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 - dnem

Pages: [1] 2 3
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: January 20, 2020, 08:35:08 PM »
What could be worse than the loss of recreational snow skiing? :o ::) :P ;)

Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 12, 2020, 03:43:14 PM »
...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

What that will look like in 2200 is a subject for science fiction writers but we should not expect anything that looks like modern civilization.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 11, 2020, 04:25:29 PM »
For almost ALL of us, food is deeply entwined with our culture! Very disappointed in Monbiot. I get the general point that intensive ag is chewing up way too much land across the globe and that all else equal UNintensive ag has the potential to take even more land out of wild lands, but factory food paste as humanity's salvation. Yeah, no.

Soylent Green is people!!!!

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: January 11, 2020, 02:17:53 AM »
So considering the biblical tale about the promise to Abraham to multiply his descendants as the sand on the seashore, maybe this should be a hint to Abraham's alleged progeny to halt this mindless compund multiplying?

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 10, 2020, 02:37:52 AM »
For some of us our culture and our food preferences are intertwined. I cook from the same cookbook my grandmother used. I still make the same cookies for the holiday season that we have made in our family for generations. I just can’t imagine a takeover by fake food but I can see where it may compete at the lower end of the protein market. It will put pressure on farmers, mostly small farmers already operating on small to nonexistent margins. The trend to industrialized agriculture will continue apace with peas where wheat used to be planted. Big equipment and diesel tractors turning fossil fuel into protein.


Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 08:09:21 PM »
Comparing how a fully intact biosphere adapted to rapid climate change in the past with how the present, highly stressed, massively altered, depauperate, poisoned biosphere will respond to rapid AGW is meaningless. 

I have no doubt that enough genetic diversity will remain in the biosphere for it to recover over geologic time, but that is irrelevant to the reliance of 8+ billion humans on the biosphere over the coming decades.  Biosphere and ecosystem collapse will be a huge stressor on the ability of the earth to support the overlarge human population.

I agree.

Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 22, 2019, 10:49:05 AM »
We will collapse 99% chance.
Or earn our name of Homo sapiens 1% chance.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 06, 2019, 07:30:56 PM »
I think it is regulators, not the industry, we should thank.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 20, 2019, 05:37:09 PM »

Waiting with baited breath, yours truly ...  ;)
Go brush your teeth then?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 11, 2019, 10:27:01 PM »
Not that I remember the math that well, but an X2 curve will ALWAYS give a better fit than a linear X curve.  And an X3 curve will ALWAYS give a better fit than an X2 curve.

 I will always treasure the moment when some new grad students showed results from a class lab experiment with six data points on an XY curve all over the place like a sneeze and got a perfect correlation with a wiggly X5 curve!  Which is what has to happen when you use up every last degree of freedom.

It's not a coin. It's an n sided dice, where n is given by the n-pole anomaly and its interaction with oceans and land.

You must be fun at parties!

Please stop trolling sark, he is doing important stream of consciousness work on a phenomenon that will likely change all of our lives.

If you read Sark's postings as a neo-post-apocalyptic poetry, then they are fine. Perhaps they should have their own "arctic literature" thread.

Try to get any relatable information whatsoever out of them is hopeless. El Cid was just posting what perhaps a lot of us are thinking.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 18, 2019, 12:19:09 PM »
Personally I would not use the word significantly in that context, but bear in mind that 95 or 99 instead of 100 MPU might seem significant to some. It's subjective.
Personally I would also avoid nitpicking this to death and beyond...

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 16, 2019, 04:31:46 PM »
From above:
As long as the ice is at 100% extent, I don't see how there could be any difference.
From the internet (NOAA):
The underside of the ice cover also responds to the surface melt. Directly underneath melt pools the ice is thinner and is absorbing more incoming radiation. This causes an enhanced rate of bottom melt so that the ice bottom develops a topography of depressions to mirror the melt pool distribution on the top side.
Thinner ice (especially under a melt pond) allows for more warming of the water under the ice, so there is more bottom melt under 1m thick ice than under 2m thick ice (with identical surface conditions).

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 06, 2019, 02:37:32 PM »
Hurricane Lorenzo to Bring 70-Foot Waves to Azores.

Britain's Met Office said Lorenzo would bring very strong winds and heavy rains to western areas of the U.K. on Thursday and Friday.

Fortunately inside some shelter the waves were a lot smaller than that in the U.K. yesterday!

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 04, 2019, 03:47:09 PM »
One could look at that image and say "Wow, data for last 10-15 years BELOW the prediction every single year."  One year also blasts way below the uncertainty estimates for the model.

Never mind that RCP 4.5 is now fantasyland.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:46:54 AM »
A very silly ranking index graph made from averaging the indexes in Phil42's excellent table above, shows that 2019 (to date) is indeed in second place ... but after 2016!

Funnily enough, 2012 is in 7th place, and 2007 in 11th place !!!

A very silly ranking index graph.... NOT AT ALL.

The first graph attached shows the 365 day trailing average of JAXA sea ice extent. In 2016 and up to March 2017 (the record low maximum year) the 2016 trailing average became a record low - well below the 2012-13 record low average.

2012 extent roared down and then roared up - a spectacular but very temporary event (and followed by record extent gains to maximum). 2016 was a much longer-term event . You can see this very well in the 2nd graph - the plume of projections of October 2019 extent from previous years' extent gains. The lowest October extent gains by far were in 2016, the highest in 2012.

To me, yet more evidence, if it were needed, that using 2012 as a benchmark is misleading (even if inevitable).

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: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 01:55:32 PM »
These two charts might be of some interest. I present the average N of 70 temps from the given year (NOAA ESRL) Jan-Aug vs NSIDC September extent (I took the liberty of giving a value of 4 M Sq km to 2019).
Two takeaways:
1) There is a strong correlation between Jan-Aug temps and Sep extent. No surprise so far, but from this chart we can see that we would have a BOE if we hit -6 C vs this year's -9 C
2) 2012 was an outlier (too low extent) but 2016 was also an outlier (too high extent relative to temps!). The reason for the first is the GAC, and the second is extreme dispersion. 2019 is broadly in line (big red dot).

2 charts follow, the one with the extent and temp for each year chronologically, the other is showing the correlation

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 07:38:19 AM »
Very interesting to watch the HP centered over the pack compact the ice, undoing the dispersion that we saw from the LP in August... jaxa might get under 4 million after all.   Just more proof of how mobile, fragmented and unstable the pack is.

I’m worried what will happen if we get a long term +DA this winter.  The ice is more vulnerable than it has ever been, and a bad pattern could quickly export a ton of what little MYI is left.

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science and the Environment
« on: September 13, 2019, 08:20:33 PM »
Thanks vox_mundi. This wall is abominable and obscene.
(I think you forgot to give the link to the article)

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 13, 2019, 03:44:29 PM »
So a Gompertz fit for now, then “no melting since 2012”  or we can call it a hiatus or very slight melt for the next 50 years. Global warming can be safely ignored as it won’t affect the linear fit. We can bet the well being of the world that no non linearities will ocurr.

I don’t buy it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 13, 2019, 12:10:46 AM »
The obvious is nice this day and age.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 09, 2019, 11:21:43 PM »
      And since I am pontificating on statistics, here are some take away messages from the recent graphical posts by Oren, binntho, Archimid and El Cid (and thanks to all).

RE binntho's Extent and Area straight line trend,2348.msg227604.html#msg227604
     While it certainly looks like a significant downward trend, you can't say the slope is different from zero without doing the stats.  It probably is, but your use of the visual assessment method is no more valid than it is for the folks arguing that the process has stalled because it looks that way in the last 10-13 years (again I am shameless, the same applies to me too, my sinful nature was noted in previous post.  We are all fallen creatures.)

RE Oren's CAB volume trend and thickness graph,2348.msg227570.html#msg227570
    That's almost the chart I was hoping for, but it would be even better with a straight line regression trendline, tested for difference from zero, and then extended out 20 years to 2040.  FWIW, if you squint and draw a straight line through the CAB volume trend for Day 243, aka end of melt season, the slope of that line will indicate about 4 million km3 decline from 2000 to 2019, i.e. 19 years.  If that trend continues, then take another 4M km3 over next 19 years and it reaches zero in ca. 2038.  That's only a few years later than the Wipneus straight line projection of sea ice volume trend for the entire Arctic.

    The key characteristic about Oren's chart is that it is limited to ice volume in the CAB.  Thus, it presumably removes possible inflation of losses by peripheral seas that are melting out sooner than the CAB.  What started this phase of the discussion was the notion that future loss rate would decline because the CAB would be more resistant to melting.  I think the Oren chart refutes that. 

     I was surprised how strongly negative the CAB end-of-melt-season (i.e. annual minimum, day 243 data) volume is.  The CAB may look like it's been hanging on, but apparently that is the deceptive Extent curve at work.  The CAB has been rotting out from the inside.  As for the future, the presence of ice in the peripheral seas late into the summer might have reduced past losses in CAB.  Their presence has kept Arctic Ocean albedo high and almost certainly reduced pack rotation and transport out through the Farm Strait (and thanks to Tor for insight on importance of  export losses).  With less protection from ice in those peripheral seas as they melt out earlier in the year, the rate of CAB losses could markedly increase in the future. 

   Archimd's graph shows that CAB volume losses appear to already be increasing,2348.msg227455.html#msg227455.

     In addition,  the wider amplitude of the fluctuations in El Cid's graph,2348.msg227470.html#msg227470 gives me a bit of the willies because one of the predictors for a nonlinear chaotic system reaching a tipping point is higher variability.  I may be misapplying that concept because max to min amplitude is not the same as variability between years, but I allow myself my own superstitions.

    But 2038 as the projected zero year for CAB sea ice volume is over a century earlier than binntho's trend extension showing Extent not reaching zero until 2187. How can that be?   Extent is not declining as fast as volume because the remaining volume is being contained in thinner and thinner ice, and thus the Extent does not decline as much as it would if thickness remained constant.  But as the thinnest ice contributing to Extent reaches zero thickness, it stops contributing to the Extent number.  In the end, the Extent curve and the Volume curves have to meet because zero volume provides zero ice for Extent.

    Which brings me back to Oren's thickness graph.  Total conjecture, but my guess is that once average thickness gets below 1 meter we will start to see the end-of-melt-season Extent curve start catching up with its parent Volume curve.  Ice melting comments elsewhere on ASIF point to the much lower melt resistance of thin vs thick ice.  Regardless of my conjecture, the Extent curve HAS to catch up to the Volume curve eventually.

    Stay tuned.  I think there are wild times ahead for ASI in the very near future because it is on the edge of the precipice.  It will be entertaining for those of us who like to watch numerical systems evolve.  Too bad it isn't just a horse race or some other innocuous event, but is instead the loss of a crucial component for meteorological and climatic stability on the only planet in the universe known to host self-aware, so-called "intelligent" life (actually any life, but I think we will soon see that microbes are just about as common as water).  As my brother, a conservative who bought into the climate hoax BS for a while, but who is too smart to stay ignorant, said when he came to see the big picture: "This story does not end well".


Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 09, 2019, 09:19:18 PM »
I've read both the article and the blowback, and the latter to me exemplifies left-wing denial that in some ways is even worse than the classic climate risk denial. I will dive some more into the blowback on Twitter to see if they actually address points made in the New Yorker article.

edit: Diving into the blowback reinforced my opinion. So many people who claim to accept AGW just don't get it.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: September 03, 2019, 06:27:11 PM »
We simply cannot grow our way out of a problem whose root cause is growth It defies reason that anyone would suggest this. You cannot look at any macroscopic metric and not find evidence of growth in the form of exponential trends.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 26, 2019, 02:55:32 AM »
I just have one very scientific thing to say ... the ice looks like Shit!

The Laptev and Beaufort are getting hammered.  The extent in Beaufort is going up, but the ice that is getting flushed into the south Beaufort is the last of the multi year 5+ ice. 

This year is unlikely to break records for extent (although it is still too early to rule that out for certain) but, the ice going into the freezing season is going to be about the worst it has ever been. 

Just play around on Worldview for a few minutes.  It looks terrible.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 22, 2019, 09:58:14 PM »
Acceleration should be expressed as  0.02C decade2

Science / Re: A list of missing feedbacks
« on: August 20, 2019, 12:09:08 AM »
I apologize if this is pedantic, but is that not an understood/implied factor of continued warming? Heat island effect, yatta yatta. Civilization is a heat engine and a warm planet means more energy dedicated to cooling people down. There is no question that this is a positive human feedback to factor in. Crypto-mining is another underestimated source of warming.

But if we shut the mines down who will be responsible for the miners and their families?
They've spent their lives down there, digging Crypto from hard, unforgiving data. Now with their eyes shot from staring into flickering screens for untold hours, their fingers gnarled from data entry, you expect them to support themselves in the general economy!

These noble miners, and their dependents, will soon be dependent on nothing more than the dole. And you sir won't miss an hours sleep wondering if there couldn't have been another way - any way to - to alleviate their pain, to relieve them of the burden you've placed on their already hunch-ed backs.

For shame sir.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 10, 2019, 01:29:48 PM »
For some Folks not uninteresting

Data: (need for registry)
Red: 2019 warmer
Blue: 2019 cooler

Red: 2019 more SIC
Blue: 2019 less SIC

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 17, 2019, 03:46:45 PM »
Nah. Floods have magnitude and frequency and our infrastructure is designed to withstand floods within historic magnitude and frequency. It was predicted that a warmer world will get more and worse floods and that is what we see. It is also predicted that it will get worse.

 Your comment is only trivially true, dismissive and a danger to mankind. It brings solace where there should be alarm. It doesn't matter tho. It will get increasingly worse.

Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: June 12, 2019, 08:03:23 AM »
Forests are not a resource. They are habitat and alive.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 05, 2019, 03:36:27 PM »
HAH! Caught in the act!

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: May 29, 2019, 05:55:58 PM »
Steve, I suppose I have tendencies towards being a catastrophist . The reason we have an abundance of cheap food in the US is cheap Diesel and fossil fuels. The whole monitory easing and super low interest rate finance of the shale play era has kept the economy rolling for the last ten years. All that excess liquidity will come to an end at some point and if the shale play doesn't return profits or rates increase then the effort at borrowing from the future to fuel our economy will run into trouble . Without cheap fuel we won't have cheap food so I suppose the government will step in and buy the equities that support our oil infrastructure when too many shale companies start to go belly up. One more stopgap but direct government intervention in the equity market , nationalized oil, will be the last desperate step before collapse. That will be the end of cheap food and the point where my being a catastrophist comes in. Dealing with concerns about that ultimate downturn leads me to educate myself on how to live without fossil fuels. That is if the world won't deal with resilience then it is the individuals responsibility to do so.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 19, 2019, 02:11:33 AM »
Vanishingly small? Not, IMHO.
First, I dislike the use of NSIDC data for fine distinctions, when we have the much more accurate and hi-res AMSR2, especially the UH 3.125km version, and especially with Wipneus' "home brew" algorithm that gets rid of various data problems.
Second, I think extent is a poor metric for September, as 2016 showed well.
I'll define my own version of "BOE" as <1M km2 of actual sea ice, namely Wipneus' AMSR2 area. This is not ice-free in any way, but is an important milestone.
For this BOE, I estimate a probability of 5-10% per year, with the odds rising slightly with time.
The variability in the system is high. 2012 showed that beyond a doubt, going from nearly last to first in about a month. 2016 showed that GACs are not so rare. The ice state is worse than it's ever been, looking at the MYI percentages and at the grinding and breakage in the Lincoln Sea refuge.
Take any year with low starting conditions, add sunny weather in May-June-July, especially weather that increases export towards the Atlantic, and add an August GAC. The BOE could easily follow.
I am not a weather expert, but a high pressure dome could do this from what I have read here. Both export and sunny skies. And I've also read here that high pressure is coming. Will it stay? I sure don't know. Can this year reach a BOE? Not totally impossible.
I will be highly surprised if a first BOE does not happen by 2030.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 04, 2019, 05:11:59 PM »
@ was meant as an ironic comment......the opposite of comforting

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: April 12, 2019, 11:45:18 PM »
Easy to explain mate. :)

They didn't vote, so it's not highlighted for them as it is for us who voted.

I think not only is my memory going screwy, I'm going blind too!

My vote is highlighted as 3.0 - 3.4 ppm

Doh Homer~!

Do I need to post a screen shot to prove it, or could my word be good enough? Probably not by many accounts.  Oh well. Give a dog a bad name, and it sticks. (shrug)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 02, 2019, 09:54:09 PM »

Yes, but that third dimension, thickness, is several orders of magnitude smaller than the other two.  Hence, the third dimension forces have much less influence on the total makeup than the other two.

By that logic, a helium balloon, a pressure cooker, and a nuclear reactor containment vessel are all essentially similar, so they must be functionally interchangeable.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 08, 2019, 08:15:25 PM »
No gerontocrat, that's why there is a seasonal up and down in the familiar Mauna Loa CO2 data.

If you look at the CH4 data, it also goes through a seasonal cycle, but it is quite different than the CO2 cycle.  It is lowest in the northern summer, generally bottoming out in July.  It then rises through the fall and hits a first peak in the early winter, then falls slightly during the northern midwinter, rises again in the late winter and early spring, then begins it bigger decent toward the next summer's minimum.  Almost every northern winter show this curious small mid-winter dip.

If I had to guess, it has something to with optimal temperatures for microbial metabolism.  Or maybe gas drilling and associated releases drops off during the cold mid-winter months? Or both? Or something else?
It does seem to be at least partly a N / S hemisphere thing. The "winter" dip is apparently a S Hemisphere summer thing (lost the link but found this one)
The seasonal cycle is a convolution of seasonal cycles from Northern and Southern
Hemisphere sites driven by seasonality in reaction rates of CH4 with OH and emissions from some
sources (wetlands, rice production and biomass burning), and impacts of meteorology

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: February 12, 2019, 06:48:31 PM »
... Built Shade will be a growth industry for all of our cities. ... 

Once upon a time - before the Great Heat - they would be called trees and forests.

Consequences / Re: 2019 World Economic Forum: Global Risk Report
« on: January 18, 2019, 06:52:34 AM »
Re: USGov not to send delegation to Davos

O no! World's foremost oligarchy refuses to participate in world conference of oligarchs !


Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: January 05, 2019, 07:56:19 PM »
I understand the basic argument that demographers are making about the supposed need for younger workers to support the elderly.  The point is - as Oren points out - that we are already far past the global carrying capacity for humans and we need to peak, and then reduce, the human population.  It will not be easier to do this in the future when natural systems are more degraded than they are now.  We need to take it on NOW. Anything else is just kicking the can down the road.

Totally agree.  The civilization-threatening problems we face are multiplied by overpopulation.  I was just pointing out that non-optimal demographic age curves are a relatively trivial problem in comparison.  We can (and should) afford to have lots of retirees per worker, if that's a consequence of getting overpopulation and excessive births under control.  I find it gob-smacking that so many people don't see this.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: December 04, 2018, 10:56:46 PM »
The shrinking distance between the encroaching salty oceans
A reminder that warmer salty water tends to sink below colder fresh water. The atlantic side has a stronger current/larger incoming volume than the pacific but both tend to be limited in 'encroachment' by the depth of the arctic ocean (or sea or estuary).
At this stage it would appear that the ice gets thinner while attempting to cover historical extent.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 25, 2018, 07:43:38 PM »
Boston and Buffalo are totally different animals, though, as is their snow. Boston sees much heavier snowfalls of higher density (usually 10-12:1 ratios, I'd guess). Buffalo can easily do 20:1 or better as most of its snow is derivative of lake effect. All else being equal, 100" in Buffalo probably has about 50-75% of the water content of 100" in Boston.

Beyond that, Buffalo has the infrastructure to deal with snow removal -- and it isn't that big (1 million people). Boston has 7-8 million in its greater metro area. So many more streets to clear, so much more electric infrastructure, and all dependent on everything functioning cohesively.

As 14-15 showed, it would take more than 100", probably 120-150" to have truly crippling / life-threatening impacts, and the other qualifier is that DC-NYC need to be socked in as well -- not with totals as bad as Boston, but just enough so that there are not enough snow removal resources to cope with worsening totals. The thing is, if the threshold of life-threatening impact is reached, it isn't just a few hundred people affected -- it is the entire metro region! The logistics of population also mean that smaller cities are inherently less vulnerable to impact from this kind of event (I could see Worchester etc doing fine while BOS freezes and starves).

As I said, many will find this idea far-fetched, however, the records of February 2015 indicate, to me, such an idea is not insane but rather, inevitable.

It is important to note that the old 30-day record for Boston prior to 2/2015 was 58.8", which was... almost doubled... by 2015's 94.4" in 30 days. So what happens when 94.4" in 30 days is broken? I would guess it is by a total in the approximate range of ~120".
You will not see mass starvation in Boston even with 120" over 30 days. Your imagination is wild. After the 2015 record snow, I am sure the city equipped itself with yet more snow equipment and resources. A city of 8 million not only has more challenges, but also more money and management to handle them. But in any case, starvation is a very slow process, and food doesn't spoil so quickly when snowed in, even if there is no electricity. (I can't believe I am even discussing this).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 19, 2018, 11:07:35 AM »
This may belong in the stupid questions but I will start here.

Given the rapid freeze, and it being late to start alongside above average temps, is the ice going to thicken up over the remaining freezing season?
My concern here is that even with extent growing quickly, I suspect the volume wont follow suit.

If this is correct at the end of the season, the melt will be rapid..... I am not fond of that idea but it makes sense in my head based on what I see here.

Generally speaking, in order for the ice to thicken up and accumulate, it must first...form  :o

I've never understood much the argument of "early freeze" which negatively affect volumes. It goes without saying that ice acts as a blanket over the seawater, insulating it from colder air based on a temperature gradient that is established along the section of the ice cover as it gets thicker. This is just thermodynamics. But on the other hand would we be worried for thermal insulation of seawater if there was a layer of ice 5-meters thick all aver the Arctic? Do not think so.

I'm a supporter of the Razor of Occam: when there is a simple explanation for something, that's probably the best explanation. Ice is growing quickly over the Arctic because it's fairly cold, temperatures have been dropping constantly in the last few weeks, and the synoptic configuration is favourable to accumulation of cold air over the Arctic basin. As simple as that, as long as this lasts...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 16, 2018, 12:06:43 PM »
Call me a skeptic on this one.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 13, 2018, 09:19:42 PM »
  lol .. can anyone find the goalposts .. someone keeps moving them .. b.c.

best is looking for quoted text because that can't be altered by the author ;)
I am confident in predicting that over a good number of years Arctic Sea ice will decline.
I have zero confidence in predicting what Hudson Bay will do in the next week.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 13, 2018, 11:12:58 AM »
Global Sea Ice Extent as 12 November 24,681,640 km2

This is
- second lowest in the satellite record,
- 0.754 million km2 (3.0%)  below the 2010's average,
- 0.007 million km2 (0.0%)  below 2017,
- 1.567 million km2 (6.8%)  above 2016 (the record year),

In the last fortnight or so Antarctic extent loss at average or below was insufficient to offset very high Arctic extent gain. I have added 2016 and 2017 to one of the graphs to show the contrast with the current year

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: October 06, 2018, 10:40:18 AM »
This unusual Spike has to be something rapid, not just Heat from the Arctic Ocean+ Transport from Subtropics.

But it WAS heat imported from the midlatitudes. We knew a few days ago that this was going to happen, no surprises here. Just look at the pic from Oct 4, the huge warmth incursion circled in red explains everything.
We also know from the forecasts that it is over, so 80N temps will probably cool pretty fast the next few days

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: September 12, 2018, 06:33:52 PM »
Trump also runs a 1000 billion deficit, to keep everything that runs on subsidies running. And who is running on subsidies ?

Everyone, until the inevitable hits the proverbial.

Pages: [1] 2 3