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 - Tor Bejnar

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: June 09, 2019, 05:28:38 PM »
I am testing below for differences between U Bremen's SMOS vs SMOS-SMAP maps for ice thinness. Recall the M in both stands for soil moisture; their data (like Ascat's) has been re-purposed for sea ice. The latter brings in synergistic data from a second satellite to correct and enhance the former.

Since the advent of v205 of SMOS-SMAP, there seems to be no justification for using plain SMOS, other than it has a much longer consistent archive (ie same algo versioning) and a one day  shorter lag-to-archive posting. SMOS is riddled with flash artifacts. Both are observational data that have been vetted in the field, unlike Piomas.

SMOS-SMAP is provided at a vastly better resolution (2.83x), measured as Gimp pixel counts on the (polar stereographic) line between St Lawrence Island in the Bering Sea and Bear Island in the Barents (these are consistently visible in both pure imagery and in archival base maps).

That distance is 4738 km (2558 nm) as measured in WGS84 on Google Earth Pro. Accurate pixel counts are the key to re-sizing images to matching overlays:

satellite      pxl       %      ~km/pxl    ~km^2/pxl
SMOS          397.5    75.815   11.92      5.06
Ascat         524.3   100.000    9.04      6.67
OsiSaf       1075.5   204.711    4.41     13.66
SMOS-SMAP    1146.0   218.577    4.13     14.59
AMSR2        1197.6   228.419    3.96     15.24

Both satellites max out (to beige) in the central Arctic during the freeze season, as the ice pack quickly thickens beyond their 0.5m sensing capability. However, certain peripheral areas do not thicken to this depth at any time during recent winters. Thus SMOS-SMAP provides nuanced data during months when AMSR2, Ascat and WorldView see nothing but ice surface.

It's not possible yet to see how the two thinness maps compare during melt season, nor is it clear what they measure or conflate in summer, the possibilities being ice thinness, melt ponds, rafted ice, refrozen melted snow, slushy floes, liquid cloud water, or artifacts from passing storms.

Rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater (not use in summer), it might be better to take (locationally consistent) SMOS-SMAP colors as the thin or dodgy ice, that ice most vulnerable to melt-out. This interpretation interpret very well with the peripheral location of thinness colors both during fall freeze-up of 2018 and into early June of 2019.

The mp4 below is a 266-day hybrid map showing SMOS from 15 Sep to 31 Dec 2018 concatenated to SMOS-SMAP from 01 Jan to 07 June 2019. I originally made it to 700 pixel width but because the center stays so dark and is so large, it views better at 550 width. While moderately difficult to make, the final product only takes up 4-5 MB at 16-20 fps frame rate.

Note the very rapid expansion of dodgy ice in the last few days in the Beaufort-Chukchi and above the Svalbard-FJL-SZ line.

The freeze/melt cycle is largely a story of peripheral ice freezing, moving with the wind, and then melting to an extent determined by whatever weather summer brought. In most years the sub-central ice pack is not noticeably affected (though in fact multi-year ice is on a disappearing trend).

This year the lower CAB has experienced unusual displacement towards the CAA, Fram and Beaufort arm. The area has been cloudy enough that the main region of thick old ice has rarely been visible in Worldview, though intact ice with brittle healed leads can be seen after enhancement.

The contribution of SMOS-SMAP is thus to the near-miss zone: ice that thinned to 0.5m and below but did not quite melt out (or become visible as low concentration by AMSR2) by end of season. It is likely more informative than sketchy albedo and melt pond products earlier in the season as these do not measure either top or bottom melt.

The last three weeks of Ascat are also showing weather streaking across the scene, sometimes leaving permanent effects on radar brightness (ice near-surface dielectric), both lightning (less polarizable constituents) and darkening (more saline or more liquid).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 08, 2019, 04:08:31 AM »
I would continue to assert that most of the ice is incapable of supporting substantial melt ponding and this is why it is less visible than previous years.

Thanks, that was rather my take as well.  Visible ponding is one sign of melt, but given the fragmented and lose state of so much ice, I wouldn't assume fewer ponds automatically signifies less melt.   We'll know soon enough.


something that i'm trying to convey for the last 3 years, floes are small and ice is fractured, hence water will drain into the ocean on a large scale.

further as far as i can see temps are at or above 0C 23-24h per day and no-one can tell me that at 0-1C ice does not melt, especially at the edges where salty sea-water helps in the process and edges there are many nowadays.
Wow the pseudo-science cavalry join together.
The SMOS info, see SMOS thread, or the high compactness also not good enough?
And why can we see many places (of limited extent at the moment) where the 2019 degraded soup that you describe can hold surface melting in the traditional way?

Dr Judah Cohen has updated the AER blog June 7:

Continued northern blocking predicted by GFS ensemble rolling forward

*edit how do I make a chart like this?

I just engaged in a simple act of protest against privilege and every single person who weighed in on the discussion defended that privilege.

It isn't privilege.  It's an earned right.  You post actual data every day for a few years and I'll gladly put down the next noobie that comes along messing up the thread.

The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: May 29, 2019, 07:14:57 PM »
The simple fact is that this growth system (capitalism) cannot grow indefinitely when it is constrained by a finite resource (the planet). The only solution is to devise a new way to organize human civilization. Given their finite nature, this absolutely requires a more equitable distribution of these resources.

We may even need to talk about adapting to climate change that is largely out of our ability to control.

 :o Words fail me but I will try to respond to this.

Please try to read up on what a 4C or 6C warmer world will look like. There is simply no adaptation possible and to suggest this is beyond belief.

The latest IPCC report got it right. We need to be carbon neutral by 2050.

Science / Re: Solar cycle
« on: May 28, 2019, 07:27:45 PM »
The Sun Follows the Rhythm of the Planets

Study Corroborates Influence of Planetary Tidal Forces On Solar Activity

One of the big questions in solar physics is why the Sun's activity follows a regular cycle of 11 years. Researchers from the Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), an independent German research institute, now present new findings, indicating that the tidal forces of Venus, Earth and Jupiter influence the solar magnetic field, thus governing the solar cycle. The team of researchers present their findings in the journal Solar Physics

As with the gravitational pull of the Moon causing tides on Earth, planets are able to displace the hot plasma on the sun's surface. Tidal forces are strongest when there is maximum Venus-Earth-Jupiter alignment; a constellation that occurs every 11.07 years. But the effect is too weak to significantly perturb the flow in the solar interior, which is why the temporal coincidence was long neglected. However, the HZDR researchers then found evidence of a potential indirect mechanism that may be able to influence the solar magnetic field via tidal forces: oscillations in the Tayler instability, a physical effect that, from a certain current, can change the behavior of a conductive liquid or of a plasma. Building on this concept, the scientists developed their first model in 2016; they have since advanced this model in their new study to present a more realistic scenario.

In the hot plasma of the sun, the Tayler instability perturbs the flux and the magnetic field, itself reacting very sensitively to tiny forces. A small thrust of energy is enough for the perturbations to oscillate between right-handed and left-handed helicity (the projection of the spin onto the direction of momentum). The momentum required for this may be induced by planetary tidal forces every eleven years—ultimately also setting the rhythm at which the magnetic field reverses the polarity of the sun.

... the scientists systematically compared historical observations of solar activity from the last thousand years with planetary constellations, statistically proving that the two phenomena are linked. "There is an astonishingly high level of concordance: what we see is complete parallelism with the planets over the course of 90 cycles," said Frank Stefani, lead author of the study. "Everything points to a clocked process."

Besides influencing the 11-year cycle, planetary tidal forces may also have other effects on the sun. For example, it is also conceivable that they change the stratification of the plasma in the transition region between the interior radiative zone and the outer convection zone of the sun (the tachocline) in such a way that the magnetic flux can be conducted more easily. Under those conditions, the magnitude of activity cycles could also be changed, as was once the case with the Maunder Minimum, when there was a strong decline in solar activity for a longer phase.

In the long term, a more precise model of the solar dynamo would help scientists to quantify climate-relevant processes such as space weather more effectively, and perhaps even to improve climate predictions one day.

F. Stefani et al. A Model of a Tidally Synchronized Solar Dynamo, Solar Physics (2019)

... we focus on the 11.07-years alignment periodicity of the tidally dominant planets Venus, Earth, and Jupiter, whose persistent synchronization with the solar dynamo is briefly touched upon. The typically emerging dynamo modes are dipolar fields, oscillating with a 22.14-years period or pulsating with a 11.07-years period, but also quadrupolar fields with corresponding periodicities. ...  Phase coherent transitions between dipoles and quadrupoles, which are reminiscent of the observed behavior during the Maunder minimum, can easily be triggered by long-term variations of dynamo parameters, but may also occur spontaneously even for fixed parameters. Further interesting features of the model are the typical second intensity peak and the intermittent appearance of reversed helicities in both hemispheres.

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

Click to start.

Policy and solutions / Re: When will CO2 emissions peak?
« on: May 28, 2019, 02:02:44 PM »

Naturally, we are talking about the magnitude of annual emissions of CO2 by the civilization into the atmosphere.

To me this is not obvious at all. Emissions from permafrost, methane, forest fires and the ocean capacity to exchange CO2 all have a huge impact in the total number of CO2. My answer to the poll question before I read the thread was a century of more, because I was thinking of natural emissions.

However after seeing your clarification, which only includes human sources of CO2 my answer gets pulled to within the next two decades. 

The answer depends on two things. The renewables revolution and Arctic sea ice. They both determine when human CO2 emissions peak. Each one can stop the other from happening. The difference is that one ends humanity as we know it and the others ushers humanity into a new era of prosperity and balance with the environment.

Difficult indeed.

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 25, 2019, 06:09:18 PM »
Here I am testing a pipeline for making double-masked Ascat time series. This uses three wavelengths but instead of trying to combine those into an RGB, masking lets each do what it does best, making a partitioned image of exclusively one-wavelength sectors.

The land mask, derived from AMSR2uhh 6.25km, covers up weather noise and snow variability on islands and mainland. The open water mask covers over artifacts in 5.255 GHz radar over open sea water as moisture increases in the air during spring.

It's important to realize AMSR2uhh is provided in a pixel-perfect palette unlike so many other satellite products. This means palette colors are in 1-1 correspondence with ice map colors. Using the color picker provided by Gimp on the deepest palette blue, all open water can be selected (in the appropriate layer of tiled images) or for that matter by loosening the picker radius in color space, all AMSR2uhh pixels with 0-15% or 0-25% sea ice concentration. However, for the 30 days selected ending May 24, very little ice had intermediate concentrations so it wasn't worth while working further with them.

Over in ImageJ, CLAHE will load a mask (land + water) and only apply its algorithm to what is left on the frame for each day. Going back and forth between ImageJ and Gimp to utilize the strengths of each facilitates production of the final film strip. The secondary animation shows the content and ordering of the Gimp layers. The frame called 'final' has stubbed in the adaptive contrast enhancement.

Note that Ascat uses day numbers but AMSR2uhh calendar dates. That works out because then both can be pulled from initial stacks and added at the very end using 'paste control' with 'zero fill' in ImageJ after enlarging with 'canvas size'. This avoids resizing text or taking it through contrast adjustment both of which degrade its dithering.

Next time, I would place them in Alaska by the Bering Strait instead of in Greenland because the klutzy controller in mp4 covers them up unless the visitor mouses away. It seems that mp4 proportion options are such that the product is a bit too wide for the forum even though I had started from 700 x 642. If I recall, 670 pixel width in ImageJ RGB will end up at 700 in mpg.

The most excellent online service at does a great job reducing file size from a non-distributable 51MB to scarcely over 0,6MB without noticeably degrading image quality.

Here I was seeking an overall procedure that avoids multiple resizing of data. The Ascat has to be enlarged by 228.084% to fit over the AMSR2uhh which I did not want to shrink as that blurs the palette. Fortunately, that is about as much enlargement as Ascat can take without pixelating. I tend to put it in 16- or even 32-bit grayscale mode before enlarging with bicubic and put the result back in ordinary RGB to overlay AMSR2uhh which doesn't work as grayscale.

Looking at the last 2-3 days, an elongated white flash moves east across the Beaufort. This is likely a very moist jet of cloud. This suggests that it will not always be possible for Ascat to display the ice surface as the melt season progresses -- there are limitations to masking. But if the tracking season can be extended a few weeks on both side, that would be very helpful in following ice motion.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: May 25, 2019, 11:52:01 AM »
Just for clarification are we talking about Metric or Imperial Smidgeon


Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 24, 2019, 07:28:29 PM »
Here I am testing a few other ImageJ processes while looking at the question of whether the massive ongoing Arctic Ocean icepack rotation is leading to significant export out the Svalbard-FJL opening to the Barents (where it would very likely melt away later in the season. ...

It is so good to have A-Team back on the Forum.  Such combined clarity and sophistication is a rare treat in any realm.

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 24, 2019, 07:23:04 PM »
Here I am testing a few other ImageJ processes while looking at the question of whether the massive ongoing Arctic Ocean icepack rotation is leading to significant export out the Svalbard-FJL opening to the Barents (where it would very likely melt away later in the season. While the answer to that is no for the last 30 days (to 23 May 2019, day 143), more ice will be shaved off into a path between the islands if the current wind forcing continues.

However the amount would be negligible compared to the area/volume exiting the Fram. The ice in the Barents today predominantly derives from left-over ice of the previous melt season and ice leaving the Kara Sea. Last year, the Kara injected a massive tongue of ice north into the Arctic Ocean basin, some 5-6% of the total area. This ice moved zonally west but did not quite make it to the Fram.

On the technical side, the first image shows a developing seasonal problem with Ascat: as more open water develops, image quality degrades and ice features can scarcely be distinguished from increasing dielectric in fo,g low clouds and surfaces enriched in sea salt. This affects boundary areas like the Bering/Arctic, Chukchi/Arctic and Barents/Arctic almost all year.

The aim here is to extend the Ascat season into June by masking both islands which contribute distraction in time series but are fixed in position and open water/regions of low concentration ice as determined by AMSR2 which is not subject to the same artifacts. The former is a fixed mask that is valid all year; the latter varies from day to day.

The first image shows the Ascat download (top) for May 2nd compared a white fringed island mask (bottom) from UHH AMSR2 that stays fixed throughout the animation (2nd image). There are issues in resizing the mask within small channels between islands because 'large' pixels can only do so much. The second frame shows open water and the third what 0-20% ice concentration adds to the mask (red band). The AMSR2 has to be enlarged here by 7% to fit the 2.5x enlarged Ascat. It would have been better to have chosen the original Ascat enlargement properly (228.084%) as in 3rd graphic.

There are no no real additional steps involved in placing daily variation masks over montaged enhanced Ascats. The AMSR2 itself cannot be enlarged by non-integral amounts with interpolation of palette steps which would disrupt precision color picking from it.

Some text to orient non-experts has been included by placing black text in a blank alpha channel over any frame, then duplicating to the total number of frames, removing the alpha channel to white, inverting, and placing it over the ImageJ montage with 'copy control' set to black as transparent. Date labels come from the original file names, as modified, and are captured early on (before ImageJ loses them).

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 23, 2019, 09:47:12 PM »
Testing the waters again on all-ImageJ Ascat mp4. Good labels can be made and positioned as desired if the files are renamed properly before loading. Duplicating the stack, cutting and filling to text box size, then enlarging canvas to fit final size of the data stack, using 'paste control' set to 'zero fill' which is ImageJ's way of setting pure black as alpha transparency.

I also compared 'equalize' to manual brightness and adaptive contrast as a quick and easy contrast adjustment. If an Ascat land mask is loaded, these tools have a better histogram to work with that does not include noisy weather patterns over open water. The land mask is helpful in defining crop boundaries. If it is included in the stack of Ascats, it will be cropped just like them and can be used at any time up to mp4 production.

The specific task here is optimally depicting movement of the last holdout ice between the North Pole and central CAA (which has poor inherent contrast). Normally it just sits there but over the last 172 days a great unprecedented swath of ice has steadily moved from islands off central Siberia across the pole nearly to and out the Fram. The older ice is been squashed up against the Canadian islands, with some pushed towards the Beaufort, some forced through Nares, some possibly to the Barents, with most going down the Fram. The Ascats are again spaced at five days to reduce file size of product.

Despite wx predictions to the contrary, this pattern has continued through May 22nd. This, if it continues another month, will lead to shocking developments by fall so I am inclined to bury the mp4 here in development where fewer will get unduly alarmed ahead of events. Even with a so-so melt season, there would be very little surface area, volume, or multi-year ice left going into September. However we have seen other years like 2012 where weather simply shifted and the melt season trajectory changed to something less damaging.

It's never been clear what would hold the old ice against the Canadian islands if the outer ice pack is not there to exert pressure; wind patterns could well change with more open water, this ice might drift off, be broken up by waves, with its remnants disappearing.

Some movements of continuously recognizable features are shown in the static image. It is better to circle reference areas than to use vectors of point displacements because of rotation and deformation. The dark ice is mostly first year and so the displacement of its front is feasible to measure. For scale, it is 1050 km from Longyearben, Svalbard to the North Pole.

The attached high precision land mask is from AMSR2UHH. It fits very accurately over the 1170 x 1170 Ascats.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: May 22, 2019, 07:01:52 PM »
A fusion plant would be nice to have, assuming it's feasible, but we can't afford the years going by. Instead we can already harvest the local existing fusion plant with PV.

There are a couple of intriguing outside chances that fusion might be made to work. There are even instances of private individuals building actual fusion devices and reactors at home. These are very far from power application conditions, still...

The mainstream ideas never seem to be able to break the "30 years from now" barrier. No matter how much work they do, and how much money they invest the projections remain - 30 years in the future - i.e. some magical day beyond the end of the authors career.

Depending on the particular fusion reactions, there is also the "little problem" of tritium generation and release. Widespread use of fusion with release of copious quantities of tritium would itself likely be an environmental and health disaster. If fusion is ever an operational reality, containment and control of the tritium releases may be one of the most difficult problems that they will have to overcome.

The three hydrogen isotopes - protium, deuterium and tritium - are interesting. These have large differences in how they behave in many chemical reactions and conditions, due to their differences in mass. These differences are exploited in some cases to perform isotope separation.

In the body, tritium is treated chemically mostly like protium. In addition to having a 12.33 year radiological half-life, chemical processes handle it and remove it from the body resulting in a biological half-life.

There are suggestions that water depleted in deuterium may have health benefits attributable to the weight difference with protium and how that affects chemical reactions. There are similar though less strong arguments for certain other elements and their isotopes (principally carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen). As with hydrogen, the weight differences in these isotopes slightly (very slightly) change the chemical reactions they are involved in. Potassium is a special case, as one major long-lived isotope is mildly radioactive.

Tritium on the other hand causes health issues not just because it is radioactive, but also because it is so much heavier than protium and as a result behaves somewhat differently in chemical reactions.

As a radioactive material, tritium is treated as having a single biological half-life of about 9.4 days (with wide variation depending on water ingestion - rates ~4-15 days) and dependent on the mode of damage. In reality it has three different biological half-lives (about 7-10 days, about 30-50 days and about 540 days) dependent on what chemical form it is in (water, proteins and such, or DNA). The combined effects of these are only crudely represented by the aggregated single biological half-life. The combined damage effects of the more complex model of tritium biological processing and radiological damage mean that the total hazards may be more than twice the accepted values. Double strand DNA breaks are the most severe hazard, and those are dominated by the tritium bound in DNA, which has the longest biological half-life.

Multi component models of biological processing are challenging. There is broad variation in the population with many confounding factors to consider. And the form the tritium is presented in dramatically change how it is processed. Tritium as part of water (HTO) is not equivalent to tritium bond as a component of protein in food.

As with so many things in the nuclear field, the accepted model and values from the radiation health protection folks and regulators is heavily influenced by the history of the field, their proponency of nuclear power, and their financial dependency on it. I am aware of no truly independent expert authority. For nuclear that is almost not possible. Those who work in the field are financially dependent on nuclear to a high degree; or almost exclusively. There is (as in all fields) also a very strong tendency to get caught in a self referential sort of bias believing that the choices the individual has made are good, and there for ... Those who strongly oppose it are likewise often biased by belief. This isn't a complaint, as much as it is a comment on how human belief and society work.  As a result, finding non-biased factual information can be quite challenging.

There is also the problem, as with so many things in the nuclear field, that the releases of tritium from nuclear weapons testing and reactor operations created a bias toward down playing and concealing the hazards to avoid public reaction and opposition to the weapons programs.

A factor of 2 to 3 difference in health impacts isn't huge in the grand scheme of things. It is important.

But all of that is just my personal opinion; a very well informed one, but still just my opinion.


Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: May 22, 2019, 06:21:42 PM »
Just seeing if ImageJ: 57 gif frames --> avi --> mov --> mp4 works using the free and fast online converter at

It does works for me on a Mac and accomplishes a huge reduction in file size, from 90 to 3.3 MB making it feasible for the forum.

The movie shows the developing arm of the Beaufort Gyre as seen by Ascat from day 255 of 2018 (Sept 12th) to day 141 of 2019 (May 21st) using 5 day intervals except for the last 3 dates. This spans 251 days.

The question here is where and when does the ice arise. The arm begins to form over Banks Island very early in the freeze season. The ice is whitish, meaning that it is older thicker ice that has largely excluded salt from its initial brine channels meaning minimal surface polarizability sko better return of Ascat's radar beam.

The ice appears sourced from the upper eastern portion of the resilient CAA ice. The winds about the  Beaufort high cause a gyre to form that is however constrained by the fixed islands of the CAA. This appears as a slicing, with large leads developing in the ice too far east of Banks' promontory to participate, to the extent the ice had mechanical cohesion.

Gyre means circle. The Beaufort ice arm has never attained anything approaching a full circle in recent years. Instead, increasingly broken up floes move up the Alaskan coast up to the eastern Chukchi and then bend towards the pole where individual floes either dissipate completely or weakly persist by the end of the melting season. Ice inside the arm has been wrongly said to thicken in place over multiple years.

The' Beaufort Gyre' is an exceedingly vague concept geographically scarcely ever depicted in the same location at the same size. It is probably best defined operationally by the lowered salinity basin shown at depth by Mercator Ocean.

As an off-axial surface rotation on a non-inertial non-spherical reference frame that itself is rotating, the ice experiences centrifugal as well as positionally varying coriolis and buoyancy forces in addition to the wind stress field applied to floe edges and compression ridges.

Since large regions of the Beaufort have melted out in recent years, an additional complexity for figuring upward Ekman transport has set in because the wind forcing is now divided over the course of a year between a rigid complete ice pack, loose floes in open leads, and large patches of strictly open water.

The pack is not moving as a western boundary current in the sense the arm is well off the bathymetry of narrow continental shelf. If there is an operative Alaskan coastal current, it cannot be on the surface as countercurrent surface ice eddies are not seen (unlike in East Greenland). However ice production and tidal effects in the Amundsen Gulf do prominently affect a band of near-shore waters along the Alaskan coast, as does Mackenzie River discharge in season.

The Beaufort Gyre is depicted in scientific journals in wildly varying ways. One of the more extreme versions is hosted by NSIDC (left of 2nd image). This is at odds with the location of a reduced salinity basin at depth provided by Mercator Ocean (right of 2nd image) and observationally confirmed by profilers and gliders.

No fresh water reservoir exists anywhere in the Arctic Ocean (away from river discharge; recent Borneo expeditions have had to melt snow as ice melt was undrinkable. Oceanographers use 'fresh water' as a figure of speech for waters with slightly reduced psu salinity.

Beaufort waters at depth cannot cross over the shallow sills of the main CAA channels and so do not reach Baffin Bay or threaten Gulf Stream overturning in the North Atlantic. Net annual export is roughly 44,000 cubic km per year from the Arctic to Baffin Bay, a small portion of sverdrups coming in with the West Spitsbergen Current or leaving via the East Greenland Current.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 22, 2019, 04:47:40 PM »
Of course, the important date is not first BOE, but when it becomes inevitable. That is almost certainly past.

I'm of the belief that date passed over 100 years ago.  This belief does not make me popular.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Rammb Slider Thread
« on: May 21, 2019, 03:13:20 PM »
Ice follows wind.

This is a GIF showing the Laptev Sea, 20.05. 18:29h to 21.05 08:00h UTC.

(requires a click)

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: May 20, 2019, 10:43:13 PM »
HBO's dramatization of the Chernobyl disaster in their current miniseries makes clear just how severe the hazards are.

In part 2, they graphically show the first helicopter doing sand and boron drops on the molten and burning reactor and immediately falling out of the sky. The dramatization is especially good. What you see in that is the helicopter turning slowly as the rotors come apart and the helicopter falls from the sky like a bird hit with a rifle shot.

How? - you may ask.

The answer is revealing and terrifying. Lubricants and greases are destroyed by immense radiation doses. When that happens, the greases cease to be lubricating and the the rotating parts seize. The dynamic forces of the rotor coming to a screeching halt then literally tear the blades off of the helicopter in mid flight.

Everyone on board was of course exposed to terrifyingly high levels of radiation - so high that they were already dead as the radiation tore apart the chemistry of their bodies.

That an accident like that can happen in what was thought to be a safe reactor design, where no such accident was thought possible should give everyone pause. The operators had such a poor understanding of their own reactor that they believed that it was physically impossible for the reactor to explode, despite direct evidence to the contrary. And still they persisted in their beliefs even after the reactor was destroyed.

HBO did a great job as well in portraying the events that followed, where the first heroic expert manages to get the sand and boron drops started to try to end the ongoing chain reaction; and where the second expert arrives to point out how wrong he/they were in their beliefs and how that too was increasing the danger of a megaton scale explosion which would have destroyed all four reactors and led to the death of over a million people, the permanent evacuation of 60 million or more people and the near permanent abandonment of Ukraine, Byelorussia, Poland, most of eastern Germany, several Baltic States and a portion of Russia.

By the pure good fortune of having her arrive those events did not happen.

In reality, Chernobyl suffered a very low yield in core nuclear detonation (a prompt criticality) followed by an extremely energetic destruction of the fuel and cladding.  A similar in core detonation happened at the military SL-1 reactor in Idaho. This then led to the vaporization of the water in the core with sufficient force to drive the 2,000 ton lid into the roof, and rotating seven times around the reactor hall. In Idaho at SL-1 the flash vaporization of the water in the core splattered the fuel plates against the reactor vessel walls, and drove the water upward where it impacted the vessel head with over 10,000 psi of force. The imbalanced forces ejected the central control rod through an operator launching him into the ceiling, sheared all of the vessel piping and caused the reactor vessel to jump 9 feet into the air killing the other two operators in the process.

At Chernobyl this was followed by the explosive detonation of the superheated hydrogen released by the chemical reaction as it combined with the air above the reactor fully destroying the roof and ejecting a sizable fraction of the core from the building, along with the control rods and much of the graphite moderator.

In Japan the situation was different, the reactors were of a wholly different design, yet the outcome was eerily similar. Even two years after the accident, the engineers and experts had not yet recognized that under reactor operating conditions that when they injected salt water into the cores, that they created a disaster.

At reactor temperature and pressure conditions water is a non-polar solvent. That is very unlike the water we all know at room temperature conditions. Salt is nearly insoluble under those conditions.

As a result, the salt in the injected water immediately condensed and rained out of the water. It then fell down in and around the screaming hot fuel where it acted as a corrosive and as an insulating jacket leading to immediate cladding failure (for what ever cladding had not already failed), and rapidly rising temperatures. Etc...

Based on an accident in California, it appears that what happened next was that the pressures internally released into the outer vessel as the inner cracked and failed under salt attack leading to a rapid pressure rise that then stretched the head bolts on the outer vessel leading to a sudden and massive hydrogen gas release to the containment building. With inadequate venting and inadequate explosions control, it was just a matter of moments before the hydrogen-oxygen gas blend found an ignition source and detonated the containments like giant mortars, launching the guts of the rectors high into the sky.

In both cases, the shear denial to believe reality, or to prepare adequately for the possibilities led to much of the disasters that followed.

That denial remains a mainstay of the nuclear industry globally.

In response to Chernobyl, Russia faced a grim choice. Sacrifice all of the contaminated grains and foods produced in the food basket of the former Soviet Union and allow people to starve, or use the grain and foods. They chose the later. To ameliorate the impacts somewhat they then chose to distribute the contaminated foods across the whole of the soviet union so that everyone got some dose, and no one got enormous doses from the foods.

Japan made the identical choice with Fukushima. Like the Russians, they quarantined the worst, then spread the rest out across the whole of the population.

The US in response chose to dramatically lessen the radiation protection standards in the wake of a future accident in preparation for doing exactly the same thing.

The original source of the problems that led to the failures in all three cases (SL-1, Chernobyl, and Fukushima) are different in their technical issues, but identical in their philosophical origins. The hubris and denial of reality in each of these accidents led to their occurrence, and likely to the inevitability that accidents like them would happen.

For SL-1, the reactor was too powerful for its conditions. The design was such that a single control rod being partially removed from the reactor when cold could cause exactly the accident that happened. Combine that with the use of manual removal of the rods for control rod drive mechanism maintenance, and with added cladding plates to reduce the core power, that then bound up with the control rod blades, and the stage was set for a catastrophe.

For Chernobyl, the use of six inch long graphite tips on the ends of the control rods to increase neutronic and energetic efficiency of the reactor, which caused insertion of the control rods to increase power during a scram was the final nail in the coffin of a series of other design and operational failures. When the reactor became unstable during a low power test that intentionally disabled safety systems, and operated outside the design envelope, insertion of the control rods amounted to pouring gasoline on a roaring fire, rather than dousing the reaction.

For Fukushima, the utter disregard for historical tsunami's, designs that put safety equipment in the basements where the flooding could take them out added to other design and operational failures to doom the reactors. It is only by the incredible good fortune of a hugely capable crew doing amazing work that Fukushima Daini didn't suffer a similar fate to Daiichi.

And in each of these cases, other operators and rescue personal took enormous risks and radiation exposures to deal with the disasters. At Chernobyl and Fukushima, these will continue for a very long time - hundreds of years at least.

As with the arctic ice, there are other unrecognized hazards.

In the past 15 years, NRC engineers recognized that the hastalloy control rod drive mechanism sleeves were failing and cracking in alarming ways - with up to 15 inch long longitudinal cracks and 75% around circumferential cracks.The NRC engineers internal reports were terrifying. NRC and the industry responding by replacing the drive sleeves across the reactor fleet. The cause of this failure was an unrecognized risk for cracking in the alloys used due to phase change across a narrow temperature band, and the occurrence of precisely those conditions in the sleeves. Had one of these failed at any reactor, the sleeve and control rod would have been ejected from the core and resulted in a partial or complete loss of coolant accident (PLOCA or LOCA).  None of this ever made the news.

The destruction of concrete in the spent fuel pools and around the reactors by gamma radiation exposure is another such risk. Every fuel basin on earth is at risk of catastrophic failure from this with accident consequences every bit as large as Chernobyl and Fukushima. Yet, no actions are occurring to assess the risk or to deal with it. In Idaho, the Naval Reactors Facility Expended Core Facility Pool failed for this reason. By great good luck, they had time to empty the fuel from the pool into dry cask storage and to build a new pool.

Catastrophic cladding failure (as observed in experiments at Fukushima) is yet another.

The list goes on.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 14, 2019, 12:12:47 PM »
I am no expert, but the last years have taught me that for every individual season weather is the allimportant thing despite the long term warming trend of the globe. What is the worst possibble combination for ice (the way I understand it)? Persistent low pressure and cloudy skies during winter to keep the Arctic warm; then high pressure/sunny skies during peak insolation (May,June,July), then big storms (low pressure systems) in August/September.

So far, we have had plenty of sunshine (see chart for past 30 days of sea level pressure), and this , coupled with the fairly new trend (past 2 years) of Pacification leading to the early opening of the Bering is probably weakening the ice very much. We probably won't see it in the extent numners tomorrow, or next week, but given the forecast for the rest of the month (described above by others), we could see serious damage, come June.

Science / Re: NOAA ESRL Global CO2 Increase Accelerating
« on: May 13, 2019, 12:21:27 AM »
NOAA ESRL Global Mean CO2 passed 410 ppmv in February 2019. This is not the Mauna Loa (MLO), but the entire GHG Network mean. We moved from 400 ppm through 410 ppm in 47 months - less than four years. There is no comparison in 800,000 of ice core data.

We have added 70 ppm to the global CO2 concentration in 39 years. Again there is no comparison in the ice core data.

There is a full write up at


The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: May 09, 2019, 03:59:24 PM »
Black, Hot Ice May Be Nature’s Most Common Form of Water

A new experiment confirms the existence of “superionic ice,” a bizarre form of water that might comprise the bulk of giant icy planets throughout the universe.
Link >>

The day the Arctic is going ice-free, i'll call it 'black, hot ice' too.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 08, 2019, 08:43:16 PM »

As far as I know, the above NASA chart is the standard for GMSL. The 8mm / year increase can be seen from 2011-15, 2017 and April-Oct, 2018.

If you're interested in the 18.6 year tidal cycle, you can google it or "nodal precession".

For what it's worth, I'm interested in climate activism and the inflection points which will govern societal transformation around the challenge. After a lot of investigation, I've arrived at the hypothesis that we can't get past the early 2030's without running into a major financial meltdown. Could the global punch in the face come earlier? Sure.

Hopefully, we wake up before then. Telling people that disaster in coming in 2100 is not very effective in my experience. Sadly, not enough people are motivated by the plight of young people and future generations.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 08, 2019, 07:32:16 PM »

Sorry, but you are cherry-picking.  Selectively choosing the highest rate over the past decades does no one any good.  Conversely, someone could choose the last three years, when sea level rise has slowed to 1.5 mm/year, and say that the water is slowing.  Neither describes the situation accurately.

I'm happy to pick up the topic of "cherry picking" and peel back the layer on that claim.

If you look at the chart of sea level rise in the satellite era, you will sea a relatively steady rise in the graph with 3 significant downward spikes in 1998, 2011 and 2016. There are no dramatic upward "spikes."

The downward spikes are associated with El Nino's ('98 and '16) and an unusual precipitation event which transferred massive amounts of water from ocean to land ('11).

As far as I know, there is no theory which supports any exogenous processes causing short-term spikes in global sea level rise. Only the chronic processes of thermal expansion and loss of land ice are material factors in GMSL increase.

If we peer closely at the curve, we see the pause for the 2016 El Nino and the resumption of the 8mm year increase in 2017. Another pause follows and the resumption of the accelerated increase from April to October 2018.

You can jump to the assumption of "cherry picking", but I'll challenge you to offer a cogent theory as to what might be causing a short-term increase in the slope of the curve that wouldn't be sustained.

The signal is there that SLR is accelerating and it's corroborated by all of the reports that Greenland and Antarctica are losing ice at accelerating rates. Will their continue to be periodic downward adjustments for events like El Nino's and other anomalies like the 2011 precipitation event? Absolutely!

What I'm saying is that we've entered a new normal for the chronic processes of thermal expansion and land ice loss which will only increase in pace in the coming decades.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 07, 2019, 03:52:34 PM »
Thanks for the comments everyone, I took gerontocrats advice and plotted the regression (sept minima not year maxima). FDD as a whole seems to be a pretty poor predictor of the cycle end-point.

This is an imperfect way to plot this, but my university firewall prevents me from accessing ftp files meaning I need to do it all manually. Also the fact these FDD data points are Jan-Jan, but the Sept minimum occurs 3/5ths into the year makes it worse.

I suppose what im trying to show here is that I shouldnt really have taken any inference from the FDD data about what way the ice could go  :)!
Tealight's AWP graphs and maps give the daily and accumulated potential energy over and in the Arctic. Goto

I attach his "High Arctic" graphs that include only the following regions: Kara Sea, Laptev Sea, East Siberian Sea, Chukchi Sea, Beaufort Sea, Canadian Archipelago, Central Arctic[/quote] incidentally, the same seas I show as the Central Arctic Seas in the area tables I post in the extent data thread.

I am sure that they give a much better idea of the current and future state of Arctic Sea Ice (as Tealight has proved once already - Champion of Antarctic Sea Ice Predictors ("No time for losers!?)

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The 'Very Big Chunk' poll
« on: May 06, 2019, 07:28:04 PM »
The largest ice floe in the Lincoln Sea, probably 3 or 4 years old MYI, turns out to be a pile of junk, and nobody is even surprised. State of the Arctic in a nutshell.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: May 06, 2019, 12:38:32 PM »
Maybe not an invisible teapot, but a shiny red Tesla Roadster :)

p.s. You're both wrong, 2D objects can't rotate in 3D space.  :P

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 03, 2019, 10:42:21 PM »
Has the max been reached?  ;)
Greta Thunberg: I have Aspergers
ASIF posters responding to Neven's joke: WE ALL HAVE ASPERGERS

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 24, 2019, 08:23:22 PM »
Took a glance at Worldview today. Not my favourite medium. I used to work a lot on the Rapid response-tiles. Not available anymore. But I’m still capable to look at some spots out of 15 years of experience. Yes, still with you…
Inspired by 2 meter temps through DMI and volume projected by PIOMAS, it seemed not that bad a winter for sea ice. Worldview reveals that is mostly illusive. There are a multitude of influences at work. Just some make it to our attention. As Bering is mostly Pacific by now, sea ice in front of fast ice is crunched and mobile in East Siberian, Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Baffin Bay ice looks vulnerable and 4 MK Central Basin is torn by long leads, things don’t look a little better at all. The big crunch didn’t happen in ’17 nor in ’18. But it can happen any year now.

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: April 23, 2019, 04:50:46 PM »
The Govt Environment Minister (Michael Gove ) has apparently just agreed to meet Greta Thunberg and Extinction Rebellion, ( so things are moving on the official acknowledgement side at least.
Over the week of action so far, it feels as if the UK press are subtly shifting their ground, from decrying 'eco-rabble' last week to 'they might have a point' this week

my take is that it then took three years for sufficient seawater ingress to float the basal ice in the first trough and have that break through the overburden of glacial discharge.
The glacier is too thick to float and both GPR & seismic indicate it's solid ice until water-permeated glacial till at the bottom. The meltwater is fresh and it's being dumped into the fjord continuously. Can you find a scientific publication where the authors argue that the saltwater gets to penetrate upstream?

Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: April 19, 2019, 05:05:35 AM »
Yours truely demanding the Nelson Council in New Zealand declare a climate emergency. See short video at link below.

If not now, when?
If not me, who?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 17, 2019, 05:59:39 PM »
There has been a major shift in the atmospheric circulation pattern around the Arctic. The ridging which persisted over Alaska in February and March has ended while a strong ridge has set up over Scandinavia. This has allowed for an apparent recovery on the Alaskan side of the Arctic, although the reformed ice is very thin and won't last long. The heat on the Atlantic side won't show large effects on metrics because it is going over thick ice that was piled up at the exit to the Fram strait.

One not so good thing for sea ice about this atmospheric circulation pattern is that the coldest anomaly is focused on Baffin bay with strong north winds down the bay. This will enhance the circulation of warm salty water into the bay along the coast of Greenland and the flow of icy fresh water out of the bay into the Labrador sea. This will favor continued overturning in the Labrador sea and the release of oceanic heat to atmosphere over the far north Atlantic and subpolar seas.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 17, 2019, 11:47:44 AM »

In my opinion the SW crack (the low left one in Sentinel, the right one in Wipneus' post) has grown, widened and lengthened since then.

PS. these Sentinel Images are from identical orbital positions.

Mostly yes. Here is an animation of a month of Sentinel 1 A/B images showing changes in the other crack as well, less pronounced perhaps.

As a result from the 10m/pix resolution, you must click the image for the better view.

No there are not. It's simplistic to suggest it is. To do so dumbs down the "debate/discussions/arguments/alternatives" into a false non-existent dichotomy.

Really? Well when Obama's speech writers ripped 3 paragraphs of my words from Climate Progress (the old site) and presented it in a slightly different way, then was given as a speech by Obama, I beg to differ.  It was exactly in this vein.

Granted I was defending Obama; which is a pretty big thing because I really don't like his politics.  So it is no surprise that it was picked up.

I've been reading, discussing and contributing on climate change for nearly 2.5 decades now.  Sadly I'm just a slow learner...

So please excuse me for ignoring all the rest of what you say based on the premise above.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 09, 2019, 01:42:52 PM »
This looks very broken up, more than usual?
The north greenland fractures are similar to previous years but the lincoln sea makes it look worse this year. Thick ice build up on the north coast happened in 2016 but I think that was helped by more MYI from CAA. This year not so much MYI and more compaction from northern drift perhaps.
I only went back 2010-2019, worldview terra modis, north greenland, apr8 or nearest clear day.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2019, 07:41:13 AM »

It looks as if the line will continue downward in at least as steep an incline as the rest of the years which will make 2019 the record lowest extent!
I'm starting to take near term human extinction forecasts more seriously!

You'll come to see that the Arctic is out there to fool you. Noone in my experience can forecast, not even a single year but the next month either.

As for extinction, I don't believe in that. Humanity is quite versatile.

Generally true, but as a permaculture practitioner, and generally my entire life, I've a good sense of patterns. While the scientists still minimize or claim no relation between ENSO and ASI, I believe there is fairly significant one. Ergo, I was able to predict new lows, near new lows in ASI in the 2016-18 time frame due to the EN beginning in 2015.

Since then, I have seen some research showing warm air and moisture from the Pacific affects the ASI - which is exactly what my hypothesis was: EN's lead to a loading of heat into the Arctic, and it can take time, so within two years of an EN (no correlation with LN), there are typically new lows or near new lows.

We all know there were tons of daily (monthy?) records for extent, area over the last couple of years, particularly in the non-peak months, which I think we all assume has some effect on what I refer to as pre-conditioning.

From RealClimate, Aug, 2015:

Here is what I found going all the way back to the beginning of ASIE decline @ 1953-ish.

EN ’51 – ’54 = inception of ASI Extent decline.
EN ’57 – ’59 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’65 – ’66 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’68 – ’70 = New Low
EN ’72 – ’73 = possible correlation, some delay
EN ’76 – ’78 = New Low
EN ’79 – ’80 = New Low
EN ’82 – ’83 = New Low
EN ’86 – ’88 = New Low (’89,’90)
EN ’94 – ’95 = New Low
EN ’97 – ’98 = Drop from Previous (?)
EN ’04 – ’05 = Near New Low/New Low
EN ’04 – ’05/’06 – ’07 = New Low
EN ’09 – ’10 = New Low (’10, ’12)
EN ’15 – ’16 = New Low ’16,’17?...

...the hypothesis is more a 1 to 2 year lag, not only one. Looking at only one year wouldn’t find it...

Hopefully someone [a scientist] will look at it on the longer 2 year time frame added to the 1 year stuff already done, and update it.

I sent this stuff to Mark Serreze and he found it interesting, but said it wasn't his thing. Then this from last year:

...found that the strong global and Arctic changes depended on the magnitude of water vapor transfer from the mid-latitude oceans to the Arctic. When warm moist air is carried poleward towards the Arctic, it can lead to more low-lying clouds that act like a blanket, trapping warmth near the surface. The poleward movement of heat and moisture drive the Arctic's sea-ice retreat and low-cloud formation, amplifying Arctic warming.

The so-called ice-albedo feedback causes retreating ice and snow to lead to ever greater warming through increasing absorption of solar energy on darker surfaces.

If true for air and moisture, why not water flows, and over longer time periods, of course, and would EN's not enhance this effect?

Not the first time I've been ahead of the curve. I know eff all about the maths and the innards of the models and theories and details of what does what, which many of you do quite well, but I know patterns.

For your consideration.


Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice edge at minimum poll
« on: April 08, 2019, 11:32:16 PM »
amsr2-uhh jaxa minimum dates, 2012-2018 for comparison.
thanks Oren

While AbruptSLR is doing a great job in highlighting potential dangers of climate change, he is focusing on the very low-probability extreme climate change scenarios. If you read the articles he links to, they often focus on hypothetical extreme model runs to show what could happen in the case of runaway carbon emissions. He has recently posted papers with 4 times increases in CO2 concentrations and 5 or 11 times increases in methane concentrations. Those are scenarios well beyond even the extremes of RCP 8.5.
Also, renewable energy is now cheaper than coal and is quickly becoming cheaper than natural gas and EVs are poised to outsell ICEs in the coming decade. As a result, we're probably going to end up on an emissions path between RCP 2.6 and 4.5.
So there are many reasons to hope. I agree with AbruptSLR and many posters on this site that we need to get off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible and I also agree with the consensus climate scientists that it's not too late. Don't give up hope.

I never read ASLR's posts as a reason for despair. On the contrary: he shows the urgency of taking the collective action that can at this point hopefully still prevent the worst-case risks from materializing. Many mainstream communications focus on current best-estimates, without being or making people aware of the severe fat tail risks. Sutton 2018 proposes to improve on this lack of clear risk communication by using this simple figure below that shows the probability of very high climate sensitivity and its likely impacts, concluding that the highest risk is in the small, but significant chance of very high climate sensitivity and related impacts:

Not being aware of this risk increases the chance of insufficient collective climate action (mitigation and adaptation), and would therefore increase the chance of eventual depair, in case worst-case scenario's would turn into reality. Since we don't know the real probability distribution for sure, we're in a situation of deep uncertainty, which makes strong climate action all the more urgent as a precaution against finding out that a high climate sensitivity appears to be more likely than mainstream science thought so far.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential
« on: April 03, 2019, 01:19:03 AM »
BAM! Two years have gone by without an update.

I finally have the processsing power and coding skills to take the AWP model to where I intended it to be. Instead of only calculating the anomaly of potentially absorbed solar radiation. I now calculate the raw accumulated values, the anomaly and a percentage of the current year to the maximum possible (complete Ice-free conditions). From the 1980s to 2010s this percentage has gone up from roughly 52% to 62%. Generally from August onwards the Arctic is 75% icefree and from September onwards the Arctic is 90% icefree.

Everything is now much better presented with interactive graphs and sliders to compare individual years. The regional data is already calculated, but needs even more work for proper presentation. Near-real time data for 2019 is in the works too.

Fancy new webpage:

Still too short documentation of AWP model:

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: March 30, 2019, 03:59:46 AM »
It worries me that we will end up with a Climate Industrial Complex brought to us by the very industries that created the problems:

- Big Oil and Gas: The expertise to build the pipeline infrastructure needed to transport captured CO2, and the drilling expertise to bury it.

- Big Ag: The planting of "CO2 plantations" of switch grass etc. to capture CO2, then burn for energy, then capture the exhaust CO2 and we are back to Big Oil.

- Big Mining: Massive excavations and crushing of the right types of rocks (the best ones in Brazil and India) to be spread across wet ecosystems to be "weathered", capturing CO2 and transferring alkaline to the oceans.

- Big Military: To protect the above installations

All made at a great profit and counted as additions to GDP. Probably wont save civilization but it will surely be profitable trying.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 25, 2019, 09:49:20 AM »
Note the report stops at Feb 2019, the exact point before Model 3 started bulk deliveries to European customers.

So what? It's an intentional conspiracy is it? Is this what you're claiming - the whole report is "biased" and/or "inaccurate" and/or "flawed data" ... planned to coincide with the long indicated tesla deliveries to Europe?

oren is right, Lurk.
Here is a report from February :

Tesla Model 3 Easily Outsold All Other EVs In Europe In February 2019

Tesla is already the top-selling BEV brand in Western Europe (see report for February) and the latest data provided by industry analyst Matthias Schmidt ( suggest that the Tesla Model 3 is the top-selling model.

In the last month, about 3,724 registrations of the Model 3 were counted, which is several hundred more than in the case of the second top car, the Renault ZOE. Biggest markets for Model 3 were Germany (959) and Norway (791).

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 25, 2019, 08:00:48 AM »
Sorry to disappoint the Tesla bears here on this forum.

Tomorrow, as I take ownership of a brand new Tesla Model S, Tesla will increase their glory with one more 2019 Q1 sale and delivery, and they will increase their cash flow also.

And I'm really looking forward to never have to pump fossil fuel again !

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 24, 2019, 10:49:00 PM »
(posting a bit sheepishly as I've not commented yet this year  ::))

Here's my customary max season chart showing this year's path relative to the maximum position of previous years.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: March 24, 2019, 04:03:59 PM »
So, let's break down the variables available: <snippage>
you could add water temperature and salinity
upwelling (probably need FOoW for that) covered by 2 and 3?
air temps have been consistently low but will play a larger part soon, as will solar.

edit: maybe something to be gained from ascat, jan1-mar23 enlarged and enhanced.
It looks like the arch may have been under considerable pressure from the speed of collapse.
(or the ice around it was very weak)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: March 23, 2019, 09:42:14 AM »
A pod of narwhal in the Arctic

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 21, 2019, 10:03:57 AM »
Musk: fiercely competitive, personal vanity, childish, erratic, hard to admit personal mistakes, will lie when finds it "necessary". Bad public speaker.
OTOH, genius at thinking out of the box and "design by first principles". Knows his business and his physics. Does not give up when faced with impossible odds. A geek to be proud of. And my wife would add: the only one who is actually trying to do something, and who gives hope (for which he is hated both by those that wait for a revolution and by those who want no change at all).

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 19, 2019, 02:04:56 AM »
bbr2314, attempting to shut someone down with a highly emotive image is not what I expect in this forum. There is a place for discussion, I myself definitely question the efficacy of some vaccines (e.g. the flu vaccine) while most definitely accepting the efficacy of others (e.g..smallpox, whooping cough, polio etc.). This is not a forum about vaccines, but climate change, so having noted my distaste I will not post on this subject again.

Whats the consensus? Is a high snow mass overlaying sea ice a good or a bad thing?

I know that melt-ponding that in turn was partially responsible for the June cliff of 2012, but then again there's an inference for increased protection from top-melt?

I think it depends. If the heavy snow falls early in the freeze season, it will insulate the ice from the cold, preventing it from thickening. If it falls just before the melt season, it may serve to delay the onset of melt.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: March 13, 2019, 09:34:45 AM »
I think using generalized volume is a simplification because the periphery and the central arctic behaves quite differently (probably due to bathymetry). Attached is the volume for the CAB only.

It seems to me that we currently have a new "balance" in the CAB (circled) which will probably last until Atlantic warm water intrudes and finally mixes well and then the CAB will be gone. I think it is impossible to know when this will happen  and linear/polynomial, etc. projections are not useful

Pages: [1] 2 3 4