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 - 1rover1

Pages: [1]
1
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: March 31, 2019, 12:16:44 PM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC Sea Ice Extent : 4,011,238 km2(March 30, 2019)

Extent gain has mostly at or below average in the last week.

- Extent GAIN on this day 65k, 25 k less than the average gain of 90 k on this day.
- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record for this day, 464 k above extent on this day in 2017.
-  Extent gain from minimum is 1,587 k, 841k (35%) less than the average of 2,428 k by this day,
- 15.0% of the freezing season done, with 170 days to average date of maximum (16 Sept),

The Perils of Projections
Remaining average freeze of last 10 years gives a max of 17.63 million km2, 430k less than 2017 (record low max year).
______________________________________________________________________
I will only be posting occasional updates from now on unless something of note occurs.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 31, 2019, 07:00:59 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

March 30th, 2019:
     13,423,101 km2, a century drop of -165,712 km2:o
     2019 is the lowest on record.
     (2012 highlighted)
 

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 31, 2019, 06:07:18 AM »
A JAXA extent loss of -165712 km^2 today drops the extent over {150K corrected} 137K below the previous record for the day. This is the lowest March value since at least 2002. It is also the second largest single day loss for March.  Yesterdays drop of 113K was the 6th largest drop.
 

4
Antarctica / Re: Halley base shut down and new crack in Brunt shelf
« on: March 29, 2019, 06:36:44 PM »
Reporting in the New York Times 28 March:
An Iceberg Twice the Size of New York City Is About to Split From Antarctica: Two rifts on the Brunt Ice Shelf in Antarctica are close to creating an iceberg over 560 square miles in size. Scientists say the calving event could happen any day now.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/28/climate/antarctica-brunt-iceberg.html

brief but good graphical presentation ...

I think A68 calved in winter. Is it a thing, that as it gets colder the calving potential continues? If so, for how long? Might be, answer is, nobody really knows, just sayin' ... [ocean temps lag a lot, for example in Boston it's just beginning to warm up a tiny bit, over 3 months later]

5

...
Moreover values were not used for the full arctic (60-90N).

While I agree that accuracy is important, and appreciate Zeke's work on this, it really is obscene to be carrying on this debate as though we're still serious about the possibility of keeping warming well below 2C given what other recent studies have said, and the early results for ECS from CMIP6.

...

wdmn,

I generally do not have time to address most of the assumptions that work their way into various posts in this thread, but I thought that I would clarify my position on some of the matters that you raise.

First, the Arctic Circle is from 66° 33' 39" N. to 90oN, so the plot you referenced is more relevant than Zeke Hausfather's; and I was merely pointing out that different posts were comparing apples to oranges.

Second, in Zeke Hausfather's following linked article on the SSP scenarios, he notes that SSP2 is most comparable to the relatively new RCP 7.0, and he claims that these scenarios are more likely to be more representative of future anthropogenic forcing than either SSP5 baseline or RCP 8.5.  However, before the end of April 2019 global population will be at 7.7 billion people, which is above all of the SSPs estimated global populations in 2019 as shown in the first image from Hausfather's article, and I note that in 2100 RCP 8.5 assumed a world population of about 12 billion while SSP5-baseline assumes a world population of about 7.38 billion people (indicating that SSP5-baseline was rigged to match the radiative forcing of RCP 8.5, significantly by ignoring global population projections).  Thus SSP5-baseline seriously underestimates global population, which means to me that even if the people ignored by SSP5-baseline were to only use sustainable energy (see the second attached image for the year 2018) then we would still be following SSP5-baseline and not SSP2.

Title: "Explainer: How ‘Shared Socioeconomic Pathways’ explore future climate change"

https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-shared-socioeconomic-pathways-explore-future-climate-change

Extract: "While RCP8.5 lives on in the form of the SSP5 baseline, it is now just one of many possible no-new-policy futures. The fact that only one of the SSPs, SSP5, can reach the level of emissions found in RCP8.5 suggests that it may not now be best suited for use as the sole baseline scenario in future research.

If any SSP can be said to be characteristic of current conditions it is SSP2, where social, economic and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns. Greenhouse gas concentrations in the SSP2 baseline roughly correspond to the new RCP7.0, which shows lower emissions and nearly 1C less warming than RCP8.5 – though still 3.8-4.2C of warming above pre-industrial levels."

The second image comes from the IEA report on global energy use thru 2018 at:

https://www.iea.org/geco/

Finally, I remind readers that I think that we will only follow SSP5-baseline through circa 2060 when I expect global socio-economic collapse will drop anthropogenic GHG emissions down to something like SSP1.

Best,
ASLR

6
Antarctica / Re: Halley base shut down and new crack in Brunt shelf
« on: March 18, 2019, 08:34:16 AM »
Yesterday we finally got a new clear Sentinel 2 shot.

Crandles got it right, the crack has not completed yet.

7
Antarctica / Re: Halley base shut down and new crack in Brunt shelf
« on: March 07, 2019, 04:38:19 PM »
Looks like crack might be complete at resolution shown.

Zooming in a little more, I am not even sure of the cracks marked with lines drawn above and or right of feature. Is interpreting more cracks justified?

Pages: [1]