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 - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
Other countries haven't settled for lower care levels, or longer wait times, they simply supply better care at lower cost. American voters aren't particularly stupid, they just grew up in a propaganda bubble that is making a few of them obscenely wealthy even as it reduces everyone else to penury.

I was told by Nevada's best doctors that I had <6 months to live. I promptly sold everything and came back to Canada for a final look at the country of my birth. That was in 2004!

In my first week back my cancer had been confirmed and the operation completed. It was a few months before my neurological problems came out of remission and could be treated - a treatment that was simply far to expensive for my HMO to offer. Within a few months I left my cane behind and could actually run - not too far or to fast, but running, not hobbling on a cane!

At the moment it's been 10 years since the cancer has last reappeared, and my CIDP hasn't raised it's head for even longer. I'm still a very long way from being healthy, but I've outlived the majority of my peers in Las Vegas & I'm sure that when my time does come I will have had the best care available anywhere, and my family won't be out a nickel.

I've been very ill in both countries. I've experience with both plans. Anyone voting for the status quo in the US is simply the victim of a very evil propaganda campaign & the successful lobbying efforts of Big Pharma and the AMA.

Keeping people healthy is much less expensive than trying to keep them alive for a few weeks or months after years of neglect have taken their toll. Don't fall for any of the BS that's being fed to you.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 12, 2019, 06:11:30 AM »
Well if binntho agrees with me, he must be right! 

    But here is another perspective about a possible Extent pause.  I am (almost) sure that if Tamino bit into the Extent numbers he would, as he did with global average surface temperature faux pause, show that there is no statistical justification for the relatively small number of yearly data points in the presumed Extent hiatus period to be called a significant violation of the long term linear trend that is derived from a much larger set of of data points with considerable year to year variability.  (BTW Tamino's wife announced on his blog that he had surgery recently.  Sending him wishes for healing and good health.) 

    But I submit to the jury that even if Extent did have a statistically valid hiatus, it would not matter.  There could be a scenario where Volume losses continue their inexorable decline, yet a prolonged series of years with conditions favorable for greater ice dispersion resulted in Extent value flat-lining for enough years in sequence to pass a statistical test for truly being a hiatus.   

     But so what?  In terms of progressive ice decline, that would not change the underlying fact that Volume losses were still proceeding toward zero.  A hiatus in Exent would only temporarily increase the discordance between the Extent and Volume trends.  The increased difference would have to be compensated for at the end.  The only consequence of an Extent hiatus would be that the Extent trend would have to fall that much farther faster when the zero Volume-Thickness-Extent day of no ice reckoning finally arrived. 

    The 10-30 year lag for the majority of global warming impact from elevated greenhouse gas levels to be expressed means that the warming and ice melt trends for the next 10-30 years have already largely been set by our previous emissions.  The fact that the trend-projected date for the first zero ASI Volume event is now within the next 20 years means that it is probably unavoidable at this point even if we sharply reduced further GHG additions.  Then again, Notz and Stroeve point to an 800 Gt CO2 of additional emissions needed after 2018 for the total GHG load to be enough to result in Volume reaching zero.  So in theory at least, keeping total emissions below that amount could presumably prevent the Volume losses from reaching the zero point. 

     (On the other other hand, --- running out of hands ---, I suspect that even if emissions ceased immediately, with enough time and the slow depletion of existing CO2 from the atmosphere, even the GHG emissions already made thus far, bolstered by some permafrost thaw and other feedbacks, would eventually result in ASI Volume-Thickness-Extent reaching zero.)

     That is a moot point for the real world situation.  It does not seem at all likely that humans will cut emissions sharply enough and soon enough to prevent exceeding the 800 additional Gt CO2 after late 2018 threshold.  And therefore, assuming the Notz and Stroeve relationship between total CO2 emissions and ASI Volume is correct, the Extent trend will meet up with the Volume trend at the zero point.  Which year that happens depends on how fast we move towards that 800 Gt CO2 post 2018 threshold.  This being the end of 2019, we have probably reduced the remaining budget to 760 already. 

     Extent can go where it will prior to the zero day of reckoning, but when the Volume trend reaches the point where there is no ice to spread around, Extent will also be at zero.

   Edited quote
And we already know that volume is falling faster than extent, which means that thickness is falling faster than extent.
    I don't agree with the second part, "... which means that thickness is falling faster than extent. " 
    Yes, we know that Volume is falling faster than Extent.  Because Volume is the product of Extent x Thickness, Volume has to fall faster than Extent unless there is either Thickness gain or zero loss.  But Thickness does not have to fall faster than Extent for Volume loss to be less than Extent loss.  It does not matter which of two (Extent or Thickness loss) is greater, or if they are exactly equal, all that matters is the product of Extent x Thickness, because that is what defines Volume.


Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 04:47:10 PM »
That is one reason the US is so deep in denial. It has had the least warming of just about any land area, and actually has had, if anything, more snow.

So true.  No only that, but temperatures in the U.S. have moderated overall, with increased winter low temperatures and decreased summer high temperatures.  Hence, it is part denial and part approval for the better weather.

I wish you'd stop posting these falsehoods. Summer high temperatures may have increased more slowly than winter lows but they're still increasing (from 1960s) - this is not the same as decreasing. The dustbowl anomaly causing the unusual spike of 1930s and particulates warp results from before the 1960s. Unlike the dustbowl, the current increase in maximums is here to stay and will only get worse. And how many people can remember the 1930s or even 1960s? For most people maximum temps have been going up most of their lives.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: November 02, 2019, 04:52:49 AM »
Here is an updated GIF through November 1, showing the rifting in the Tongue described in the post above which is showing no sign of slowing down.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 31, 2019, 11:39:39 PM »
A tiny ESAS/Semiletov update.

First pictures and video of the largest methane fountain so far discovered in the Arctic Ocean.

Unexpectedly high speed of degradation of subsea permafrost has been recorded.

'In some areas the roof of subsea permafrost thawed to the stability horizons of gas hydrates. Moreover, it has been proved that over the past 30 years speed of vertical degradation of subsea permafrost doubled compared to previous centuries and reached 18 centimetres per year which is significantly higher than in earlier estimates', said professor Semiletov.

'This result makes us reconsider the belief that subsea permafrost is stable and can only thaw by a few metres by the end of 21st century', he stressed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 30, 2019, 06:56:07 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 7,217,244 km2(October 29, 2019)

It is still really far too early in the freezing season to make such a projection, but it is increasingly harder not to believe a record low maximum is highly likely, even though by a much smaller amount, and despite this current surge in extent gains.


I fully agree that it is too early to make a projection - but nevertheless I find your projections very interesting to follow! I also notice that if you look at the three years with the lowest extent right now (apart from this year, namely 2012, 2016 og 2018), remaining gain as in those years will not lead to a record low maximum in 2020.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 30, 2019, 08:06:16 AM »
I attach three tables which show the number of days sea ice extent has been below 5M, 6M and 7M km2 around the minimum in a year.
  • 2019 extent was < 5M km2 for 64 days, which is the second highest amount, just 1 day behind 2012.
  • 2019 extent was < 6M km2 for 86 days, which beats the old record of 77 days set by 2007 & 2012 by a big margin.
  • 2019 extent was < 7M km2 for 100 days, which is the tied record together with 2016.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 29, 2019, 12:03:30 PM »
The SMOS sea ice thickness data product has moved to AWI. The SMOS processing at Uni Hamburg has stopped. You can find the SMOS and the combined SMOS and CryoSat2 products here:

A description can be found here

If you want to learn more about the validation and difference between the UH (now AWI) and U Bremen product have a look here

Both SMOS data products underestimate the thickness on average by about 50-60%. However, the UH product performs better in comparison with the UB product with a reduced mean difference and RMSD.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:57:54 PM »
However, what the trigger has been for this major extent gain in the last 3 days is a mystery to me.


Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 27, 2019, 12:14:26 PM »
Hello baking,
we agree, I would say more: the architecture of the ice sheet (PIIS) upstream of the former PIG - SW Tributary join it is still the same as in the past, it depends on the positioning of the glaciers forming the PIIS, with the areas of friction, compression and relaxation.
So of course, there was (left of the PIG) an area of crevasses perpendicular to the PIG (but not in the part of the PIIS corresponding to the PIG), crevasses solding together again downstream.
I think that following the loss of the anchor of the confluence PIG - SW Tributary (the current joint is an incoherent and temporary bric-a-brac of the PIG, piece of ice sheet and the SW Tributary) there has been an acceleration of the PIG whose effects we see now.
The area is still the same, but its conditions is not the same and moreover there is a formation of crevasses in the PIG itself (this was the question of Stephan), which suggests a subsequent retreat of the PIG
In conclusion: the increase in the speed of the PIG and his retreat has transformed and will transform this glacier as a constructive element of the PIIS into a destructive element of the PIIS

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 27, 2019, 06:15:06 AM »
I am attaching a Sentinal-1 radar image from Jan. 8, 2016, the earliest the Alaskan Satellite Facility has available on their site.  This clearly shows the break-up of ice at the "second widening" point in my earlier post.

I think you will find that the break-up started at this point (circa 2014-15) and has since moved downstream with the glacier to the calving front.

It may be tied to the separation from the SW tributary, but most likely through a speed-up of the glacier as a whole that kept the ice from spreading out completely at the widening point.  The retreating grounding line could also be a factor.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 25, 2019, 10:44:38 PM »
The most frightening part is the bigger iceberg close to the calving front circled in black. I'd like to call it "cork". It has turned around counterclockwise in the last 6 weeks by approx. 10°. The smaller calving events (see postings earlier this day) have further exposed it to the sea. If it is lost, then the "zone of destruction" (circled in yellow) will be directly touched by open water. One of the icebergs in this area has turned over since Sep 14 (circled in blue, east of the "cork"). So there must be already thin sea ice covered sea between the bergs which allows them to turn over. New or widened cracks are marked in red.
Question to the experts: Have cracks of that size ever been observed so far upstream of the PIIS?

See attached picture.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 25, 2019, 08:58:34 PM »
I would like to point out that in the southern rift (see previous post) we can see an iceberg still connected to the northern edge on 09-14, which detached and partially turned on 10-24: submerged part against the northern wall and part emerged against the southern edge, as can be inferred from the shadow and the fact that the width emerged is greater than the original width.

Which gives us an estimate of height of glacier (in this point): > 500 m  ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: October 19, 2019, 11:39:22 AM »
These figures need to be very carefully viewed. There is one critical factor that is never highlighted in these reports.

sales of new-energy vehicles, a description that include full electric and hybrids

So, when we look at BEV alone,

The reality is that plug in hybrid sales have fallen through the floor and it is being used to suggest that there is no demand for BEV.

If you see an article talking about EV sales, research it, because in 100% of the cases I have seen they are as above.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: October 19, 2019, 08:09:34 AM »
A quick update.  I was able to fairly easily (details below) add the grounding lines through late November 2017 (2017.91 in decimal years) as a very faint (30% opacity) overlay.  It's a very busy diagram, but I hope at some point to be able to mask out the extraneous details and increase the opacity.

In general, I was quite surprised at the size of the ground line retreat.  Seeing it laid on top of the satellite images I have grown quite familiar with was a bit of a shock.  Also, at first glance, it would appear that there has been some additional grounding line retreat in the last two years.  In particular, the West side of the "Butterfly" looks like it is no longer grounded, although it should probably be compared to older satellite images to see if it is a new feature or not.

Edit: Added an annotated version.

This is Figure 1(B) from Milillo 2019 "Heterogeneous retreat and ice melt of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica"

The only way I found to obtain a high resolution image of the figure was to click on the "View this article with LENS" button, then click on "Figures" and click on Figure 1.  I cropped and masked the figure to just get the bathymetry, then rotated it clockwise 70 degrees and scaled it down 4% (0.96 scaling.)  The 1996 grounding lines then lined up quite nicely, yellow in Milillo and Red in Millan.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: October 19, 2019, 05:12:04 AM »
This will be the first in a short series of posts which will attempt to overlay published bathymetry and grounding line data on recent Sentinel-1 satellite images.

I will start with the bathymetry map found in Millan 2017 "Bathymetry of the Amundsen Sea Embayment sector of West Antarctica from Operation IceBridge gravity and other data"

The first image below is box (b) "Thwaites/Haynes" from figure 2.

The second is the matching Sentinel-1 "Extra Wide Mode" image from October 16, as processed by Polar View.

The third is the bathymetry overlaid over the satellite image at 50% opacity.  Grounding line positions are red (year 1996), ice front positions (year 2008) are yellow. Bed elevation is color coded from light blue to dark blue (−1400 m), with light contours every 100 m and thick contours every 400 m (300, 700, 1100 m) although the light contour lines are very faint in the overlay.

The next step will be to update the grounding lines from Milillo 2019 "Heterogeneous retreat and ice melt of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica"

For those that are interested, here is the process that I used to generate these images.  Anyone with minor proficiency in GIMP or any similar image processing software (Photoshop, etc.) should be able to duplicate this and verify my results.

Start by downloading this Sentinel-1 image from Polar View (available for 30 days):

If you wish to use another image, make sure that the full rectangle, 100 to 110 degrees West and 74 to 75 degrees South is visible.  Your scaling numbers may vary slightly from the ones below.

Download Figure 2 from Millan 2017 (link above) using the "Open in Figure Viewer" link then "Save Image as..."

I opened the satellite image in GIMP first and then "Open as Layers..." Figure 2.  (It only works in that order because the satellite image is larger.)

I measured the 100 to 110 degrees West and 74 to 75 degrees South rectangle in both images and estimated that I needed to scale the satellite image down by a factor of 4.46.  (I confess that this calculation was non-trivial, but the results were surprisingly good.)  I scaled the image from 14060x14406 to 3152x3230.

Then I just reduced the opacity of the top layer to 50% and lined up the corners of the rectangle.  It was not off by more than a pixel so I was happy.  Finally I cropped to image to the edges of the black box (b) and saved it.

Let me know if you have any problems duplicating this.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 17, 2019, 02:23:29 AM »
Talking about FSD and where it is likely to take us in terms of lives saved, I have an image for you.  I know quite a lot about this as Scotland was my home from the mid 80's to the mid 2010's.

If we look at this chart we see some key datum points.  Deaths on the roads were around 900 in 1970.  Between 1970 and 1980, car safety became much better, seatbelts became mandatory to be fitted in 1967 (at least in the front), then, in 1983, wearing seatbelts, in the front, became law.

From 1983 we see a huge drop in deaths on the roads.

Then, again, in 1991, rear seatbelts became mandatory to be worn.  Again, over the next few years deaths dropped.

In the 2000's Scotland went on a manic set of regulation changes, 20mph speed limits, traffic calming, speed camera's, drink drive limits slashed.

We saw a decline again.  But this is the press version.  At the same time we saw a huge rise in ABS and airbags.  Cars became much safer.

However, buoyed with the press about how their "laws" had saved so many lives, they slashed the drink driving limit again.

Last year there was a concerted effort to drop the drink driving limit in Scotland to 0.  It failed.  Why?  Because the last halving of the limit saved not one single life.

Speed limits are already low.  Camera's are everywhere and the use of number plate recognition average speed limits are massively on the rise.  Yet deaths on the roads refuse to drop significantly below 200.

So where can we go from here?

Enter FSD, advanced avoidance software and a whole plethora of other systems to protect both the driver and other road users.

But this is where it becomes a problem.  Because it is quite likely that Scotland could get down to 100 deaths per year with these enhanced systems.

The thing is that even if we did save 80-90 lives with them, they would be blocked by the 10-15 lives that might be taken by the mistakes as the software learns to be better.

You would think that reducing human error by saving 90 lives would massively outweigh the 10-15 lives that might be taken by computer mistakes.

But you would be wrong.  Apparently only humans are allowed to err and kill people and keep on doing it year after year without getting better.

Should we take the pragmatic approach, the existing Tesla software could save hundreds, if not thousands, of lives around the world.  But in the process of learning to be this good they might just take a few dozen.

Where this fits in, on topic?  Acceptance of FSD, warts and all, could boost Tesla dramatically.  Rejection of it wouldn't break them, but would greatly slow them down.


Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 15, 2019, 11:12:35 PM »
Re: tesla auto drive and ethics

Tesla full auto ain't  there yet. Someday.  We'll know it there when insurance companies start offering a break for using full autodrive or the car companies offering insurance for full autodrive. Tesla and volvo have been making noises about it, but i think volvo has pushed out their timeline.

That said, consider smallpox vaccine, to which there is a small chance of fatal reaction. That did not prevent governments from inoculating me and hosts of others against smallpox. I think it's a good thing they did, but, then again i didnt die, so i'm biased.


Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: October 14, 2019, 08:45:51 PM »
I think it's time for an overview of the whole ice front of Thwaites Glacier so the discussion of various areas can be put in context.  The image below is from October 4 and I discuss the major sections from top to bottom (East to West.)  The image size is 112 km on a side and the width of the front as a whole is about 120 km.

Eastern Calving Front:  This is my designation.  It is usually considered to be part of the Eastern Ice Shelf, but this section does not seem to be directly pinned to the offshore ridge.  However it is slow moving because the ice behind it is probably affected by the pinned ice shelf.

Eastern Ice Shelf:  Ice that is caught directly between the glacier behind it and the undersea ridge in front of it.  This shelf was found to have thinned from 10 to 33 percent between 1978 and 2009 after early films of ice penetrating radar were recently digitized.

Melange:  Irregularly shaped ice that has calved from a transition zone between the slow moving Eastern Shelf and the fast moving Tongue.  It tends to stay trapped between the shelf and the tongue before reaching open water after 5-10 years.

Tongue:  Ice that calves from the fasting moving part of Thwaites Glacier, often called the Main Trunk, and tends to stay in formation until it passes over the submerged offshore ridge.  The trunk and the tongue move at about 5 km/year.  The ice tends to calve in long transverse pieces about 10 km long and 1 km wide, which then breakup into roughly 1km squares and get glued to each other with sea ice over many winters before finally breaking up.

Western Calving Front:  This used to be a slower moving part of the Tongue, but now the calving ice tends to float free although it doesn't always move away quickly.  There is usually a lot of ice just offshore combined with ice from the neighboring Haynes Glacier and the Crosson Ice Shelf fed by the Pope and Smith Glaciers.  The Western Calving Front is very close to the Thwaites grounding line in this sector, about a km at points.  The worst case scenario for Thwaites would be if the entire front were to degrade into a calving front like this sector, just dumping icebergs out near the grounding line and providing no buttressing to the glacier.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:28:51 PM »
When we talk ice KkK focuses on area/extent, a lower-dimensional measure than volume that produces a very long term prediction. That way he can avoid the truth that the volume numbers reveal.

When we talk Hurricanes KkK focuses like a laser, on ACE, which only includes wind speed and duration. He must ignore the floods, the rapid intensification, the slower paths, and the increased destructiveness.

He must pretend that average = normal AND that ACE is the only average that matters. Lucky him for being able to do that. I guess I'm just jealous of his bliss.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 14, 2019, 03:41:41 AM »
With the giga3 up, just needing to ramp production, Tesla basically beat the odds. Most of the hardest work is over. Largely because of the red carpet they rolled out for Tesla. I think Elon can be a real idiot, but let's look at why that deal was significant.

10% purchase tax on Teslas removed. Immediate 10% price reduction, increasing demand which was already growing.

About another 10% cost reduction coming from Tesla themselves, for China made Model 3s. Roughly a 20% cost reduction in all. 10% of which only came out of Teslas pocket.

However, 25% import duty removed. That's an immediate cost that goes right back into Teslas pocket for every Model 3 sold. And they'll sell every one in China.

So, adding them up, Chinese consumers will get a 20% cost reduction, and Tesla will get an immediate 15% improvement in margins for every Model 3 made at giga3.

But, there are some additional cost savings too. Both labor and parts will come in cheaper. And the logistical costs from shipping to China will no longer be incurred. That's not insignificant. So, all of a sudden, China became a pretty high margin market for model 3s, and with a 20% cost reduction, they'll sell them probably as fast as they make them.

The crossover market is also better. Model Y will probably be a pretty big hit, and more significant margins. Especially with the "Made in China" stuff, Tesla doesn't even need to advertise. That's crazy.

Their profitability in the short term just depends on how fast they can ramp, given they went through the Fremont nightmare and probably planned to get up and going as efficiently as possible. That's logical. The sweet spot is probably 3k vehicles per week, and then they'll be rolling downhill for the most part.

And the capex depreciation thing reminds me of when my options trading buddies at big tradinghouses were extremely confident, and even mocking me, for buying 5k shares of AMD at $10. Or when I bought nickel futures. I even tried to tell them Enphase and a solar ETF was the easiest money they'd ever make (my area of expertise). Rubber stamp benchmarks simply do not apply in some circumstances. Especially in emerging, capital intensive industry. Because no one in the US does it anymore. It's a foreign concept to finance guys, because we quit doing it. In this case, you would expect capex to be higher than depreciation for a duration, you simply cannot scale in that type of market and prepare for profitability, while also being technologically competitive. If you live in the US, it probably hasn't been done in your lifetime. Finance, and simple lack of will, has meant the US has largely lost this ability. If we want to be global competitors in next gen manufacturing, which is a niche we need to pursue, given the "material age" we're about to enter, we're going to have to find this ability again, and we need to tailor finance + gov flexibility to pursue these endeavors, because there will be a lot of "depreciation > capex " moments. China isn't scared of it, happens frequently, and they are the reason every technology becomes economically viable, as the best scalers in the world. If they had our research abilities, which they're catching up on, they will corner ever single emerging market like they already did with silicon, just about every electronic, solar, and will soon output more batteries than the rest of the world combined. Step changes are coming, and so is automation, there are opportunities arising, we need more companies to be like Tesla. We also need to stop the throat slitting by big finance, who would gladly see US companies trying to put a premier manufactured product on a global scale, go bankrupt if it meant they increased profitability by 2% for one quarter.

That being said, objectively speaking, I think we can largely assume that China's red carpet move with Tesla has probably assured their success. Maybe not in a quarter, probably not in two. But, I'll probably buy some shares, because 3k/week is the sweet spot, and I think they likely hit that faster than people think. I think it's assured in 2020, and scaling up Model Y, next year will be the last "unprofitable" quarters we see, and once sentiment turns, that'll probably be the last time you get it near this price. I'd much rather be 10 months early, than late.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: October 13, 2019, 08:03:37 PM »
Respectable scientists try not to be alarmists.  I got interested in Thwaites when I heard Richard Alley say it was something like "50 years give or take 50 years."  Maybe it was somewhere in this talk: but he has moderated his language somewhat since then to say that there is a risk that it could happen in decades but it may never happen.  More of a risk analysis rather than a prediction.

On the other hand, a paper published last December tried to model the collapse of Thwaites and it didn't see anything major for 30 years and the 100 year predictions were for something like a contribution of only 8 inches of sea level.

But if you read the paper, under section 4.6 "Limitations of the model study" you find "Another limitation is that the ice shelf front migration is not included in our simulations. We assume that the ice shelf front position of TG remains fixed" and later "The eastern ice shelf has been thinning and retreating, which means that the ice shelf could disintegrate in the coming decades."

It is hard to understand exactly what they are saying here.  They are making 100 year predictions assuming that the Eastern Ice Shelf remains fixed, yet they freely admit that the Eastern Ice Shelf could disintegrate in the coming decades.

Anyone who looks closely, knows that the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf (TEIS) is doomed to collapse in the next ten years.  The ice is visibly sliding eastward off the forward buttress which is at an angle to the current ice movement and not in a position to stop the forward progress.  (See GIF below.)  Meanwhile, the ice on the Western side of the TEIS has broken away (including the "cork" above) leaving no new ice to form a replacement TEIS.  It's impossible to say if the ice further inland might reform TEIS a few years after the collapse, but in my mind it is hard to find solace in these 100 year models based on the "stability" of the TEIS.

The models say that the Eastern half of Thwaites is the one most likely to collapse first, but the Eastern half is currently buttressed by the TEIS.  If the TEIS collapses and the Eastern half starts moving as fast as the Western half is currently, about 5km/year, I don't see how these 100 year predictions are worth anything.

The academic push has been to say "let's really study Thwaites" and they've done one season of observations so far.  Over the next 5 years expect to see a lot more papers published, but in the mean time, all we can do is watch the ice.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: October 13, 2019, 06:25:03 PM »
Below is a GIF of the last 8 months of movement of a 10km long "cork" that has been holding back the "melange" of ice between the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf and the Thwaites Tongue.  For at least 7 months it has been slowly turning and around the end of August and Early September it started sliding out towards the sea, being pushed by the ice behind it.  There is a strong possibility that it may be "caught" at its right front corner in the next few weeks by a couple smaller icebergs that are pinned against the eastern ice shelf.  Otherwise, it might be moving out to sea.  Something to watch anyway.

The "cork" broke off from the Eastern Ice Shelf during 2013-2014 and has turned almost 180 degrees clockwise as it tumbled in the melange.  It has been relatively stationary for the better part of a year, causing the melange behind it to build up.  Some of the larger pieces of ice behind it have been broken up in that time as the got caught between the rapidly moving Tongue and the stationary cork.

Also see the top of this GIF:

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 11, 2019, 04:51:31 PM »
Despite the positive AO, sea ice is struggling to form, not too surprising considering the heat intake especially across the ESS and the early ice melt across the Pacific side of the basin and as time goes by, expect this situation to become the norm as the Arctic gets ever warmer.

What is interesting for me however is despite similar results between 2018 and 2019 in terms of a slow refreeze, the weather for both years is completely different. 2018 had a persistent pattern of compacting winds against the ice pack and alot of warm air entering the basin with record breaking temperatures across the Chuckchi I believe, 2019 had an Arctic high in September but barely any WAA however the upper(850) temperatures were quite high and the PV struggling to form. This broken down in October to a more positive AO but ice is struggling to form still.

So all in all and imo, 2019 is showing what we probably expect in the future with a fast melt and very warm temperatures and a slow initial refreeze whereas 2018 slow refreeze was all down to the weather during September and October and if any year experienced that type of weather, then it would of lead to a slow refreeze regardless how much ice there was. Scary thought to think what the extent would be now if we had those conditions in September and October in 2018 this year!

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf
« on: October 11, 2019, 10:32:10 AM »
The cracks appear to extend parallel to the sea front :
link with the side completed for some time already
tentative small cracks linking the two big EW cracks - maybe visual artifacts ?
extension of the cracks link to the NS opening at the middle of the shelf
doubling of the length of the southern crack

All evolutions I spotted are underlined in the image

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Rammb Slider Thread
« on: October 10, 2019, 11:49:24 AM »
Now that polar night is descending on the arctic, it's time to switch to band I04, shortwave IR discerns temperature.  I inverted the colors and enhanced the contrast, I think it will make for a good substitute for visible bands.  I find the low light band has issues with some form of "glare".

This is the area north of Svalbard at roughly 82.5°N,10°E, that has been discussed before, that "swirl" still evident.   The gif is short, fighting the clouds

Click to run, link to location.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: October 10, 2019, 01:14:44 AM »
China is on track to meet its [so2 and no and particulate] emissions goals for 2020

The good news - the local air pollution from coal plants in China has been cleaned up a lot.
The bad news - the climate cooling levels of SO2 from Chinese coal plants have been reduced a lot

The team found that between 2014 and 2017, China's annual power plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter dropped by 65%, 60% and 72% each year respectively from 2.21, 3.11 and 0.52 million tonnes in 2014 to 0.77, 1.26 and 0.14 million tonnes in 2017, which is in compliance with ULE standards.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: October 08, 2019, 01:02:32 PM »
Here is a timelapse I made 9 years ago. The quality is not much to cheer for, but the movie has its moments.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 08, 2019, 09:12:24 AM »
A minor calving at the junction between PIG and SW tributary.
Tha cracks in the SW Tributary seem to have widened at htat point too

Breaking News
I have been waiting for this to happen for a while, but via other sources I can now see the calving session is underway, this calving session could well be the largest calving session since Zachariae Isstrøm was separated from the former tongue in 2012, it could be larger than the well known calving session at Jakobshavn Isbræ in August 14 - 16 2015. My prelimerary estimates is it could be up to 13 km2.

The animation below show: The potential calving area is marked with red color. And the animation in the black box show the calving event at Jakobshavn Isbræ August 14 - 16 2015 (same scale).

You need to click on the image to animate and enlarge!

The rest / Re: Archaeology/Paleontology news
« on: October 03, 2019, 07:35:17 AM »
Thanks Vox
Just as with Continental Drift, or the astronomic solution to the dying off of dinosaurs, we'll have to wait until most of the doubters have died off before the new Younger Dryas Asteroid theory finds acceptance. In the meantime the evidence just keeps building.

We might get our heads around the idea that Paleo Hunters killed the last Mammoth, but imagining people with spears killing the last pride of Saber Toothed Cats, or the last pack of Dire Wolves, takes a fevered imagination.

Terry - hoping I outlive the doubters. ;)

Asteroid impacts coincident with the Younger Dryas event do not have to supersede the conventional theory that a mass outflow of fresh water from the already collapsing Laurentide ice sheet drove the temperature change.They could however have exacerbated the effect. Further, it is much more likely that the end of the Clovis culture was driven by the anthropogenic extinction of ice age mega fauna than by an asteroid- unless it was awfully, awfully big. And, mega predators did not have to be hunted or killed by humans to go extinct once their prey had been killed off. In my not entirely uneducated opinion, the denialism that resists the idea that humans caused the mass extinctions at the end of the last glaciation is similar in nature to that which resists the idea that human caused carbon emissions are changing the climate today.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 02, 2019, 08:29:41 PM »
I wasnt aware (until today) that the old Norwegian Met Ice Service and charts, previously available at (url no longer works) are now available in a new revamped website at:

I've just perused through this site and it is a treasure trove of charts and data. ASIF members, bookmark it ! 

Maybe mods would like to add it to the ASIG section ?

Here is a sample of some of the images available on the website  (Mosaic view of Sentinel 1 images) :

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 02, 2019, 12:59:15 PM »
Now it is October and we can see the SMOS thin ice thickness map. The survived ice in the Laptev side is really thin. Thanks to the August weather that slush have survived

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: September 30, 2019, 08:37:24 PM »
Hi Kevin,
can you tell us where is Alert N.W.T. weather station positioned (with respect to your location) ?
Temp there as presented by Infoclimat was -8 °C at 12h.
It looks like that's the data from the ECCC weather station near the main station complex, which is very near the shoreline and also close to sea level.  Because of proximity to the ocean, temperature readings can vary quite a bit from the ones we get here up at the lab, which is 180 MASL and also several kilometres from the shore.  They didn't register the dramatic temperature spike two days ago at all, the air mass didn't reach all the way down there.  I wanted to verify the data myself, so I actually drove up to the lab just to make sure it wasn't equipment failure, and sure enough, it was actually as warm as the data said it was...

For comparison's sake, I've attached the current met plots from the lab.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 27, 2019, 11:51:29 AM »
A note on scales.  As far as I can figure, the PolarView high resolution images from Sentinel-1 are 20 meters per pixel.  (The Sentinel-1 specs are 10m/pixel, but I think PolarView reduces file sizes by producing a lower resolution.)  That makes the sizes for the above three pictures 14km, 28km, and 112km on a side.

The distance from Iceberg B-22A to Thwaites Ice Tongue is about 100km at their closest points.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 27, 2019, 06:10:19 AM »
Here's a final image scaled down by a factor of 8.  A tiny portion of B22-A can be seen at the bottom edge of the image.  The movement of sea ice over a vast region, along with isolated icebergs, iceberg formations, and a huge iceberg almost the size of Rhode Island cannot be a mere coincidence.

Ocean currents and/or wind had to have been the moving force, but the shifting position of B22-A must have allowed the sea ice behind it to follow along bringing smaller icebergs and formations with it.

It also raises the question of whether the fate of Thwaites Ice Tongue can be tied to Iceberg B22-A.  If B22-A were to ever unground and drift off, would the ice tongue become even more vulnerable?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 26, 2019, 05:51:16 PM »
Production and delivery numbers likely within ~ a week.

So bring together summary of previous quarters for comparison:

Qtr_____Model 3__S/X___Total
Q2 2018 28,578 24,761 53,339
Q3 2018 53,239 26,903 80,142 
Q4 2018 61,394 25,161 86,555
Q1 2019 62,950 14,150 77,100
Q2 2019 72,531 14,517 87,048

Qtr_____Model 3__S/X___Total
Q2 2018 18,440 22,300 40,740
Q3 2018 55,840 27,660 83,500
Q4 2018 63,150 27,550 90,700
Q1 2019 50,900 12,100 63,000
Q2 2019 77,550 17,650 95,200

and the outlook from Q2 update letter was

We are working to increase our deliveries sequentially and annually, with some expected fluctuations from seasonality. This is consistent with our previous guidance of 360,000 to 400,000 vehicle deliveries this year.

Additionally, we expect positive quarterly free cash flow, with possible temporary exceptions, particularly around the launch and ramp of new products. We believe our business has grown to the point of being self-funding.

So the expectation seems to be slightly more than 95k. Minimum to achieve low end of range looks something like 63k + 95k + 96k + 106k. Giga 3 may produce a few thousand in Q4 but 96k deliveries looks to be potentially seen as barely or even not on target for low end of range. I am thinking top end of range 400k for 2019 is not really realistic; would need at least 110k which would be remarkably good.

I am thinking
Perhaps 96k a little disappointing; and less would be worse.
97k-100k reasonable expectation
anything above is looking good.

However this isn't really based on much. I haven't heard much about record production/delivery rates.

Only need 78k for the half year to beat second half of 2019. Wonder if GSY will move the goalposts and change from using 'half year' figures which was useful for him so that he could include the bad Q1 figures to some other measure that allows Q1 to still be included in recent period, perhaps 2019 to date figures?

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 26, 2019, 10:35:57 AM »
Hi all,
Thanks to Neven for a fascinating forum. I read mainly for the facts and to remind myself of the slow inexorable impact of climate change.

I would just like to say that the Thames in London is tidal. (up to Teddington Lock).
The Thames barrier was built to protect London from storm surge due to low pressure systems in North Sea, combined with high tides.
Flooding due to this type of event has occurred in the past 1928
and a similar event 1953 (though not affecting London so much) caused the Thames Barrier to be built.

These events, while not common, will certainly be exacerbated by sea level rise of 0.5 meter.

all the bestDD

Antarctica / Re: The Amery Ice Shelf Thread
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:11:07 PM »
Big claving at Amery!

Developers Corner / Re: Test space
« on: September 24, 2019, 05:17:21 AM »
A slightly longer version of the Beaufort Sea animation I posted on the melt thread a few weeks ago

This is at 720p  with h264 encoding. Its a bit large at 8MBfor ~150 images. I'll see how far I can push down the bitrate (doing 2pass encoding) without losing too much image quality. The alternative is to reduce size to 360p. I guess if you need the detail though, you pay in bitrate

EDit: Added the actual video

the h264 version here is twice the size of the h265 I made earlier though there are a couple of differences in -preset and -tune parameters - though the preset shd make it marginally more efficient. Its possible that "-tune animation" makes ffmpeg/libx264 consume heaps more bandwidth- I'll do some more experiments as time allows

Edit 2: Arggghhh padding. I added code to pad and force aspect ratio to deal with problems when sequencing clips for the video screens at the big Flea Circus show I mentioned in the post above, and which opens tonight, so I'll have to leave it for now. At least the H264 video displays fine on my system

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: September 23, 2019, 08:53:07 PM »
I analyzed the movement rate of the PIIS at different spots on PIIS and the SW tributary in the time between Feb 06 and Sep 14, 2019. The speed is comparable to that of last austral autumn and ranges between 11 and 16 m/day on the PIIS and is much slower on the SW tributary.

See attached figure.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Nullschool Animations
« on: September 23, 2019, 06:22:41 PM »
Suddenly last summer...

amsr2+iwpd@850hPa (full-size versions)
2019 June-July-August

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 22, 2019, 09:10:54 PM »
NSIDC daily area is currently 3.38 million km2, which is 7th lowest for the date:

It's now safe to say that the 2019 minimum was 2.87 million km2 on 4 September 2019.  That is the third lowest minimum on record:

    year    minimum
1   2012   2.23 million km2
2   2016   2.46
3   2019  2.87
4   2011   2.92
5   2007   2.95
6   2017   3.00
7   2010   3.07
8   2008   3.08
9   2015   3.14
10 2018   3.24

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: September 21, 2019, 07:53:31 PM »
It's hard to match the ITP buoys temperature & salinity profiles with their location using the standard plots provided, so I practiced my R and took a stab at it.

Because of the constraint of one type of value displayed per location point, I started with the average temperature of the 0-60 dbar ocean layer. I'd like to animate it based on date with a fading trail, but if anyone has suggestions for a better calculated value to display, let me know please.

L3 data was available for years 2005-2014

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 20, 2019, 10:43:56 PM »

Longtime lurker who has just registered to echo the other posts.

Thank-you so much gerontocrat, Juan and all the other myriad posters who post and analyse the data to help us mere mortals understand what is happening up north.

As a primary school teacher in the UK I try my best to educate the young minds and possible future leaders of our county. Your data and explanations help me provide the evidence of what our civilization is doing to the planet and help shape the thoughts of the next generation.

Just posting to give my thanks... now back to lurking and not cluttering up threads :)

In cooperation with the Operation Ice Bridge Team and especially Sea Ice Scientist Linette Boisvert NASA who sent me many images and a few videos from their trip across Zachariae Isstrøm on September 5 2019, the delay in the publishing is due to the poor internet band width at Thule Airbase.
We start this round of images from the top of Zachariae Isstrøm including the giant meltponds then passing the calving front across the Zach Bay and at the end we reach the former glacier tongue of Zachariae Isttrøm, now a death piece of glacier ice, enjoy and again thanks to Linette:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14