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 ... 8
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 13, 2019, 10:05:27 PM »
I've spotted the very camera shy Nessy. Who knew that she'd been hiding in Venice!

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 11, 2019, 11:17:09 PM »
Conversely, volume cannot be zero, if extent and thickness are not.  Volume, being three-dimensional, will always change faster than thickness (one-dimensional) or extent/area (two-dimensional).  At some point, they must converge.  What is your reasoning to believe that volume is the key metric over the others?

I agree that "At some point, they must converge."  That was the reason for my quest -- (cue Man of La Mancha music): How/when will the Extent trend and Volume trends meet?

I suppose you can frame the same question as "When will the Volume trend flatten out so that it can meet the Extent trend?"  I don't see reason for that to happen.  The linear volume trend looks pretty inexorable.  And while, as gerontoacrat noted, Volume measurement has its problems, Extent is not so pristine either.  A pixel with 16% ice counts as 1, with 14% counts as 0; melt ponds misidentified as open water etc. 

     And even if measured perfectly, Extent in the real world is subject to being altered by wind patterns, compaction vs. dispersal.  That is also why I think 2012, while certainly an important event as we watch the ASI go down the tubes, is overrated.  It was hyuge (new American English spelling, as in 'our politics and planet are hyugely screwed up') Extent event, but a less cataclysmic Volume event, and thus less of an informative marker for progressive ASI decline.  Thus Extent is the more mercurial hare, subject to temporary conditions, while good ole Volume is the sober implacable tortoise plodding its way towards cryospheric Armageddon. 

Maybe it is arbitrary that I start with the presumption that you can't have Extent of ice without any Volume of ice to create it.  But that makes more sense to me than the other way around.  Stuff has to exist before you deal with how it is spread around.

I am more likely to buy into gerontocrat's argument that the Volume measures are more subject to error, so this discordance between the Extent and Volume trends (that I repeat, we all agree have to meet up in the end) could be due to spurious Volume measurements.
.... But not really.  Because it makes perfect sense that what we see (Extent loss) is multiplied by what we can't see (simultaneous Thickness loss) to create Volume losses that are bigger than Extent losses.  In fact, the only way Extent losses could keep up with Volume losses is if there was NO Thickness loss. So of course Extent losses lag behind Volume losses.  How could it be otherwise? 

    And it makes sense to me that Thickness is being affected by the same forces that are depleting Extent and Volume.  And it makes no sense to think that Thickness is not being depleted.  And regardless of what you or I think, hard working scientists and other folks take measurements that show that Thickness is indeed going down.

I defer to the great Juan C. Garcia.  His message tag line points to Volume losses being a more important indicator than Extent because Extent, as you noted, is missing a dimension, the key dimension of concurrent thickness losses. 
"Volume is harder to measure than extent, but 3-dimensional space is real, 2D's hide ~50% thickness gone.
-> IPCC/NSIDC trends [based on extent] underestimate the real speed of ASI lost."

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 11, 2019, 09:04:51 PM »
Also from Notz and Stroeve 2018
“Also for the future, no substantial self amplification of the summer ice loss is expected. In particular, in all models that participated in CMIP5, the linear relationship between Arctic sea-ice cover and global-mean temperature holds until all sea ice is lost. This behavior already takes into account that in many regions, the ice-free duration during summer is becoming longer and longer, and that the ice cover as a whole is getting thinner. These factors are apparently not sufficient to overcome the stabilizing feedbacks and do not cause an acceleration of the summer sea-ice loss.”

    This seems to put to rest hope for a slowdown in ASI losses due to the final ice being at higher latitude.  Notz and Stroeve discuss and dismiss the opposite potential for reinforcing feedbacks to accelerate the rate of decline.  That does not leave much room for a slow down.
Stroeve & Notz papers
To state that the linear relationship between sea ice loss and Arctic Global-mean(?) temperatures will hold until there is no more ice is heroic indeed.

How do they deal with September sea ice loss 1979 to 2019 of around 50% and volume loss of around 75% ? If both continue at the same linear rate then an arithmetical impossibility looms.

     What got me started on all this was the discrepancy between the Extent and Volume trends.  Since Extent has to reach zero at the same time as Volume, my query was how much longer before the Extent curve bends down to a necessary eventual reckoning with zero Volume?  Shared Humanity's comment about ice going poof is worth more than what he supposes is its current market value!  It got me to realize that the Extent curve does NOT have to bend down to meet the Volume trend, at least not until the last day.

     Volume is a product of Extent x Thickness.  We've lost about 76% of Volume (based on PIOMAS Sept. Volume trend for 2019 vs.1979), but only about 42% of Extent (based on NSIDC Sept. Extent trend line for 2019 vs. 1979). 

     The Extent value gets multiplied by the Thickness value to get Volume.  So Extent can keep on floating down at a less steep slope until the point at which Thickness gets so thin that it falls prey to a warming event that takes Thickness down to zero.  That is the "poof" moment when Extent suddenly catches up to Volume, i.e. they both reach zero.   

    Figure 6 in the Strove and Notz, 2018 cited in previous post shows that 10-day Extent losses of 1M km2 have occurred, and that losses of at least 0.5M km2 are not that rare.  Thus, once Extent  gets into the range of less than 2.0M to 1.5 km2, there is a possible and increasingly likely chance of a "poof" event of 0.5 to 1.0km2 scale that takes Extent below the arbitrary 1.0M km2 BOE threshold.  That provides an indicator for how much longer Extent losses can continue at a slower pace than Volume losses before a fluctuation in Thickness creates a first time BOE.   

    The Sept. 2019 NSIDC Exent was 4.32M km2.  As per NSIDC "The linear rate of sea ice decline for September extent from 1979 to 2019 is 82,400 square kilometers per year."

    To reach the 2.0M Extent when a poof Event becomes possible, would require losing another 2.3M km2 of Sept Extent below the 2019 value of 4.3 (which is pretty much on the Trend line).  By this reasoning, at 82k per year losses, losing 2.3M km2 would take another 28 years, i.e. 2047 before Extent in 50% of years would be within plausible range of a poof event. 

    This is later than I had expected, since Notz and Stroeve put the 50% chance of any single year going below 1.0M km2 as 2038.  By 2047, Notz and Strove estimate that >95% of individual years will go below 1M km2.

    Hmmm?  So Extent trend alone does not end up at the expected date for 50% chance of BOE.  That leaves Thickness losses as the missing factor that aligns the NSIDC Extent trend with the Notz and Stroeve BOE dates.  And that makes sense. 

     Stroeve and Notz Fig. 5 show the decline of April ASI Thickness, and they cite the PIOMAS April Thickness trend as -0.28M per decade.  Looking at PIOMAS Sept. thickness linear trend, I get a very similar -0.27M/decade trend.  So by 2038, absent any acceleration or deceleration of Thickness losses, the average Sept. ice Thickness is likely to be near 0.51M.  As Thickness declines from 1.022 (Sept. 2019) to 0.51M, the frequency of 0.5 to 1.0 km2 Extent losses in a 10-day period will certainly increase, and the magnitude of infrequent large scale Extent losses will also increase. 

    That is why extrapolation of the Extent loss curve alone yields BOE dates that are artificially late.  Combine the continued Extent loss curve with an increasing (instead of static) scale for 10-day Extent losses (due to declining Thickness), then you can get dates to fit with the Notz and Stroeve estimate of 2038 for when 50% of years could reach BOE status of <1.0M km2.

     In 20 years, the Extent trend goes to 4.32M - (0.084M x 20) = 2.67M km2.  That is way too high to be taken down to 1.0 km2 by a 10-day Extent loss event if the September Thickness remained at the current ca. 1.02M.  But much more likely when the average September Thickness is down to 0.51M.

   So here we have the most likely poof moment scenario for when ASI goes below 1.0m km2.  Around 2038, with Sept. Extent at ca. 2.7M km2 and Thickness is down to 0.5M, a 10-day event removes enough ice to take Extent below 1.0M km2.  (This scenario also fits well enough with Archimid's April max vs. summer losses crossing trendlines.)

    Of course, this is an event of arbitrary significance.  The ice will begin refreezing and our long march to a hot Earth destiny will continue with ups and downs in ASI.  Deniers will cite the fact that Arctic ice coverage in October increased over September to show that there is nothing to worry about.

    As for thin ice melt acceleration, which is also where this adventure started, I stand corrected and have to yield to more educated minds that reversing the Thorndike curve is not legitimate in terms of thickness alone and thermodynamics.  But as Shared Humanity noted, my gut still says that in a real world setting, younger, saltier, highest-surface-to-volume-ratio, more fractured, dispersed, thinner ice has a higher chance in a rolling ocean exposed to currents to get melted by export or to go poof due to flash melt, and that the chances for rapid Extent loss increases faster than the linear change in thickness.  But now I'm just being stubborn. ;D

     I don't know if this convinces anybody else, and there remains the chance of some bonehead error that makes this all wrong, but thanks to the Stroeve and Notz articles I feel like I have some understanding for how the Extent, Thickness, and Volume trends will evolve over the next 20 years.  The Emperors are well dressed indeed, and I retract my arrogant and ignorant allegations to the contrary. 


Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 08, 2019, 04:01:23 AM »
The latent heat doesn't get conducted through ice when it melts, but it does when it freezes.

Consequently thicker ice freezes slower, but it doesn't melt slower.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 08, 2019, 02:16:56 AM »
So, I just happened to notice this happening on the opposite "bank" of PIG.

It's on the Southern Shear Margin, at the Eastern end of the Southern Ice Shelf.  There's a gap in the GIF between June 22 and October 8 which is when this "event" happened.

The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: November 05, 2019, 03:21:58 PM »
We're clearly inside a black hole watching the energetic em storm being brought to order by integration of all it's information and the shock into conciousness that the phase shift to singularity caused. Give it another week, in outside time, and it'll all start to make sense. Though from here we should be able to see the axis of rotation if not the backs of our heads.

The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: November 05, 2019, 03:01:54 PM »
Me too. I remember them being animals. The rabbit, as I recall, could also hear things from a very far distance. The moral of the story is now lost to me, though.

Since the forecast for this November was so similar to reanalysis Nov '18

I tacked Nov '18 onto the end of the past 6 months

Nothing like it since at least 1948.  November is not needed for that trick.  There is a huge structural anomaly over the North Pole this year.  It is not like the other years.  Not even as bad as summers of 1959 or 1960.  The polar cell is getting shredded apart right now, not like usual.

I bicycled out of the San Juan mountains of Colorado in November of 2016, traveling South.  I remember 2016 on these same charts.  November of 2016 was astonishingly bad, but I remember thinking it's not runaway, got bored and turned away.  It was expected to be bad

May - October, not a time known for Arctic Amplification, with a 6 month polar height anomaly of A HUNDRED METERS

that's unexpected.

we are having a tremendous world-record colossal polar geopotential height centered right over the North Geomagnetic Pole, slashing right through our traditionally stable seasons

nobody can freak out because they'd lose their health insurance.  I get it.  what if next year gets better and it won't do us in until the next solar minimum?  then you'd look like a real jerk

the tropics are flooding freely into the central Arctic like never before, and basically the whole system of polar vorticity just octopuses out in response.  What was that ancient hypothesis of Open Polar Sea, the polar cell is made of islands and the North Pole is Tropical?  maybe a genetic memory of the the late Eocene?

well, that's gonna speed up the day.

whatever is stacked up to cause this is a threat and needs to be confronted IMHO

Lord Jesus, Be a Sunspot

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: November 04, 2019, 02:59:07 AM »
Your thread is my favourite thread on this forum, ever since you started it.

Whether I agree or disagree with its contents is irrelevant. I'm checking it more than twice daily because I'm extremely interested in the "wide angle lens" view that you are tackling within it. I doubt I'm alone, or in the minority (altho possibly I'm of a vocal minority).

Keep doing your thang.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: November 03, 2019, 11:50:44 PM »
locked or unlocked makes no difference to me.  it's unlocked.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 02, 2019, 04:03:34 PM »
OPEN WATER GRAPHS  - updated with the 3 month minimum ice area data (August to October)

These graphs look at how much open water in the various seas of the Arctic.

Total Arctic Seas

The average for the year in the 1980's was just 40%. It is now creeping to above 50%.

For the three minimum ice months Aug-Oct the open water percentage has risen from 60-65% to 75-80%.

The early melting season (May-July) the open water percentage has risen from 40% to a bit over 50%.
High Arctic Seas (Central Arctic, CAA, Beaufort, Chukchi ESS, Laptev, Kara
i.e. excluding peripheral seas generally farther south and/or open ocean borders 

The average for the year in the 1980's was just 15%. It is now creeping up to around 25%.

For the three minimum ice months Aug-Oct the open water percentage has risen from 30-35% to 50-60%.

The early melting season (May-July) the open water percentage has risen from 10-15% to a bit circa 25%.
This overall average disguises large variations in individual seas. Over the next hours (days?) I will post graphs by individual seas.
I made these graphs to track the progress of the gradual transformation of the Arctic Seas from Ice Desert to Open Water environment. Looking at longer periods, e.g. 3 months, one can see, e.g. how the open water season is lengthening (August to October) and melt starting earlier (May to July).

The data is shown is calculated from the average sea ice area for each period divided by:-
- the total area of the sea if totally enclosed by land or other seas (e.g. Central Arctic, Kara),
- the maximum ice extent recorded since 1980 (e.g. Bering, Baffin, Barents, Greenland).

This gives the percentage of ice coverage. Open water is then 100% minus that percentage


Just in case, the metric system is the superior system and should be adopted internationally, I just don't know how a society would go about doing that in an orderly fashion.

99% of societies in the world did it, most of them back in the 19th century. USA is the only standing exception, and seems proud of it. Of all the explanations I try to imagine, the only plausible ones are akin to what made Trump US President. Just incomprehensible by the rest of the world.

Back in the 1970s, there was a plan for the US to go metric.  What stalled it was, as I recall, simple nationalism.  Yes, a type of arrogance.  Yes, Trump captured almost half of the votes largely by appealing to nationalistic prejudices.  "American exceptionalism" is just another term for nationalism.

In truth, the US is officially "ambidextrous" about this.  Either English or metric measures are legal.  Much US manufacturing and most scientific work are metric.  Both systems are taught in school.  My impression is that more Americans can tell you how many ml are in a liter than can tell you how many ounces in a gallon. 

For this forum, the US sources of data often supply raw information in miles and degrees F.  Completely extinguishing archaic measures in discussions here seems a Sisyphean task.  Heck, we even get knots and nautical miles here.  Those aren't easy for landlubbers anywhere, US or EU.  Humor and satire on the subject seem entirely appropriate.

There is a barbaric custom in high energy fizix to define h=c=1 (dimensionless)
some go further and define e=1 also

in that spirit  i suggested to some of them hi energy fizicists that  they denotate imaginary numbers in base pi and real numbers in base e

for some reason that never got much support


Man-measure (mam?) could be a thousandth of the 1613m mile which would mean you'd need ~6,2 million men to reach from equator to the pole. That's an improvement from the last revision where you needed 10Mm to do the same. Of course this conversion should be done to all basic SI-units as well. So an inch would be 2,54577020202 cm instead of 2,5 exact. Sadly this would mean the metre would be 0,9992148042928 of what it is now and we should substract ¾ of an inch to make a 39¼ inch metre. People would be taller when measured in metres and shorter by inches.  Full implications cannot be measured.

Pound should be 455 grams instead of what it is, basing this on electron mass at rest ( ;) 8), see the joke?) would be way better than basing it to a gmo-grain seed like the big agriculture wants. This would make a kilogram 90g smaller since a pound is 0,5 kilog. Maybe it'd be better to call it twinpound? Twinepound? Twomoneys? This would put me back over 0,9 Htwinpounds, and my doctor said I should be under that, so I should diminish my bindable caloric intake or go for longer walks, the longer mile won't cut calorics so much...

There's also of course the natural units. But if we set 1613 m = mile and not 1600m, like it is, that might lead to a diminishing of the world and everyone would suffer as it would take longer to walk a mile in other's shoes.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 26, 2019, 06:06:46 AM »
Isn't the mixed layer in summer salinity stratified? Salinity has a much greater impact on density than temperature. I thought that the freshwater lens from melting ice effectively prevented any convection, maybe if the water to 10m (?) has been warmed and homogenized it will turn over as the surface cools.
I'm pretty sure the mechanism I described does not reach much further than 10m if at that. I'm talking about the very top of the ocean. And any stretch of ocean that has been ice free for months will of course have a "normal" ocean surface, the freshwater from the previous melt having long since been mixed back.

Don't forget that the ocean is vastly more voluminous than the thin skin of ice that forms on top. It's heat content is vastly bigger than the overlying air column. And last but not least, as soon as ice does start to form, the phase change releases significant amounts of heat.

And no, I didn't suddenly forget the properties of salt water :) If it were freshwater, the warming and melting in the spring would cause the water column to turn over (like a temperate lake).

Well you did seem to forget the one pertinent fact since you didn't mention it in your attemt at a theory for how heat transfer can happen in the top layers of ocean at the onset of the freezing season. Which is what this is all about.

And to be absolutely clear: My explanation above is not a private pet theory, but what has been repeatedly explained to us footlings in this forum by wiser and more knowledgeable members over the years. A very similar discussion to this one took place almost exactly a year ago, here is what I wrote at the time:

It seems that the "-11" or "-10" degrees needed before sea ice forms discussion is doomed to repeat it self regularly. As we apparently all know by now, this is not based on scientific fact but on the close observations of a single individual who seems to know what he was doing.

Those of us who have direct experience of cold climates are aware that sea-ice does not usually form in mildly frosty weather. Around the coast of Iceland sea-ice never forms, except in very rare cases in sheltered harbours, but then again winter temperatures along the coastline very rarely fall below -5 degrees C.

In Denmark, sea-ice does form every few years during prolonged cold spells where temperatures over land fall well below -10 degrees for several days running. Sea-ice starts to grow in harbours and sheltered inlets along the east coast, where there is little to no wave action, but never along the more exposed west coast.

So my pesonal experience of cold-but-not-arctic environments tells me that air temperatures of e.g. -5 are not enough to start sea ice formation in open water. But I must admit that I have no idea whether -5 is enough to start ice growing between ice floes.

Once again a vista of ignorance opens up, begging for the intrepid explorer to chart and measure.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 24, 2019, 12:24:08 PM »
It is easy to call people stupid when Q1./Q2 results were so bad.  It is very easy to cherry pick the situation too.  It is easy to claim that the Models S/X were the only profitable models when truly high volumes of M3 did not produce a profit in the first 2Q.

However when Q3 delivers even more M3 and the company makes a profit, it is extremely hard to make the case that M3 is unprofitable.

We had a lot of GSY radio silence in Q4 2018 after the results for Q3 came out.  Ditto Q1 2019.  It was only after the the poor Q1 2019 showing that the GSY radio interference stepped up a gear.

One thing I am particularly happy about is the growth of the energy business. It is a particular GSY rant and I would like that one closed out too.

But I am patient. I can wait and see if my IQ descends to 60 or not. After all, if the numbers do not change, then the only other option is to claim we are all incapable of understanding just how Musk has defrauded everyone by providing a false profit.

But, for now, I'll take the peace.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 23, 2019, 06:24:33 AM »
Thanks for all your interesting & some authoritative responses in this discussion.

I still don't understand, how can you use a very thin slice of a full model to approximate the true situation?

I can do it because a) I am only seeking order-of-magnitude accuracy & b) am considering the limited & somewhat artificial situation where the only heat transport mechanism is thermal conduction.

I think I found a better approximation in this article:

This is comparing apples to oranges. You're showing an amount of heat whereas I calculated a rate of heat transfer. That's a lot of heat but it still has to get to the surface to affect the ice.

Have you all forgot the basics of sea ice formation? RoxTheGeologids, macid, slow wing?

Yes, I'm worried that some of the people here may have forgotten more about that than you or I ever knew.

I hope that the current expedition will show how this happens in real time! It's a really interesting theory.. lets see if the real world works that way.

Yes, an exciting prospect!

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 22, 2019, 07:03:29 PM »
Have you all forgot the basics of sea ice formation? RoxTheGeologids, macid, slow wing?

Sea ice is densest at freezing point, and thus does not freeze in the same way that lake ice does. So slow wings "model" is patently wrong, and the increased density of surface waters as they cool and sink create enough convection to stir up the top tens of meters of ocean, getting all that heat to the surface.

Which is not to say that wave action will also create turbulence.

The current ice-free areas have a fair amount of wind according to NullSchool, but more importantly, the air temps are nowhere near low enough to start freezing.


I cannot help but wonder if the words and images are appearing in public after a few days delay?

Surely the expedition tracking map cannot lie?

You maybe right Jim

Unfortunately on the instagram feed he does not give us the date of each update.

In the most recent update #16, he mentions that they were now 20 days on the ice.

I'm pretty sure that they left the Pangaea on Sept 25 which would make the date of that update only Oct 15th (6 days ago ! ).

So communications are a bit slow at the Pole. This must be why they say you must always post your letter early for Santa  ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 19, 2019, 07:53:03 PM »
Strong wind power in the US Midwest today means wholesale prices are below zero
When there’s an overabundance of solar or wind, grid operators send prices plunging to negative levels — a signal to generators that they need to take supplies offline so they don’t overload transmission lines.

On Friday, wind output surged to as much as 17,264 megawatts across the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) — a grid that stretches from North Dakota to Texas. That’s more than 60% of the region’s power.

Power prices fell below negative $10 a megawatt-hour for much of the region. ...
And if there were some really big batteries there , the owner would be paid to charge them up and make money when demand becomes greater than supply again. No-brainer.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 18, 2019, 07:43:24 PM »
Here's a link to an interesting article about how renewables are being built to replace a coal power plant powering a large still mill in Colorado.

As I watched recently, the great arc furnace at one of the nation’s most storied steel mills was sucking in more electrical power than any other machine in Colorado, produced in part at a plant a few miles away that burns Wyoming coal by the ton.

But the electrical supply for the mill is changing.

A huge solar farm, one of the largest in the country, is to be built here on the grounds of the Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel mill. In addition to producing power for the giant mill, the farm, Bighorn Solar, will supply homes and businesses across Colorado. So far as I can tell, Evraz Rocky Mountain will be the first steel mill in the world that can claim to be powered largely by solar energy.

There is a caveat: The mill operates 24 hours a day and solar panels do not, of course. Over the course of a year the solar farm is expected to produce electricity roughly equal to 95 percent of the mill’s annual demand. On sunny days, excess power will be sold to the Colorado grid, but at night the mill will draw power from the grid, which still includes a good bit of fossil energy.

But that is getting fixed, too. Xcel Energy, the utility that supplies the Pueblo mill with electricity, has made one of the most ambitious commitments in the country to clean up its system. Luckily, about the time solar panels are going dark, strong winds whip up across the plains of eastern Colorado, where wind turbines will turn it into power.

Alice Jackson, who runs the Colorado division of Xcel, told me that at certain hours during the night, wind farms can supply as much as 70 percent of the power on the state grid, and that is likely to be true more and more often as the company signs contracts with new wind farms.

Why would a steel mill install a solar power plant next door? The company cares about going green, certainly, but this is also about money.

We do not know the exact price the company will pay for its solar power — that is a secret under Colorado law — but we do know that the cost of large-scale solar farms has plummeted. To improve its finances, Evraz seems to be locking in low-cost power for the long term.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2019, 06:33:47 AM »
All good points philopek, but here is an alternate view:

1) If the 80N+ circle is so much less susceptible to melt then why does that straight line downward trend in ASI volume give such a good fit, with 2019 exactly on target?,119.msg232085.html#msg232085 
        If the remaining most northerly areas are going to decline at a slower rate then that effect bettter kick in soon, because the straight line September minimum volume trend hits zero in 2032, and the August and October volumes only trail September by a few years.  If the 80N+ CAB ice is to be a long term survivor, I would expect that straight line trend to be bending upward by now.  But so far at least, the data do not indicate a rate change in volume decline.
   Similarly, there is no apparent rate change to justify other than a continued straight line trend in the September monthly average volume as charted by Jim Hunt,119.msg232040.html#msg232040

2)  Yes, water temperatures are lower in the icey CAB vs. peripheral seas, but those peripheral sea water temperature anomalies are large and encroaching at an unprecedented rate (as far as I know), e.g.,2888.msg232462.html#msg232462
    And with declines in ice coverage of the peripheral seas, the effect of albedo decline to warm surface water during the brief summer edges ever closer to the North Pole.

3)  Observations of jet stream weakening and unusual if not freakish warm fronts crossing the North Pole do not bode well for the future of Arctic thermal isolation.  I confess to not understanding the details of Sark's analysis, e.g.,2692.msg232323.html#msg232323 but his scenario seems include loss of Arctic thermal isolation, and thus even greater polar amplification of warming.  Altered, equable weather patterns could also lead to increased ocean heat transport into the Arctic, which seems to already be happening.  What I understand better is the analysis of Jennifer Francis et al. that Arctic air spillage over my head in eastern North America appears to be increasing.  Which bolsters Sark's view in that if cold air is spilling out of the Arctic, then warmer air from the south must be migrating in to take its place.
     And the Arctic is of course part of the bigger picture.  CO2 & CH4 and other GHG emissions, levels in the atmosphere, and surface warming all continue to increase at essentially the RCP8.5 trajectory.  If the global system temperature was static, then the factors working against melt at 80+N might show up in the ice volume data.  But the global heat reservoir continues to increase, and at an increasing rate.  And the vast majority of that heat ends up in the ocean surface layer, where it can be carried to the high Arctic. 

4) As for average ice age, the Wipneus images at,119.msg232086.html#msg232086,119.msg232040.html#msg232040 show that the CAB ice fortress isn't what it used to be, i.e. it is no longer composed of thick, melt-resistant multi-year ice.  I suspect that the reduction of ice quality and "communal integrity" does not get enough attention.  That may be the factor that tips the balance to overcome lesser insolation at the North Pole. 

     So contrary to a long asymptotic stabilization, I can see just the opposite happening -- an accelerated chaotic ASI system breakdown.  With thinner fractured fresher ice replacing the previous thicker saltier MYI, loss of the Beaufort gyre nursery to replace MYI, currents and wind patterns to which the CAB was previously resistant may be able to cause accelerated CAB pack rotation.  That increased mobility could greatly accelerate export to lower latitude melt zones or out of the Arctic entirely through the Fram Strait.  And now the Nares may be a smaller secondary doorway that also allows greater ice pack mobility. Continued Arctic albedo decline moving northward.  Warm humid air fronts reaching the NP.  Continued Atlantification and Pacification of the Arctic Ocean with escalated SST moving closer to the NP.   

    If this view of the situation is correct, then we could be close to a systemic breakdown of the ASI, or at least a continuation of current trend despite higher latitude for the remaining ice.  We may get insight soon enough - if the the straight-line trend continues, that suggests that the 2012 minimum Sept. volume record has a > 50% chance of being superseded in the next two years.

     There are people much smarter than me who study this for entire careers and their understanding as shown in the IPCC reports etc. does not call for such radical change in the next 13 years. With my superficial understanding, I don't hold too much faith in my own opinion.  I may be spinning a few facts into conceptual storytelling. I really would love to be wrong.

    But I keep coming back to that linear ASI volume graph.  Until I see that trend change, my gut says trust the observations.



Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 03, 2019, 04:54:54 PM »
What if the Barents is warming because the slowdown of the AMOC - and probably other factors - causes it to rise more to the surface - hence the hotspot west of Svalbard -  and thus instead of the hot Atlantic water sinking to the deepest parts of the Arctic, it stays high, and heats up the Barents?

This is an incredibly persistent misconception. The warm Atlantic currents are surface currents. They do not "rise more to the surface" since that's where they are to begin with.

And hot (or warm) water does not sink unless external factors make them sink, of which there are basically two that can operate in tandem:

1) The hot (warm) water cools down on the surface, and due to it's high salt content it ends up sinking.
2) The hot (warm) current meats freshwater and sinks in spite of being warmer, since the salt content makes it heavier.

But then comes the "AMOC is slowing down" hypothesis which is based on increased amounts of fresh water (meltwater from Greenland) diluting the hot (warm) Atlantic surface water and stopping it from sinking!

Since the sinking of the (cooled-down) surface current is thought to be a large driver behind the AMOC (perhaps constituting 1/3 of the total), when less cooled-down water sinks due to lower salinity, the AMOC loses power and starts slowing down.
Meanwhile over 90% of the increased energy trapped by rising CO2 ppm is going into the oceans, and the North Atlantic is getting its fair share.
The Air temperature in the Arctic is warming at twice the world average.
The Albedo Warming Potential of seas like the Barents which are so much more ice-free much earlier in the melting season is rising quickly - (See the "May June July" line in the graph I attach again).

So my speculation that belongs to me is that a slowing AMOC might slow down the Atlantification of the Barents - (which then advances into the Kara, then the Laptev?) but cannot stop it. Timing - I have neither the maths nor the bank of supercomputers. Got a few hundred million bucks to spare?
ps: The ESS is being attacked from both sides - earlier melt in Laptev & Chukchi, and from the south - a warming Siberia.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 03, 2019, 09:47:53 AM »
Nanning - you set a high example, and you are certainly no loser. I do not see you as the enemy - on the contrary. But the issue at hand is not personal - it's global. There are nearly 8 billion humans, roaring on 10 within a few decades.
30 years is not far away, nor comforting. In fact it's frighteningly close. I will probably still be around, not to mention my teen-aged children. But even if not - I do not hold to "Après nous, le déluge", and I think it is everybody's moral duty to take care of future generations and of the whole planet.

Yes, I have considered and am aware of all your points.
No, I do not believe humanity as a whole will make a radical change in time. But if you believe collapse is coming in 5 years, no radical change will prevent it anyway - the system's inertia is simply too large. Might as well "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". 30 years - while a blink of an eye - means large-scale action could still make a difference, though not enough to prevent the disaster IMHO.

But large scale action requires the participation of tens of millions of people at least, better yet hundreds of millions, and they need to be those that are causing most of the problem in the first place - the high consumption high energy people. What will cause such large numbers of people to change their ways, reducing consumption by 10%, 20%, 30%? Or do you think such numbers will convert to your current lifestyle, reducing consumption by 90% or more? I don't expect this to happen. But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe. Depends on many factors, but one of them is the availability of alternative solutions that reduce the impact on their current lifestyle. Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you. The environmental movement has been active for 50 years, and has not managed to sway most people to give up this lifestyle or the aspiration to it, although it has managed to cause many to temper their consumption.
If half the global affluent population reduced their consumption by 20%, this would make a much bigger difference than if thousands of people reduced theirs by 99.9%. So I cheer chances of such massive but partial reduction. For example, I prefer that billions consume themselves to oblivion using solar energy, rather than coal energy. Of course I prefer even better that they don't consume, but I recognize the benefit of even partial reductions and I don't toss it to the wind just because I don't like it.
Yes, my personal actions could help sway some others, and yes I strive towards doing better. Had I been living alone and childless, I would have made much bigger changes already. But even if this whole forum went to a monastery tomorrow, the global outcome would still be more or less the same. So again, I take the global view and I try to think what will change this global view. This is not instead of changing my own lifestyle. It's an orthogonal problem.

Other points you might not be fully considering: Despite your personal preference to the contrary, a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.
What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate (not always correlated for each subgroup, but overall yes it is) of babies who will potentially consume quite a lot as they get older. 10 billion people is a massive number, even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.

I hope the above helps clarify my take on things, it is not structured properly and somewhat repetitive. My apologies to all, I will refrain from further hijacking of this thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: October 03, 2019, 12:06:18 AM »
Mosaic is a fantastic endeavor that will provide a massive amount of observational data via an incredible array of modern instrumentation (relative to the last go-round, SHEBA, of 1999). Results will dominate the scientific literature on the Arctic Ocean for years to come because the interior basin has heretofore largely gone un-instrumented.

Mosaic will greatly improve the interpretability of satellite imagery and provide a reality check on model predictions never regularly confronted with observation. Just having real weather assimilated into daily ECMWF initializations is a huge step forward over meagre shoreline inputs, for example measured 2m winds responsible for icepack motion and export.

Ice-atmosphere couplings (eg radiative balance, boundary layer turbulent flux, cloud properties) depend on location and weather, not on the floe selected. While the Polarstern provides the center of observation, the secondary deployments go out a radius of 40 km. With drift, this generate a swath of measurements nearly a degree of latitude wide (111 km) wide, rather than point data (mooring) or line data (buoy).

The second study component is the ice itself. It has not yet proved possible to determine ice mass balance issues (thickness, bottom growth, melt ponds) year-round with any accuracy from remote sensing, much less modeling, so the comprehensive thicknesses will be a real breath of fresh air.

The third focus is water column under the ice. The anticipated drift across the Eurasian Basin does not seem ideal for the study of encroaching Atlantification (like N-ICE2015 or the PS's recent visit to the upper Fram), though the northern Laptev is an area of very active concern for mixing of thermal and saline stratifications.

It's never been clear what provides the vast volumes of return water to the East Greenland Current because the Waddell Sea and points north have been under thick ice for ages. Mosaic has an acoustic tomography experiment going relative to new moorings that can address this.

Mosaic planners knew from the outset that finding a suitable floe would be mission-critical. They allocated a full week for that search; as I write, the ship has been at N 85°12' E 134°18' for eight hours. They are looking for 1.2 m or thicker ice, a port-side mooring for logistics, and a large enough floe so that electricity and LAN data lines can reach remote instrumentation.

The safety issues involve pressure ridges heaving experimental set-ups, leads opening suddenly, nearby floes over-rafting, patches of very thin ice, strong swells from remote storms, aggressive penguins walruses and bears, plus working long hours in cold, dark and possibly very windy conditions. (The PS serves alcohol at two on-board bars.)

I am skeptical -- based on the multi-satellite September time series below -- that they will find the perfect floe at 85ºN because the Laptev is in such poor condition but if they go much farther towards the Pole, there may not be notable net drift towards the Fram.

The gif below shows Osisaf, Ascat and Smos embedded within a novel differential AMSR2. The complex palette is provided in the lower left corner. The Polarstern search wedge, called a spherical rectangle or section double frustrum, is shown as an overlay (map adornment) for each satellite. The base resolution is 6.25 km/pxl for AMSR2 unchanged from archive.

With so much data coming in so many forms, synchronized integration becomes increasingly important in science-retaining visualizations. While this one was easy enough to make, it doesn't roll forward because of the differencing wrt a fixed final day, 30 Sep 19.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:39:24 PM »
How much power does the open source dictator have?

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: September 24, 2019, 07:23:33 PM »
America's Finest News Source: USA perplexed by teen's distaste for apocalypse

"they were perplexed by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old who apparently has no desire to see the world end. "

"confusion reportedly shared by millions of Americans who recalled that during their own adolescence they had hated the world and everyone in it and had felt the end couldn’t come fast enough. "

That cuts to the quick. I wonder how many people in the USA  wish for apocalypse because it's better that what they got.

they had hated the world and everyone in it and had felt the end couldn’t come fast enough.

I thought I was in my 2nd childhood - and now I know I have been a stroppy teenager all my life.

And I've just proved it, making this thread all about me, me, me

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 21, 2019, 12:57:12 AM »
If the red disappears, so does the orange.

If the orange disappears, the red remains and more than likely grows. Heck, the blue could shrink.

Should really throw some green in there, too. Just to spruce it up a bit. Label it "complaining about posts that complain about off-topic posts".

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 03:31:20 PM »
Hey folks, sorry I've been away for a bit. Unfortunately, discussing the CAA ice here is necessarily low on my list of obligations. There's been some question about how the current ice regime will interact with the traditional "garlic press" process of the CAA. Short story: there's not much garlic left to press.

The way the garlic press is supposed to work, thick MYI at the southern boundary of the CAB gets forced into the steep channels of the CAA resulting in additional ridging and compaction. Over a number of years, that ice is eventually delivered south into melt-accessible areas. All of this works because the average prevailing wind pattern in the region forces that ice into the archipelago and then south (and, to some extent, southeast). This process is the primary reason why the ice in the CAA has traditionally behaved very differently from fast ice elsewhere (although the channel size and bathymetry of the archipelago would otherwise suggest that CAA ice is comparatively uninteresting fast ice).

This melting season did a lot of damage to these assumptions. Most of the season was spent with an atypical wind pattern that forced ice from the CAA/CAB boundary north against the CAB and west into the Beaufort. Thus, the Crack was born. Additionally, while this wasn't a record-setting year for CAA melt, it was pretty devastating nevertheless. Massey Sound was a killing field for ice. The Peary and Sverdrup Channels have some ice only by dint of latitude. In the Perry Channel, the surviving ice (primarily associated with the Viscount Melville Sound) has been forced by late storms to the southwest into areas that are frequent melt-out traps. The region that has been the temperature "cold core" of the archipelago in historical data wasn't actually very cold; ice in the PGAS is badly fragmented and exceptionally mobile, and even the sheltered ice in Wilkins Strait looks more than a little roughed up.

More importantly, what remains of the MYI -- the tiny, thin line of red on the age maps -- has been displaced north into the CAB, away from the CAA boundary. The Crack has filled as the wind patterns return to their expected directions, but the ice that filled the Crack is not that MYI stopgap, but an assemblage of broken bits transported in from elsewhere, including no small part of relatively young ice from the Lincoln Sea area. This is not robust garlic for the press. It's reasonable -- one hopes -- to assume that wind flow will indeed push ice south into the CAA. But this ice has demonstrated considerable structural weakness. So I expect floe disintegration rather than ridging as the disparate floes are forced together. Winter's cold will mitigate some of this, and the whole mess will freeze into a matrix of FYI (effectively fast) ice.

The overall trend for the Arctic is, of course, hotter with more melt. But as we've seen this year and the past couple, that melt is not always distributed in the same pattern year over year. If we get a year or two where the melt focus turns away from the CAA, and we don't see Crack 2 in 2020, the garlic press will likely crank back up for awhile anyway. Otherwise, within a couple of years, we may very well see what happens when the CAA explores a new modality (as we're already seeing with Bering/Chucki mechanics).

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:10:45 PM »

Whenever a curve or line is fitted to a graph it is to illustrate a correlation; such a correlation is the decline in sea ice volume over the last few decades. I'm no expert in sea ice modelling but, there is a fundamental need to understand how one would apply a model to be able to predict future conditions.

To understand a correlation a model is built. The model can perhaps take the starting data and then show how sea ice has changed on a year to year basis (hind casting). It can then be used to predict the future, and it's skill tested by it's ability to do so. Models are only as good as the test conditions applied. Hindcasting can be tricky as there is the temptation to model fit the data.

Obviously models based on a line fit are incorrect, they can be trivial disproved by projecting backwards in time and showing that there wasn't that much ice 10000 years ago. I hear the 'but there wasn't GHG emissions" so immediately the model has to include global warming from GHG gases. Assumptions are disproved, the model improves. If a model can effectively hind cast current sea ice from pre industrial times, then we perhaps have a chance of predicting more accurately what the future holds.

At least correlate global temperatures with sea ice volume, that seems like a better starting point than time.

Arctic temperatures are in part caused by sea ice retreat, so I see you avoided that.

Global temperatures: the general trend is upwards at a fairly steady rate and so this is no different than using time. So it is about the variations about the trend. The largest variation about the trend is caused by ENSO and it is not at all clear whether there is any effect up in the arctic. If there is an effect it is small and likely to be delayed.

So interesting idea, but unfortunately it doesn't work.

The same can be said about using GHG levels.

If there was a sudden change in the rate of global temperature rise (or GHG levels) then it probably would be useful.

Other improvements can be added to models to make them better (more physically based) than a trend line fit. However, We already have global climate models and they don't agree on the level of sea ice we should have. In a sense they are not good enough for this purpose. However, I still maintain vast majority show similar pattern and this is helpful for deciding what sort of shape extrapolation should be done.

Anyway despite having sophisticated models, they disagree with each other, so it seems to me we are back to either
1) Trend line fits but hopefully with some hints of what sort of extrapolation to do, or
2) Using models with some bias corrections (which may amount to something fairly similar to trend lines).

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 07:22:53 PM »

Whenever a curve or line is fitted to a graph it is to illustrate a correlation; such a correlation is the decline in sea ice volume over the last few decades. I'm no expert in sea ice modelling but, there is a fundamental need to understand how one would apply a model to be able to predict future conditions.

To understand a correlation a model is built. The model can perhaps take the starting data and then show how sea ice has changed on a year to year basis (hind casting). It can then be used to predict the future, and it's skill tested by it's ability to do so. Models are only as good as the test conditions applied. Hindcasting can be tricky as there is the temptation to model fit the data.

Obviously models based on a line fit are incorrect, they can be trivial disproved by projecting backwards in time and showing that there wasn't that much ice 10000 years ago. I hear the 'but there wasn't GHG emissions" so immediately the model has to include global warming from GHG gases. Assumptions are disproved, the model improves. If a model can effectively hind cast current sea ice from pre industrial times, then we perhaps have a chance of predicting more accurately what the future holds.

At least correlate global temperatures with sea ice volume, that seems like a better starting point than time.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 02:41:30 AM »

I'm convinced that there is a hiatus if we take a 2012 starting point. I'm also convinced that there is an accelerating trend if we take 2013 as a starting point.

This freezing season is terribly important. If we get a 2013 like recovery it means the arctic is warming slowly after the MYI phase change. If we get a 2017 like recovery or worse, we are done.  The arctic already spent cold reserves and we are heading towards collapse.

Using arbitrary starting points to match ones personal preferences is poor science.  However, using a linear straight line fit because it is simpler, is not much better.  I cannot say for certain whether the gompertz fit, Taminos three-sloped trends, or another polymeric fit is the best, but they all match the data better.  Just because no one has presented a definitive reason for the changes, does not mean they have not occurred.  The best science is to try an devise a theory to match the data, not the other way around.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 02:38:57 AM »
Be careful with answering Jim Hunt, you seem a candid poster and he's the worst troll if he wants to.
He sure is. He's never ever once replied to one of my messages, other than to complain. If you write over 4000 messages, and people like less than 200 of them, maybe it's a sign...

Jim Hunt is one of the top contributors here. I learn a great deal from his posts, far more than I learn from your daily postings of weather gifs. And this site is about sharing real insight into AGW, not getting likes.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 12:24:01 AM »
He sure is. He's never ever once replied to one of my messages, other than to complain.

Apart from this one?


If you write over 4000 messages, and people like less than 200 of them, maybe it's a sign...

Did it ever occur to you that the majority of those 4000+ messages were written before the "like" feature was added to the forum software?

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 07:32:39 AM »
Not a psychiatrist, but when a guy looks up to the sky and sais 'i'm the chosen one', i can see how there must be some detachment from reality and narcissism involved here. Or that time when he bragged about his building now being the tallest after 9/11.

Now he is clearly demented. Can't even speak anymore.

People who think there is a need for a psychiatrist to asses if the POTUS is mentally ill are in need of a psychiatrist.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 29, 2019, 12:41:32 PM »
As there is some discussion about ice drift direction, here is osisaf ice drift overlaid onto unihamburg amsr2-uhh, aug18-28.
Arguably amsr2 should be overlaid onto the previous 2 day osisaf but 1 pixel of amsr2, ~15km^2 of slush probably has a fair bit of inertia so in this case day n-2 to dayn osisaf is overlaid onto dayn amsr2-uhh(25-27aug onto 27aug)
Note that although both products use algorithms to interpret the data, both are based on real data and not models.

Low Resolution Sea Ice Drift product (OSI-405)

Which satellite sensors are processed?
The sensors and channels used are SSMIS (91 GHz H&V pol.) on board DMSP platform F17, ASCAT (C-band backscatter) on board EUMETSAT platform Metop-A, and AMSR-2 on board JAXA platform GCOM-W.

What is the spatial resolution of this product?
The low resolution sea ice drift product is a gridded dataset. The grid has 62.5 km spacing on a Polar Stereographic projection mapping. Definitions for the projection parameters can be found in the NetCDF files as well as in the Product User's Manual.

What is the time-span of this product?
Two days (48 hours). This is the time delay between the start and the stop time of the motion described by one vector. For comparison, the merged products from IFREMER/CERSAT is a 3 days lag dataset while the AMSR-E product by the same data centre is 2 days (using 89 GHz channels).

Several datasets are distributed every day, which one should I use?
The OSI SAF low resolution sea ice drift product is indeed composed of several single-sensor products and one multi-sensor analysis, every day. They are all at the same spatial resolution , on the same grid and with a 48 hours time-span.

The multi-sensor (aka merged, multi-oi) is intended for users requiring a spatial covering dataset. In this product, missing vectors are indeed interpolated from the neighbours and each vector is computed from the individual single-sensor products. In this merging process, however, some level of aliasing and averaging is to be expected that slightly degrade the quality of the dataset.
click to run

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: August 29, 2019, 07:11:07 AM »
The people here speculating about Greta being manipulated are pathetic.

If you bothered to watch her interviews and have capacity to understand peoples motives then you would know she is doing this because she believes in what she is doing and rather than being manipulated she is influencing the people around her.

I call you all pathetic because this young girl is actually making a difference and your here wining that building the yacht that she's sailing on had some carbon emissions. Really, she made the best choice she could about how to travel to the US where she probably will make even more a of an impact and all you can do is whine about this.

This seems like the denialist bullshit that doesn't gets past Neven's moderation for very long.

NevB I agree this needed to be said.  I edited this post because I was convinced by a later post that negativity doesn't belong in this forum. Greta is making a huge difference bringing forth the critical climate message that needs to be delivered to policy makers.  Greta is a bright light in the gathering darkness.  She has my full support for what she says and for her actions.  Go Greta, you go girl, go!

Made a photo collage out of a Sentinel 2 image and a photo produced by Ulf Hedman onboard the Oden, you can see the 3 small glaciers originating from Permin Land on Ryders Port side (Sentinel 2) and in the background of photo from Oden:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 23, 2019, 06:19:45 PM »
NW off Greenland
Thin ice is so good for showing ocean surface movement with rammb :)

Worldview viirs brightness temperature, band15 night and terra modis, ESS, 73N 160E, nov1-aug23.
Two very persistent areas of sea ice.
Also a close up from polarview sentinel1.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 12:28:40 PM »
Unless I die in the near future, I expect to see one.   

Hope has nothing to do with it.   The question is 'wrong', it's an emotional question, not a 'scientific' one.    Hope is a form of belief, and that's not something you do with scientific things.   Scientific theories and hypotheses (even vague speculations) are things you accept, or reject.   IMO anyhow.

I don't think that a BOE will affect those who are committed to continuing the burning of fuels, they're making money and are 'religiously' certain that there will be technical solutions to any problems that humans encounter. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 10:08:40 AM »
This is a poll I am very interested in. I would prefer you people don’t comment on your vote, just answer truthfully, or ignore it, please. Everything anonymous (or anoni-miss in deplorables dialect).

In case I wasn’t clear. I did not and will not vote at all. I believe the question and poll is malformed. It is based on an interpretation of how and why people respond as they do that has little to do with reality.

Because I believe it is malformed, I believe the results will be entirely meaningless.

And also as a result, despite your desire that people simply vote and not comment, the only meaningful vote is the opposite - no vote, and lengthy comment.


Wow, it's been a looong time without an arctic expedition - and this one will be nice to watch!

Mike and Borge are not exactly beginners in this area...

As there's no more ice on the fringes, they'll sail North from Alaska to the 85th, then ski, go to the Pole, then jump back on the boat around Spitzbergen... that's quite a plan!! has it all, and a map!

(and it's nice to post again!)

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: August 16, 2019, 08:30:06 PM »
Trump Wants to Buy Greenland

August 15, 2019 at 5:33 pm EDT By Taegan Goddard 116 Comments

“President Trump made his name on the world’s most famous island. Now he wants to buy the world’s biggest,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“The idea of the U.S. purchasing Greenland has captured the former real-estate developer’s imagination, according to people familiar with the deliberations, who said Mr. Trump has, with varying degrees of seriousness, repeatedly expressed interest in buying the ice-covered autonomous Danish territory between the North Atlantic and Arctic oceans.”

Sorry to spoil your day, b.c.  :'(

Edit: I should say sorry to Espen, too.
I am indifferent, I saw this coming and it will be the biggest chess game we have ever seen, another battleground when it comes to the game the US and China is playing at the moment, I would say the island (Greenland) could be sold for something like 1.200 Billion dollars or about 20.000.000 USD per REAL Greenlanders, and that is dirty cheap, maybe even more depends how far the Chinese wants to go, and you got to remember it is not Denmark who can sell this, it is only Greenland and its people who can decide, and Denmark will loose all their negotiating power when Greenland is not on the table!

And the worst scenario for The Trump,  China can buy all of Greenland for the value China got in US Bonds (debt)!

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 15, 2019, 11:01:11 PM »
Talk about seeing the world through rose tinted glasses. ???


Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: August 15, 2019, 09:58:06 PM »
From: U.S. Nuclear Reactor Development Tests - Dose Reconstruction Project

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0008-2 pg 64-75

... June 26, 1968: PHOEBUS-2A, the most powerful nuclear rocket reactor ever built, ran for 12.5 min above 4,000 MW. The duration of the test was determined by the available coolant supply. Designed for 5,000 MW, the test was limited to 80% of full power because the aluminum segments of the pressure vessel clamp band overheated prematurely.

March 1968: The XE PRIME test, the first down-firing prototype nuclear rocket engine, successfully operated at 1,100 MW. The reactor operated at various power levels for a total of 115 min that included 28 restarts. This test series was a significant milestone in the nuclear rocket program and demonstrated the feasibility of the NERVA concept. In this year, the production of the Saturn V chemical rocket was suspended. It would have been the prime launch vehicle for NERVA.


B.5.1 pg 75

External exposures were primarily due to the decay of fission products. The reactors were operated remotely. Because of the distance between the operating reactors and personnel, external exposures during tests were, at most, a few millirem. Following the tests, the reactors were returned to heavily shielded cells by rail. Usually several hours to several days elapsed between reactor operation and the need for personnel to enter the cells for maintenance. However, even then the dose rates could have been several roentgen per hour. This required that the work be performed very rapidly with short residence times, often as little as 30 s. There were also exposures to H-8 plume-tracking teams, although they were generally less than those for hands-on work with the reactors.

External Exposure

Conventional dosimetry was used for monitoring the external fields and exposures. These included the survey instruments and film dosimeters employed by REECo, LASL, and LRL at that time. Standard film dosimeters and PICs were used for personnel monitoring. Section 6 of the NTS site profile contains more detail on the external dosimetry used at the NTS.


The primary source of internal exposure was the fission products released during reactor operation. Table B-1 lists the radionuclides identified in the effluent clouds during reactor operation (DOE 1995a). Several of the tests released radioactive effluent of sufficient magnitude that it could be detected off the site (DOE 1995a). Table B-2 summarizes these releases.

Table B-2. Summary of tests of nuclear-powered rocket and ramjet engines which generated radioactive effluent detected off the site (DOE 1995a).

Test name       Date        Time of day (PST) Integrated power (MW-s) Release curies
PHOEBUS 1B   02/23/67  1400-1430           2,600,000                       240,000
PHOEBUS 2A   06/26/68  1137-1209           4,500,000                         51,000

... Special monitoring instruments attached to criticality alarms were used to detect possible inadvertent critical assembly of fissionable material, if requested. Trained emergency radiation monitoring personnel were standing by for emergency support.


Nuclear-Powered Cruise Missiles Are a Terrible Idea. Russia’s Test Explosion Shows Why

... In the late 50's Washington was already beginning to cool to the idea of a nuclear-powered cruise missile. The biggest reason: the missile’s unshielded nuclear reactor would spew radiation along its flight path, potentially irradiating its own ground crew and everyone else between the launch pad and the target.

Anticipating this, Merkle downplayed the danger in his initial 1959 report, using language that sounds ripped directly from Dr. Strangelove. “One problem that bothers the design of reactors to be used near people is the necessity of confining all the fission products to the reactor fuel element,” he wrote. “A typical mission might produce some-what less than 100 grams of fission product. Of these it might be expected that some large percentage would naturally remain in fuel elements…Consequently the fission activity introduced locally into the atmosphere is minute compared with even the most minute atomic weapon.”

Edwin Lyman, senior scientist and acting director of the nuclear safety project at the Union of Concerned Scientists, offers some perspective. “I suppose that at a time when the nuclear weapon states were still engaged in atmospheric testing, there wasn’t a whole lot of concerns about releasing additional radioactivity into the environment. Merkle’s cavalier attitude seems in tune with the era. But such a system should be considered completely unacceptable today,” Lyman told Defense One in an email.

One thing is that to characterize radiation releases in terms of ‘grams’ is misleading. Chernobyl released only a few hundred grams of iodine-131 yet it resulted in thousands of thyroid cancers among children.” He noted that the Pluto tests ejected not only radioactive gases but far more dangerous radioactive particle matter as well.

... Added Lyman, “if the missile was shot down, the fuel would overheat and you’d have a 500-thermal-megawatt reactor meltdown — about one-sixth the size of a large power reactor — but without any containment. Also, the lack of radiation shielding would make it difficult, if not impossible, for emergency responders to approach it.”

That’s similar to the problem Russia is grappling with right now.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 15, 2019, 03:40:22 PM »
It looks like the southern part of the CAA will melt out, and the state of the Eurasian side of the ice + forecast suggests significant losses on the way.

How much of the northern CAA will hold out?

The CAA is not going ice-free this season. At the very least Ballantyne Strait and Wilkins Strait were pretty much solid ice the last time they had clear skies. Physics prevents that ice from going away entirely.

However, what's going on in the north CAA is still plenty concerning. Clouds have hidden a great deal of the action there, because clouds are jerks. However, we can see that the ice in Hassel Sound has a pale blue cast which is never a good omen for days ahead.

We also know that the PGAS shattered into a number of very large floes. In a good year for the ice, those would stay mostly confined to the PGAS and would refreeze into the matrix this winter. In a bad year for ice that followed historical hydrodynamics for the region, some number of those floes would be flushed south through the Maclean Strait on their way into the Parry Channel to die the following year. Some of that is probably happening now, but, again, clouds. However, we can tell that there's a second export pathway. A very large floe (~50km) formed from the pack ice off the northern peninsula of Ellef Ringnes, sometime around July 31. It's easily visible, offset by blue open water, on Worldview on August 8. Following an interaction (likely wind-driven) with another large floe, it broke in two on or about August 11, but the "core" of the floe remained intact and is still visible through the clouds on August 14.

Historically, ice movement in the PGAS was largely controlled by a clockwise current, running north to south along the west coast of Ellef Ringnes; it is this current that slowly exported PGAS ice to the southern CAA as part of the "garlic press". However, the floe I described has been moving steadily north and northwest against the local current expectations. Early in this period, the Crack was still the dominant feature in the region. The Crack was the result of steady wind pressure from the south. That has abated somewhat, especially over the Sverdrup Islands region, and so the Crack has "closed"... but that floe in the northern PGAS is still following the course set by the Crack hydrodynamics -- up and out of the CAA en route to the Beaufort. That suggests that it's not just wind driving this new export scheme.

That floe will probably survive the year; it's pretty big and not moving very fast. I'm don't think there's time to get it to the Beaufort, or heat enough to melt it there. We'll see. But the problem is the northern CAA is under stress from both sides. Melt and southern export are intended to be replaced by ice from the northern CAA that ultimately originated in the CAB. That's the whole point of the garlic press metaphor. But that supply chain is broken, first by the Crack itself and now by continued northbound export. A lot of places that should have their ice replenished externally are going to have only in situ freezing over this winter, which means even if next year's melt isn't as nasty, the soup will be on.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: August 13, 2019, 05:59:44 PM »
Archimid, I wish for you that this year will be a miss. i.e. Not a hit by another one. Another year will make the island better prepared I think.
I followed your experiences in 2017 as a lurker. Very informative and sympathy inducing :).

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: August 13, 2019, 04:25:53 PM »
Quite honestly, the current politics of Puerto Rico seems like a small problem relative to being hit by another Hurricane in the near term. We need to solve our food and energy vulnerabilities. We import both our food and our energy. I find that ridiculous given the year round abundance of both energy and water.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 13, 2019, 11:03:06 AM »
My interpretation:
Sterks shouldn't have posted his personal fight with Neven here for all to see. I think that's disrespectful and unconsidering (We know Neven is in a difficult and stressful period because of family reasons).
Yes, Sterks had good contributions so that's too bad.
Warning: stay away from political discussions!  ;D ::)

I agree.

I don't touch any threads outside this one, the forum humour thread, and the Cryosphere sub-forum. From what I've seen of sterks & teapotty is their off-colour crud is quite similar. You know what? You shouldn't engage in such childish crap. Don't acknowledge it at all; simply report it & move along. They will be the one getting the boot, in time. That's the smart & more civil way to handle it. Don't let them drag you down to their level. Seems that's what happened here.

Personally, I post like my mom might be reading. Not like how I drive.  8)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8