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 - bbr2314

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: Today at 06:23:24 PM »
This is a very nice graphic created by Zack Labe that shows the YTD temperature anomalies across the arctic.

Parts of Alaska and the Beaufort are 5 degrees centigrade (9 degrees Fahrenheit) above the 1981-2010 average.
This isn't exactly accurate -- it is 925MB which is not the surface (though it is surely accurate for the 925MB level).

The attached shows from 45-90N YTD anomalies in C. A large part of the Arctic is indeed +5C or higher vs normal.

The yearly anomalies are much worse than 2012. But 2016 actually had a higher core of heat over the heart of the Arctic (although 2019 has more heat in the Pacific periphery, it also has less over the ATL side).

It looks like things are slowly shifting to a state where the PAC retreat is becoming more steady and sustained year over year while the ATL fluctuates. I would suspect this is due to the accumulating freshwater anomalies derivative of +snowfall in North America and Eurasia, and increasing snowmelt / SMB discharge from Greenland.

Because of where Greenland is situation, this is resulting in a steady worsening of the PAC as AGW accelerates, and increasing fluctuations on the ATL side between very warm and very cold (with the cold extreme seemingly winning out more and more as Greenland and the SWE feedbacks have swung into overdrive post-2012 more often than not).

I think this dichotomy and the resultant pattern of anomalies in the NHEM maps below indicate something fairly important beyond the sea ice. If 2012->2019 is sustained through 2019->2026 we will not need a BOE for catastrophe to occur. 2019 has now easily surpassed 2013's impact on North American agriculture. It is very easy to imagine an even worse year (or CONSECUTIVE worst-ever years) occurring in an imminent timeframe (i.e. before 2026). At that point substantial geopolitical ramifications from food shortages are likely to begin occurring in widespread areas, let's hope they don't all happen at once. We have achieved a horrible outcome in 2019 following a milquetoast minimum. What happens if we do see a September area # below 2M KM^2 by 2026, as most would agree is very likely? It will not be good....

Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential
« on: Today at 02:23:08 AM »
Thanks for the update Tealight.
With most of the negative anomalies found in Hudson Bay and in the Kara-Barents-Fram complex, both regions prone to imminent melt, that gives the overall positive anomaly an added twist.
I have been harping on this. The only "good" anomalies are in regions that will melt out in July-August anyways. We know Slater's graph has issues but even his graph shows 5.89M KM^2 extent remaining as of 8/4, WITH a major part of HB remaining that is unlikely to be there at that point (or will be gone shortly thereafter).

This should result in an easy cinching of the record for most of August, IMO, and probably September as well. If not the record, which I suspect it will be, this season will easily rank alongside 2012 + 2016.

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: June 15, 2019, 08:29:52 PM »
Spring is already failing in many recent years (2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, 2019).

What happens next? If 2019 is any reasonable guide, it is going to start snowing in much of the populated Midwest into June by the 2020s, and into June in the unpopulated innermost regions of the continent (with proximity to the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay). We are seeing record-worst corn harvests this year due to the conditions that have prevailed. And it is almost certainly only a preview of what's to come within another decade.

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: June 15, 2019, 07:05:31 PM »
Looking at this it seems a no brainer to me that if you have increased Arctic waters flowing down the coast lets say with the inherent inertia of 750N then it'll have two main effects. The first is that it will force itself into the coast, and continue to do that further south. The second is that once it is forced by Gulf stream waters away from the coast those waters will mix until equilibrium is reached slowing down the gulf stream/north atlantic drift.
What does this model show if not that?

If you open nullschool and select O from projections you'll see from 90-600N is about half of the distance of the equator from the axis of rotation and 300N about an eighth of the distance. Thus the inertia of tropical waters is too low to separate from the coast until the distance to the axis [surface speed] begins to decrease, so I would expect the highest effects of slr to be where both streams detatch and all points north, until the water reaches equilibrium with rotational speed, which may vary but just now appears to be about 52N, so peaking around 41N. Why am I wrong?

I wonder if we are seeing amplified seasonal flux moreso than other factors. I.E. during the winter and springtime snow melts, the stream is pushed south more than it used to be (especially so by spring). And then, as snowmelt ceases, the Stream is more prone to drifting farther north than normal due to the tropical thermal inertia and slackening of freshwater supply.

Long-term, as Greenland contributes more and more to summer melt, I guess the end result would be a more permanent pattern matching late springtime that persists through most of the year.

It turns out that excessively heavy winter snow serves for excessive spring meltwater, not for excessive spring snowcover.
Both occurred this year in Quebec...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:08:23 AM »
The cyclone that rots offshore of Pakistan should inject substantial +500MB anomalies into the Laptev by D10. You can see it beginning on the 12z EURO's extended output but I bet it worsens as we approach 6/25. This could be a knockout blow, and I wouldn't be surprised if it combines with intense smoke from the wildfires now igniting in northern Siberia.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:51:47 AM »
Flood? Maybe not, but the Great Lakes are rather high too.

I wonder what happens if we see the same year over year increase into 2020. I would imagine the impacts would be fairly catastrophic in many locations.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:27:37 AM »
The ESS is taking a beating and the models show a continuous crushing over the ESS.

It takes a while for it to melt out.

We usually see a pattern change of some sort before the ESS can collapse in July.

Anyways I have always felt if the ESS collapsed in July there would be time to really warm up a large portion of water.

HYCOM shows very thin ice here. I could see ESS easily collapsing entirely by mid July.

Congrats on the suite.  I can see a little bit of snow.  Too bad it was so cloudy.
Yes, and unfortunately the best pic is rotated poorly...

In any case, snowcover was abundant (though hard to capture) close to the coast. Once inland, it dropped off quite quickly.

Location, sea ice (+ icebergs?), and SNOW! No one tell Greta that there were only three people in the 12-suite first class cabin and that I had a sitting suite and a sleeping suite (yay Singapore Airlines!)

I think your new glacier is in trouble Bbr.
I flew over Quebec today and snowcover was still plentiful in the mountains. Pics forthcoming.  ;D

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 14, 2019, 02:00:51 AM »
I will apply the term 'catastrophe' to the melting of the ice 'up north' without feeling any sense of exaggeration . The catastrophe of the ongoing thaw/melt in the East Siberian and Laptev seas is that it is another of the boxes ticked on the way to a season melt-fest .
 As A-team points out such weather is secondary to the real story of the season .. the unprecedented export of a large part of the multi-year ice to destruction . The export continues over the coming week with the wind blowing from the ESS/Laptev toward Barnetz/Fram . A large part of the remaining older ice will move into the killing zone to make way for the new ice so it can make way for open water .
  One of the results is that much of the colder air in the forecast is in Barnetz and Kara while the Siberian / Pacific side of the Arctic basin is basking in temperatures we in W Europe would appreciate atm.
 Then there was the snow .. strong arguements that extra snow on shore and ice would help delay the melt. No snow on shore or on onshore ice ..
 So I agreed with AM2's anguish at seeing yesterday's SMOS image . Even if it may not accurately reflect reality , it does reflect ongoing melt and the melt is going on and on , as am I . :)  b.c.
+500 to your post :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 13, 2019, 02:35:06 AM »
I think the confusion stems from the fact that a climate change denier is muddling up the threads with BS representations of how the melt season is progressing, cherry picking the most limited representations and then saying "oh this season is not bad at all". I think Neven should ban him as he is not here in good faith. I have been informed by other posters that he is indeed a denier who posts the same BS at other message boards.

It amazes me how every melting season you predict a new record minimum, and when it does not happen you go silent.

Then when I post some data and claim this season 'will not end up in the bottom 3' you act like a butt hurt baby, since you cannot process any data that does not fall in line with your wish casting of a new record arctic sea ice minimum.

If you used more of your mental capacity on learning, perhaps you would understood the context of the above area conversation, which had nothing to do with my earlier post.
I haven't predicted a new record this year, so IDK what you are talking about.

Yet you have once again regurgitated your denier talking points in this post. The disinformation campaign you have launched here is obvious.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 13, 2019, 01:42:14 AM »

It is not the EXTENT numbers which are revealing the double century loss, but the AREA numbers.

Neven has corroborated here in this thread that the NSIDC area losses of the last two days total 431k. The conclusion of what that data means is up for grabs at this point.

With respect to the 125k or so loss which is being represented as coming from the Canadian Archipelago in the last few days, the mystery of the root cause remains.

It's kinda weird that these area data tables are posted here every day without fail and when something really dramatic shows up in those numbers, they are presented w/o any comment on them.

Rich, I think the confusion stems from what the area numbers actually represent. The satellites use microwaves to try to distinguish between ice and water. 

The microwaves are pretty good at distinguishing open water from frozen ice.  However, when the ice starts melting on the surface, the satellites often report open water where there is actually ice that is displaying surface melt. 

If you look at the visible light images on Worldview, you will see large areas of blue ice showing up over the last few days in the CAA.  The satellites are incorrectly reporting those areas as open water. 

That is why Neven mentioned above that area data is not very good this time of year for identifying how much ice is present.  However, it does give us a good idea of the amount of surface melt which is very important as we head into the next two months.
I think the confusion stems from the fact that a climate change denier is muddling up the threads with BS representations of how the melt season is progressing, cherry picking the most limited representations and then saying "oh this season is not bad at all". I think Neven should ban him as he is not here in good faith. I have been informed by other posters that he is indeed a denier who posts the same BS at other message boards.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 12, 2019, 08:15:39 PM »
AMSR2 CAB and NSIDC CA ice area look robust. There may be a significant slow down in basin wide losses during July, when the more vulnerable areas of the ice pack have melted out.

it seems like you insist to interpret something into this that won't matter much.

look at the attached image that shows by definition the CAB

now you consider the part that will melt out either way.

now you take the rest and consider what would happen if the peripherals as you say are melting

what you end up with is a new record low. once can calculate the km2 area of CAB and see.

this part of the arctic won't melt out except that part to the south east which is the part that is responsible for the graph line you are posting. that is kind of "exported" ice that will melt
in that zone.

just compare it to greenland sea ice, almost none is genuinely local ice, most of that ice has come down driven by currents to melt.

hence whatever you want to convey or no, let me put it this way, whatever i understand that you are trying to convey, is not the way a assume and what you want to tell us.

someone yesterday obviously had the same impression and reacted immediately.

today i try it nicely and with reasoning.

should you think that my reasoning is wrong, don't hesitate to give it a try but nothing general. i only want to learn where i'm wrong in case that i am, else we let it be and agree that we disagree and look what's going to happen.
I think he is a denier and you are just giving him more air by responding. The graph in the previous post shows we are two weeks ahead of any other year in terms of current core extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 10, 2019, 12:33:09 PM »
Will the Mt Sinabung Volcano in Indonesia that just erupted affect the melt season this year?

The three-month eruption in Hawaii last year was thought to release so much SO2 as to affect Cali. weather this year.  People don't realize we don't need a 'SUPER-VOLCANO' to create 'years-without-summer' as did happen three to four times in the last three hundred years alone.  Yeah, Climate change may be bad... but a single 'non-super-volcano' could wipe us out practically overnight - At any time!

The answer , apparently, is No! ?

NASA AIRS sat did not see enough SO2 in the column to impact climate?
Also Kilauea definitely did not inject past the tropopause, which is required for non-localized SO2 impacts...

Agung and the Kamchatka volcanoes DID break the tropopause last year, however, as Sinabung has this year (although as posted, its observed SO2 contribution has been fairly small).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 10, 2019, 12:05:26 AM »
It looks like all the ice adjacent to Siberia is about to cave. The blue-ing over the past 24 hours has been phenomenal. And it was thinner than normal to begin with. I wonder if we see an area / extent cliff begin to develop in June as these peripheral areas (next to Siberia and elsewhere) begin to fail simultaneously.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 07, 2019, 09:59:13 PM »
I think one of the things slowing down surface melt is that the high pressure is shallow and not reflected in the uppers.  So plenty of sunshine, but no warming from forced air decent from an upper ridge.  Delayes surface melting means lots of the sunshine is bouncing of shiny ice.  Also a decent portion of the Arctic is covered by two low pressure systems.  These low pressure systems have stronger upper signatures and weaker surface signatures.  So less surface winds, dispersion, ekmann pumping.  But stronger uppers means more cloud and reflecting sunshine away from the ice.  The Siberian low seems to be a bit cut off and not drawing in any substantial warm air, whereas the Laptev low is connected to a strong mass of warm air over Russia and pulling in quite a lot of warm air into Laptev, where substantial surface melt is visible.

None of this makes sense to me. Surface temps have been far higher than 2012 in May. I would continue to assert that most of the ice is incapable of supporting substantial melt ponding and this is why it is less visible than previous years. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 06, 2019, 10:25:21 PM »

The North East of the Foxe Basin and Baffin island seem to be in the worst state in the last decade
Here is a the link if you want to step through the previous years:
I agree. I suspect this is partially due to the massive wildfires in NW Canada in late May. If you roll EOSDIS from 5/20-6/1 you can see there was a large deposition of black carbon in this area.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Do we make too much of 2012 ?
« on: June 06, 2019, 06:12:49 PM »
sequence .. 2007 + 5 = 2012 + 4 = 2016 +3 = 2019 .. b.c.
So the world ends in 2022-2023? I could actually see that happening.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 06, 2019, 12:46:13 AM »
I've often wondered about the dramatic drop in variability in the anomalies in the decade between 1997 and 2007.
I would suggest that it was due to rising / exploding SO2 emissions from China and other developing countries negating the impact of rising CO2 / GHGs. 2007 marked the start of the global economic crisis. I wonder if an impending global recession would correlate with another occurrence.

Shipping is / was especially "dirty" and SO2 emitting, and it tanked tremendously in 2006-2007-2008, maybe this was also a principal or significant cause of 2007 -> 2012. (?)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Do we make too much of 2012 ?
« on: June 06, 2019, 12:05:28 AM »
To continue the Bob Beamon analogy: You have remarkable athletes, and then you have doping that helps the lesser gods achieve records as well. AGW is the doping for melting seasons. We don't know how much doping 2012 received, but it's clear there were many remarkable melting seasons that preceded it, without achieving a similar record. Doping almost certainly played a role. That's the whole point.

I don't think you can either make too much or too little of a record. A record is a record, it's the bar that others will try to reach. At some point, doping becomes so powerful that a minor athlete can also break the records of the remarkable athletes. Again, that's the whole point.

We don't have perfect information on 2012, but it's not like we know nothing either. We know enough to compare many of its aspects, and when the record gets broken, we'll probably be able to say whether more doping was involved. For instance, when less freakish weather events lead to the same results.

Now, to go back to the OP:

I think there is a case for saying that we overdo it in terms of using it as a reference. First 2012 was an example of an extreme weather event of a few months duration. Second, that event was largely cancelled out by an opposing recovery event in the months after the minimum was reached. There was no apparent durable impact from the 2012 anomaly.

An extreme weather event of a few months' duration? I don't think I agree. There was a lot of preconditioning of the sea ice through melt ponds (that we haven't seen since) and there was a huge cyclone towards the end. But in between, there was weather that could be considered average. I mean, that's how I found out how important preconditioning and melting momentum is.

As for 'recovery event': Yes, winter still exists.

In short, we don't make too much of 2012. A record is a record. And it taught us a lot.
I prefer my Imelda Marcos analogy. Who is Usain Bolt but someone who wears shoes? Imelda wore the most shoes. She is 2019's ice season personified! 2012 could be the Comte D'Artois. He wore a lot of shoes too. But Imelda is the queen. And she was elected to Governor of Manila after being exiled! Now that's a comeback. Basically equivalent to a late melt-out of Hudson Bay putting 2019 back in front of 2012, assuming it ever falls behind.  ;)

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 01:40:00 PM »
They are crucial for society to function.

Thanks for the good laugh Bbr.  ;D
Thanks for providing an example of a proletariat utopia without a functioning elite beyond the end game of Marxist theory  ;D

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 01:02:02 PM »
Also, there have always been elites and there will always be elites. They are crucial for society to function. The same cannot be said for the global middle class. Dreams of socialist revolution will end in a reality of bloodshed for its perpetrators, but maybe that is necessary to save the planet.  ;D

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 05, 2019, 12:49:45 PM »
I love how the rise of the global middle class is completely ignored in the above post as if the consumption habits of the elite, who have always been very limited and have always consumed as they do today, are something new. The global middle class is to blame, if this is not apparent to you its because you are middle class and would rather point fingers and blame "elites" instead of recognizing this crisis actually began with the French Revolution.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Do we make too much of 2012 ?
« on: June 05, 2019, 11:44:25 AM »
Do we make too much of Imelda Marcos?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 04, 2019, 10:38:17 PM »
Why does that model keeps getting posted when the owner who used to did this model has passed away, its largely irrelevant imo. There will be no pole hole by the end of July and the only reason the model is showing that is probably down to any lower concentration that might be there right now.

Back to the hear and now it looks like for the short term we may see more of a shallow low pressure cell taking hold but predictions seems strong this will head towards the pole and strong very warm southerly winds hitting the Siberian ice which will cause huge melt ponds and no doubt a even bigger Laptev bite. All very interesting but of course subject to change.

Also looks like Hudson could get a proper major warm blast too which no doubt will affect the ice there.
It's not irrelevant, and to disregard it as such is to demean the work its creator put into it when he was alive. His model is usually very close to perfect, even if the penultimate numbers are off by a few hundred K KM^2.  ::)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 04, 2019, 09:10:21 PM »
July 24 th and showing almost 80% on Hudson bay? Historically its below 40% by the start of July...
The ice there is very thick in most spots, and is high vs. normal now. I think the melting of HB in late July and August will contribute further to a massive cliff considering WITH Hudson Bay intact in that map, numbers are still at the record (I think).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:53:31 PM »
Slater's latest shows a XXX-rated "Pole Hole" coming to a planet near you by July 24th.

For some reason the image isn't updating properly ^, if it isn't showing 7/24, click here for the exclusive XXX-rated content.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:37:02 PM »
Of course, America isn't the only country with above average GHG emissions.

But we have the power to force change and we don't. We have the $800 billion military that enforces the fossil fuel hegemony. We are alone among the Western nation's in having 1/4 of our voters who are religious fundamentalists. We have the climate denying POTUS.

We are now the biggest producer of fossil fuels. We are one of only two nations to reject the Paris Accord. Even the Democratic leaders like Pelosi and Biden are weak on climate.

Plenty of bad guys in the climate change story....but the US is by far the worst.

The death toll from environmental collapse is going to dwarf what WW II brought. My country is at the epicenter of that genocide.

I disagree, I think Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Europe, in fact every developed nation is equally to blame. If the US tamped on its fossil fuel output there would be riots in the streets in Europe and elsewhere. You can see this dichotomy in the politics section of this board where posters like Lurk say the entire would should have a middle class standard of living without realizing that said standard of living is single-handedly responsible for the destruction of the planet.

The problem is not the US, or China, or Russia, or France, or Saudi Arabia. The problem is the global middle class, and if you actually want to save the planet, it would have to be obliterated (which would mean no more posting on the forum for you, sorry!).

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:34:20 PM »

Do you not find it a little bit odd, that you never had the idea of profiting from making climate change public yourself, yet you think others do it for exactly this reason (without any argument underlining this mind you). I think the motive you are assuming here, is some BS you overheard somewhere. Seems like you never had a second thought about that.
How would you know I haven't attempted to profit from making climate change public?

My assumed motive re: Thurnberg is not BS, but you are free to disagree with me!

My two passions are buildings and weather. I have monetized the former, but not the latter, because it is enjoyable to me to post here and interact with an established community vs. starting my own website / etc. I also think monetizing a hobby can diminish its enjoyability because it becomes about money (in part or in full) instead of pure enjoyment.

And, be cause: why should anyone here respect Greta? Because she skips school and encourages others to do so, or because she spouts BS demands that will make no difference while enjoying the benefits derived from Scandinavian society, which is entirely built on slave labor from abroad and fossil fuels / dirty mining etc at home? I know people like to look at Norway and Sweden as bastions of the progressive movement but it is easy to ignore the damage wrought by Norwegian petroleum and Swedish manufacturing when the negative externalities only occur elsewhere, while the alleged positives (a social welfare state that results in mindless drone citizens) are what's talked and bantered about on the interwebs.

I repeat: it is my opinion that Thurnberg is one such mindless drone, a tool of the capitalist elites in Sweden and elsewhere (including her mother) that acts as a mindless figure "against climate change" while simultaneously belonging to a culture that is most definitely responsible for a very significant portion of per capita emissions, even if they are hidden by offshoring all negative externalities.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 04, 2019, 07:28:23 PM »
Greta Thurnberg is a tool being used by her celebrity mother to further her own image

Bbr, when was the last time you thought telling the truth about climate change would be a great business model?
I mean, this is kind of a non sequitur? My point is that even the supposed activists are completely misinformed and serve as propaganda for other means vs. Acting as agents of actual change or informed discourse. I would actually go so far as to say the ASIF is the only location on planet Earth where legitimate discourse can be had.

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: June 04, 2019, 06:19:59 PM »
Worst consequences of AGW is young people growing up knowing what's coming.

They know they're screwed. Twice this year over a million kids skipped school on the same day and boomers yawn at them.

A century ago, the Nazi's used Zyklon B to kill with indifference.

American's are the modern analog for the Nazi's.
All Westerners are the modern analogue if that's your gripe. It's not like Europeans or Australians or the Japanese do much better. In fact Canada and Australia are the worst of all per capita.

And this is why noone cares if a million children use CC to skip out on school. Do you think they actually have any idea what they are "protesting" or do they want to skip school? Greta Thurnberg is a tool being used by her celebrity mother to further her own image. Greta is a dolt (sorry, it's true).

You can rant and rave about "Climate change will do XYZ!" but unfortunately none of the aforementioned individuals have a basic grasp on impending changes, or anywhere near the knowledge of even the entry-level posters of this forum. And the advanced posters here could tell you that we are completely screwed with or without action due to what's inevitably impending when SO2 and aerosols reduce.

So, you can call Americans Nazis and sound uneducated, or you can say that wealthy and middle class humans are responsible (and have always been responsible) for wreaking death and destruction on the poor, a trend which will only worsen as resource disparities continue to grow as poor populations continue to balloon unchecked in developing regions.

Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: June 03, 2019, 11:37:00 PM »
gerontocrat, it has been warned for a lot more than a decade. I once read a "Golden Age" scifi story where explorers went to Venus to get antibiotics from the fungus jungles and swamps of the planet, because overuse of antibiotics had made all terrestrial ones useless.

and another one you make me angry to be honest this is horrible
You're just angry you won't be able to keep your Venusian antibiotics all to yourself after this wonderful insight.

Long story short?  The cold is pulled away from the Arctic ocean and over the land.  Mirrored by atmospheric circulation.  This much is obvious.  Why that's the case .. ??  The literature points to the thinning sea ice.

Nobody expected the blocks from E-W to show up like they have and cause this much trouble, this early.  In fact, nobody has come out and said much about what's happening now.  But I am not a scientist.  I'll say it:  Earth's northern polar cell is failing.  This looks like the abrupt scenario.

You be the judge.
I think you are correct but I don't think it's exactly accurate to say the polar cell is failing -- the *single* polar cell system is now changing into a state where we have two smaller continental polar cells centered over North America and Eurasia, with increasing dominance of the NAmerican cell (IMO).

So, yes, the single-polar-cell system is failing, but we still have polar cells, they are just centered in abnormal locations and are now advecting heat into the High Arctic instead of dissipating heat entering the High Arctic (at least, advection is now occurring more often than dissipation).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 02, 2019, 11:21:35 PM »
PS, here is last 12 months vs. 2012. Note the scale here is -5 / +5C (vs. -10 / +10C in the above maps).

The two worst changes on both ends of the spectrum are 1) worsening accumulation of OHC in the highest latitudes (especially the NPAC) and 2) worsening albedo-driven anomalies in North America, particularly in the "triangle" bound by the Rockies, HB, and the Great Lakes.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 02, 2019, 11:15:41 PM »
In the inner basin, 2012 much worse in the Siberian sector, and in the Atlantic sector, with 2019 much worse in the Pacific sector. Easy to see how 2012 has a big cliff coming up soon with all that thin ice. Thing is, the thick Atlantic sector of 2019 is mostly doomed by September anyway, so that may make it an even match, 2012 will take the lead but 2019 can still catch it with the right weather.
I disagree here. The Siberian sector in 2012 wasn't actually that low in concentration, SMOS was picking up on melt ponding. 2019's ice is insufficiently thick to maintain melt ponding in the same region. Your point re: the ATL front is also valid. So the PAC front is where differences matter most IMO and in that regard, 2019 is blowing 2012 out of the water.

Here is the May anomaly map (2019-2012). As you can plainly see, 2019 was much warmer across the entire Arctic, but was especially warm across the CAB.

My "triangle of cooling" between the Rockies, Hudson Bay, and the Great Lakes is also especially evident this month, but even moreso when comparin Jan-May vs 2012. Abrupt climate change? It is happening now... interesting to note that most of Eurasia is also now cooler than 2012 (only slightly), with subsequent warming limited to the NW Rockies, Japan, and the High Arctic (I would imagine this is the manifestation of continued accumulation of oceanic heat content alongside +continental snowfall / volume, although both Eurasia and North America hovered around +1SD for most of May, that is sufficient to result in minor / substantial cooling relative to the "worst" year of 2012 in most locations).

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: June 02, 2019, 07:12:47 PM »
Check out the water thread. I would wager that countries like India et al will run out of the most basic essentials well before they reach developed standards of living outside of their 1era. Mass death will be the correction, not willfully sufficient adoption of green tech (IMO).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 01, 2019, 10:14:45 PM »
I would suggest that Foxe Basin is melt ponding especially severely as it is one of the only redoubts of substantially thick ice capable of supporting melt ponding. I think much of the difference with 2012 in peripheral areas is simply because the ice is so much thinner in 2019 that it can't support substantial melt ponding before giving out entirely.

PS: ESRL data is almost finished for May 2019, a cursory comparison with recent bad years shows 2019's temps in the High Arctic were worst on record (and unlike last year, this year's major +++ anomalies also sprawled across Baffin, Greenland, and the CAA). We should be able to make the month-to-month comparisons tomorrow with previous years, but vs. 2012, 2019 blows it out of the water.

The situation in the Beaufort and Bering is unprecedented, IMO. The combination of the two fronts is possibly the equivalent of meth'd up Germans marching + Panzer-ing through the Ardennes instead of dealing with Benelux and the Maginot Line. We probably only have another few weeks before Chukchi and Beaufort capitulate almost entirely, let's hope the peripheral CAB doesn't go Vichy although I'm not optimistic on that front either at this point.

Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: June 01, 2019, 10:02:09 PM »
I have returned to Versailles for my annual pilgrimage (RIP Marie). The number of insects here is insane. They are everywhere! In the evening the air is full of life. I don't get out of cities too often so I wonder if this is atypical and due to all the meadows and gardens and flora and fauna in the vicinity, or if it is still normal. The numbers definitely seem much higher than around my neighborhood in Battery Park (Manhattan).

Consequences / Re: AGW consequences where you live
« on: June 01, 2019, 04:35:43 PM »
NYC's average & median snowfall totals have doubled since 2000. Also, temperatures have become especially warm relative to old normals in September, and precipitation has also increased fairly substantially across the board.

What could be really interesting is SWE statistics by major drainage areas (Mississippi Missouri, Mackenzie, Hudson Bay, St. Lawrence), both to assess flooding risk and possible effects on ocean regions. And maybe that will put an end to the Younger Dryas repetition claims, while focusing on the actual effects of too much winter snow.
Right, like the lack of a BOE in 2019 would put an end to the possibility of such an occurrence within the decade.  ::)

Would they get May 31 wrong? That's today.

It is horrific, but the CMC appears to (mostly) agree as well by the end of its run.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 31, 2019, 06:57:34 PM »
I would suggest both accumulation of heat in the High Arctic and the impact of clean energy (due to reduction in SO2 emissions) are dually to blame.

Start to say goodbye to Snow in NE Canada including the Torngat Mountains

Quebec - Ce n'est pas glacé

and that's all I'm going to say about that
Is that GFS output? It is always wrong. I would go with the CMC (it may show the same, I have not looked, but I doubt it does).

Year round skiing in California?
This illustrates "the theory that belongs to me" perfectly well, I guess Mammoth Mountain has sufficient elevation in spite of latitude to potentially be on the same path as *other regions* (ahem). I won't drag the thread off-topic, but this will be a very interesting situation to watch unfold as we head further into summer. LA Times says the only times this has happened before were 1995 (ending 8/13) and 2017 (ending 8/6).

If we make it to 8/15 or 8/20, is that late enough in the year for snow to begin falling once more? The continuity of this state is what makes earlier snowfalls more likely given the extant reservoir, IMO, which is why it is "relatively" easy to get snow falling all year once you make it into August. If snow melts by June or July, it is difficult to get snow until late September, and it probably won't be sticking substantially until October. The extant base changes this equation, and sensible weather, substantially.

The rest / Re: Climate on Reddit
« on: May 27, 2019, 12:07:22 AM »
I'm with oren:

Tim - thanks for the elaborate explanation of what has been bothering me almost from the get-go.
5to10 - while I appreciate your position on the matter, could you please tone down the inappropriate language?

I must admit I've also been a bit suspicious of Tom_Mazanec quite soon after he registered, but it's always possible that a person is genuine.

I don't know why any paid trolls would come to this forum to disrupt it. Maybe some fanatical climate risk deniers with sadistic tendencies, but paid ones?

I tend to agree.  If someone were paying people to influence others, I think this forum would be a poor use of their funds.  That is not saying that this forum is not worth it.  Rather, their funds would be wasted, and better utilized elsewhere, where the people are more easily influenced.
I actually disagree here. There are literally no other places on the internet where this kind of discourse is occurring (re: sea ice & albedo in particular). Elsewhere it is people parroting scientific studies / fake news (social media), or actual journal + studies, which only offer engagement for academics. News articles have cited or stolen research & data first published on ASIF, and I suspect many researchers also use the forum indirectly.

The ASIF has a very outsized influence (IMO) on actual discourse. While there may not be many participants, if an entity wanted to disrupt actual progression of knowledge and thought re: climate change, this would be a very sensible place to start, as the trickle-on effects + impacts would be outsized given (what I suspect) to be researchers' reliance on this forum, and its impact on social media + discourse through cited sources and stolen ones originally posted here.

*AHEM*, I wonder if the new posters in the melt thread are coincidentally ignorant or maliciously disruptive. I know Neven is angry about my quoting habits but the context is important here IMO.

The models show intervals of warmth, but overall, Quebec looks to have the lowest 500MB heights in the hemisphere by the medium-long range. And it comes with... you guessed it...

Will it be sustainable? No. But will it be sufficient to retain cover through summer across the mountains? We shall see. I think this illustrates why Quebec has permafrost so much further south than western Canada -- it is both elevation, proximity to Hudson Bay's sea ice, and proximity to the Greenland ice cap. And, in recent years -- as in this year as well -- the worsening area of anomalies in the NATL.

The NATL anomalies have cooled further over the last 30 days as all the snowmelt has reached the ocean.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 26, 2019, 11:29:52 AM »
The ECMWF forecast hasn't changed much.
I feel like the ECMWF keeps oscillating between "very warm" at its 12z forecasts and "warm" at its 00z forecasts. Maybe this is just me, but it seems to be a noticeable trend the past few weeks, and I wonder if there is a logical explanation or if I am just imagining this.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 26, 2019, 10:55:24 AM »
Neven, can you please delete all the HelloMeteor posts, they ruined the past page even with all the moderation you have done. If someone doesn't want to educate themselves on basic terminology they have no business posting here (and it means they haven't bothered reading anything before posting either). Feel free to delete this post as well.  :)

<No, I'm not deleting any more posts, but I am considering buying you a course on 'how do I only quote the parts I'm commenting instead of the whole goddamn exchange'; N.>

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 30