Jesup is 442 miles from the North Pole.
I thought the Weddell Sea to be in Antarctica. Is there one in the Arctic also?
I assume glennbuck meant the Wandel Sea.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandel_Sea

Pages: [1]