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 - icy voyeur

Pages: [1] 2
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: January 02, 2017, 05:55:58 PM »
As suggested. Any objections to the format?
(Specified Jan to May because of the remote possibility of a December peak).

My only objection is that 13.5 to 14 is such an overwhelmingly likely result that the poll loses some value.

2
Science / Re: Scientists scramble to safeguard data ahead of 'scrubbers'
« on: December 15, 2016, 02:02:51 AM »
The thing is he's gifting China the lead?

The tin-foiled-hat nutjob in me asks about false flags.
Paint China as a villain in an inept way to get China off the hook?
It's a bit too much sophistication for me to ascribe to given the primary party, yet nevertheless, I remain suspicious.
After all, there remains the potential of more sophisticated puppet-masters to be pulling the strings.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: December 15, 2016, 12:25:57 AM »
The more concerning thing, to my mind, was that they monitored deep water mixing which melted the ice from below; simply by the speed and movement of the thinner ice.

Indeed. The dragon lives below the ice. Thin ice being fractured and driven by the wind awakens the dragon --- warm denser (saltier) water. That's the positive feedback that mutually amplifies the albedo positive feedback as an attack from above and below. 

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: December 14, 2016, 10:04:45 PM »
Good catch Jim, scary that the weight of the snow is sinking the ice below sea level.

Could it be a good thing? At least as far as the lower part of the snow pack going to slush and then ice, ultimately thickening the ice pack from the top down. The scary part is all that insulation but at least it's partly buffered by some growth top down to compensate for loss of growth bottom up.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: December 12, 2016, 01:04:51 AM »
Looks OK.  This is an daily extent change anomaly map of all seasons from 1989 to current.  The first thing I did is fill in any data gaps with simple linear interpolation.  Then I expressed each day's extent as the percent change from the previous day's extent.  I then created a "baseline" by averaging the daily change for all years between 1989 and 2005 and smoothed that with a 5-day running average. 

Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the 5 day smooth first and then calculate the % change from prior day?

Sure, it might well.  But I doubt it would change the baseline against which the % change was calculated very much.  I also played around with using just plain old deviations from the average km2 extent change but thought that expressing it as percent change to the current extent better highlights the changes that have gone on in recent years.  For example today's double century gain on top of the all time current low extent makes it a much bigger % increase than other late fall/winter double century gains in the data set.  I started playing around with the data to get at the question of whether or not extent gains and loses have gotten noisier in recent years.  Is the top beginning to wobble?  Yes, I'd say.

I have some background in data analysis. From my perspective, what you did was frankly wrong. It's foundational mathematics. Smoothing a derived metric rather than smoothing the original measurements is frankly wrong. Ask yourself "what is the point of smoothing?" and the underlying question, "what is the nature of noise in the data?".

The measures of ice extent include noise, both as measurement artifacts and, depending on ones perspective, weather. Smoothing by averaging minimizes that noise. If you smooth a derived metric, like daily percent change, you are effectively smoothing the derivative. It doesn't commute.

It's trivially simple to manipulate data within the equivalent of a spreadsheet but you do need to ask yourself what is it you are actually doing. And smoothing, in particular, should not be applied capriciously. Maybe I'm missing something but if so I'd expect you to be able to elucidate a reason why smoothing the derivative rather than the original data made sense for this instance when it is generally known to be a flawed procedure.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: December 11, 2016, 10:19:50 AM »
Looks OK.  This is an daily extent change anomaly map of all seasons from 1989 to current.  The first thing I did is fill in any data gaps with simple linear interpolation.  Then I expressed each day's extent as the percent change from the previous day's extent.  I then created a "baseline" by averaging the daily change for all years between 1989 and 2005 and smoothed that with a 5-day running average. 

Wouldn't it make more sense to apply the 5 day smooth first and then calculate the % change from prior day?

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 Year end IJIS Extent predictions
« on: November 22, 2016, 11:32:59 AM »
I went for 11.5 to 12, but my real guess is "around 12". Could be higher or lower.

Just over 12 with more range on the error on the low side
(12.15) 12.05 (11.70) as a +/- one sigma guess

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: September 16, 2016, 08:06:37 AM »
Random thoughts about what makes for a good freezing season, and pondering the start of the refreeze and what might be some wind driven compaction: maybe this is a good start?
Maybe a few sessions of making ice followed by winds to pile it up and free up more surface? All the better to radiate away more of the ocean's heat? Of course the total latent heat is of the big concerns but what better way to let it radiate away than to have cold dry winds suck up moisture and pile up ice to free up surface water? Just late night musing.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: What happens after the first sea ice free arctic?
« on: September 14, 2016, 04:44:06 PM »
The global changes will continue, there may or may not be specific changes induced by reduced ice in the arctic but some arbitrary cut-off definition of what is labeled "ice free" has absolutely nothing to do with those changes.

A relatively ice free arctic will enable larger storms and larger waves with potentially significant impact on shallow methane reserves and of course coastal erosion.

There's an additional potential to disrupt oceanic currents with largely unpredictable consequences, other than that most of them will be bad by virtue of being disruptive to patterns we have adapted our economy and society to.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: September 12, 2016, 07:30:00 PM »
Wipneas is away because he's moving and the ice stops melting.
Coincidence?  Not so sure.  But next year he might have to take one for the team and move again.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freezing Season Basics?
« on: September 10, 2016, 01:14:11 AM »
Salt water is different from fresh in that the density of salt water is driven by temperature in a linear manner. In fresh water, 4C is the most dense, so as fresh water cools below 4C it floats on denser water.

In the oceans, as water cools at the surface it sinks (and then exchanges heat and warms). This produces some mixing of the top layer of water. Salinity also plays a role complicating things. When salt water freezes, there's often some salt trapped in the ice but if temps are near the freezing point the salt causes microscale local melting and the salt weeps out as very salty cold water which then is very dense and sinks while of course becoming diluted as things mix.

Now if cooling was  very gradual, cold water would keep sinking and all that latent heat would mix and forestall freezing. But with rapid cooling, ice forms on a surface layer and floats. It insulates the water below it from as rapid a heat loss and the ice continues to form by growing bottom down. There's still a sort of turbulence cause by cooling the top layer of water and salt exclusion from forming ice but it potentially more sedate than that which occurs with open water. And of course the existence of surface ice dampens wave action which also contributes to mixing of the top ocean layers. I believe the net effect is that an ice cap slows the loss of heat.

It might be that these dynamics will help the arctic to exhaust more heat as the arctic becomes more ice free. That warmer water will delay the ice cap formation and increase the rate at which heat is lost compared with seasons where there was less heat to begin with so the ice cap formed earlier. But things might also come down to the irregularities of weather and how soon a significant cold snap manages to initiate an ice cap.

How things shake out practically is, I think, largely unknown. And there are other confounding factors. Worst is perhaps that less ice means more waves and those waves abusing shallow shores could radically increase methane releases with significant global consequences. That's a bit beyond your question however.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 25, 2016, 06:11:34 AM »
Read the last 7 hours of comments and just realized I have wasted my time.

kisses

13

wind chill is perceived by humans and animals not inanimate objects

No. It's more like wet bulb versus dry bulb temps. Please quit asserting things with such bombast when you are so far out of your depth. Please. Everything else aside, as a career scientist, your language is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Was a time the elders taught an arrogant pup like you a lesson, took some of the starch out of your collar, [metaphor of one's choice]. I'm particularly reminded of of story from South Africa where some rescued elephants turned into the equivalent of a teenage mob and were killing rhinos. The upshot was that this is what happens when young elephants turn into the equivalent of teenagers without the supervising effects of older males to bitch slap the unruly ones. But on the internet, the unruly ones ignore the slapdowns. I've said too much, but please, learn to behave.

14
Colder air temperatures can freeze the surface of warmer water but in present conditions water convection preventing freezing beats air convection taking heat from the surface.
And wind speed? Clearly wind speed increases the rate of heat exchange at the air::water/ice interface.

-2C @ 10 km/hr wind -6C wind chill,
-2C @ 25 km/hr wind -8C,
-2C @ 40 km/hr wind -10C 

Not to take those Ts literally but the effect should correlate (subject to humidity but if it's high then there's lots of snow)
 I'm sure this is old hat to some, I can relocate to stupid questions if necessary.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 24, 2016, 09:16:25 PM »
Typo - It should have said -5C.  Since corrected.

Keep in mind, that our starting point for freezing is -1.8, not zero C.  Between -1.8 and -5C the rate of transfer of heat out of the water isn't fast enough to support robust freezing, if indeed it is possible at all.  It doesn't take much wind to disturb the surface and generate circulation in the top few meters of water, and wind is something of which we currently have aplenty of in the Arctic.

Response here https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1658.msg87564.html#msg87564

16
pulled from other  Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation

Typo - It should have said -5C.  Since corrected.

Keep in mind, that our starting point for freezing is -1.8, not zero C.  Between -1.8 and -5C the rate of transfer of heat out of the water isn't fast enough to support robust freezing, if indeed it is possible at all.  It doesn't take much wind to disturb the surface and generate circulation in the top few meters of water, and wind is something of which we currently have aplenty of in the Arctic.

When you have "wind aplenty", doesn't that wind rechill the surface as freezing occurs? The problem with freezing at -1.8 is of course that the heat of fusion turns around and warms the water+ice mix. You're not at a constant T. If you begin with supercooled pure water at -5C and let it freeze, only about 6% of it freezes and the mix goes to 0C of water+ice. Of course if air T is -5C that differential is enough to rapidly cool things again. (no wind)

But with a steady wind you approach a constant T regime, don't you? The heat released, latent heat of fusion, gets carried away by convection.

Now add to this that if ice concentration is 80%, and it's snowing, that snow blows until it lands on open water building a fresh water slush. Drop 4cm of snow and it's as if it's 20cm of snow specifically onto the water. (@ 80% concentration).

Agreed this is competing with dynamics producing mixing. I don't know how long it takes mixing to roughly equilibrate that top layer or the wind to chill warmth that rises. Biggest effect of mixing would be increased salinity for a storm of significant duration? But sapping the warmth that rose?

Seems like many competing effects.  And thus anyone who proclaims the result is obvious, without citing precedent over a range of similar predicates, is claiming more knowledge than I would be willing to trust.


17
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 24, 2016, 06:33:25 PM »
@ jdallen

You not showing the SST-Map, you showing the T2m of Arctic, SST ist this here: http://ocean.dmi.dk/satellite/plots/satsst.arc.d-00.png
Thank you for the attention to detail. Fortunately the oversight actually reinforces my argument.

I'm confused. The proper map shows all SST in the central arctic below 0C as opposed to your claim that none are below 5C. All versus none, and that 5C shift seem to more than invert your point.

In particular, if the tumbler has created enough "slush" to spread out across the surface, and that slush melts, doesn't that create a top layer of very fresh water in the slush? Now snow on that slush. I expect thin vulnerable ice.

I'm happy to be corrected and expect to be embarrassed so don't be shy.

18
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 24, 2016, 05:30:34 PM »
I rewrote the original paragraph on why I believe the universe has intent below.

I prefer to only take issue with claims of fact (and only sometimes) and leave claims of belief alone. In that spirit, more power to you.

19
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 24, 2016, 01:07:48 PM »

Which plant species? And so what?
Living on an olive grove I cannot find a single photosynthesising organism/plant which evolved after homo sapiens. They have existed for 100's and 1000's times longer than us. If you want to be an aeronautical engineer you go to college to learn. If you want to know if the universe has intent ask the plants.

Excuse me but the European Olive split from the African Olive about 6 million years ago, on par with when Humans and Chimps split finally about 4 million years ago, with an original split about 12 million years ago with occasional hybridization. Your assertion about species are simply counter-factual.
Further, if there are flowers about your olive grove, most of them will have related species that are less than 1 million years separated.

Now perhaps you don't really mean to talk about specific species but then what you mean isn't clear. Nevertheless, flowering plants speciate frequently, by polypoidy, rare hybridizations, and many fascinating mechanisms related to using specific pollinators. There's even a fascinating literature on suits of genes that drive speciation in flowering plants through both prezygotic and postzygotic mechanisms. By the way, flowering plants first appeared about 125 million years ago. Mammals first appeared about 200 million years ago.
Again, what you happen to mean by them and us is a bit opaque to me.

20
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 24, 2016, 04:04:27 AM »
We've been adept at & adapting to artificial intelligence since we slashed hashes on tusks to artificially enhance ...

What makes it artificial? other than some assertion of existential authenticity to whatever intelligence existed before? and does that assertion hold up to scrutiny?  And "intelligence"? intuition, calculation, deduction? valid or flawed, robust or lucky? Our very language asserts simplistic character to intelligence when it is a broadly complex phenomenon. Yet it builds from rather simple, and decidedly non-magic precursors of sensors, logic, and responses. Truly a difficult topic to discuss.

21
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 23, 2016, 10:20:27 PM »
...
So why do I believe the universe has intent?
Plant species are vastly older than us.

Which plant species? And so what? Meanwhile "species" is a human construct, well actually, many different constructs. http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520271395 We use "species" to create categories of things that crudely bound natural groupings, in some cases like this of  things found in nature. But seriously, "species" turns out to be a very problematic categorical distinction, especially respective to plants. Then again, the category of "plants" is problematic.
It's not that I want to pick a fight, but it's troubling to see foundations made of sand in a world of stormy seas and rising sea levels.

22
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 23, 2016, 07:35:00 PM »
Should we now debate the number of Demons (Maxwell's subset only), capable of dancing on the point of a needle?
Terry

I've always been more interested in knowing what music they dance to.
Lately I've decided that the answer is "all of it". That or

23
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 23, 2016, 06:45:44 PM »
"... The argument goes:
I don't understand consciousness.
I don't understand quantum physics.
Therefore, consciousness must be a function of quantum physics! ..."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Quantum_consciousness

Indeed. One need not understand either consciousness or QP to recognize the invalid form of argument. And it's there in every book or essay claiming special magic to consciousness.

Meanwhile, emergence is a magical thing if one permits oneself child-like thrills (I recommend it) as magic. Understanding experience doesn't have to detract from experience. Meanwhile, if anyone is really just looking for fun thoughts, consider block time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time)

24
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 23, 2016, 08:43:39 AM »
Your comments, Icy Voyeur remind me in part of Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain, were he discusses how we construct beliefs and then reinforce them as truths.

There are two distinct ways to take that, either that I've constructed some beliefs and am trying to reinforce them, or that my little essay had echoes of how Shermer discussed allied things. I choose to believe your writing described the latter. Or maybe I chose to believe that. Keep confusing those two.

26
The rest / Re: Does the universe have "intent", or not?
« on: August 23, 2016, 05:53:27 AM »
No intent in physics. None.
But now it's grown to speculation about consciousness. Wow.
From a scientific perspective, there's no magic to consciousness. The mind is fully crafted by the brain. We've learned much about our own brains and that includes that they have structures and function with predicates that can be studied throughout the tree of life. Very simple input can produce complex output, from bacteria swimming towards higher concentration of food to sea snails beginning elaborate mating dances in response to a particular peptide hormone.
We have decoded much about how our brains use sensory input to build models, for example from our eyes to models in three spacial dimensions plus movement. And in those, we've discovered ways our brains fool us (optical illusions). And we produce other types of illusions, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auditory_illusion auditory ones.
What emerges is that in our natural development we also develop mental models our own self, and awareness of self, with defects just like our visual models. What we call consciousness is that suite of models involved in awareness of self, senses and thought. This composite model cheats and makes compromises just like our visual modeling (and is thus prone to illusions). It's plastic enough that it can be trained some, modified, warped. But every bit of it can be synthesized from rather well understood components of neurobiology. No magic beyond the normal sort that arises from billions of interacting contributions. And so goes the last place to look for something beyond purposeless physics. Bummer unless you can simply be fascinated by the ride.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: August 22, 2016, 07:56:53 PM »
I would disagree with ^ assertion.

This is slightly off-topic but I would use the below as evidence that there is intention behind systems and that they do not merely exist in a vacuum, they behave with *some* sort of intent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermat%27s_principle

If light can have intention (i.e., the moment it originates, it already knows its eventual end-point which is how it can take the shortest path possible), then why wouldn't other physical systems express similarly?

Wrong forum to continue to discuss Fermat's principle, Schrödinger's cat, tunneling, or Maxwell's Demon, but your interpretation of Fermat is wrong.  Frankly, I can't even guess how you came to that interpretation. Almost wish I did.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: August 22, 2016, 09:55:09 AM »

Is this correct: if hot goes to cold- as the first law of thermodynamics says- then the heat from the spark plug is trying to find the relative cold surface of the fuel. All the shaping of the chamber and engineering of a misted fuel load injection and so forth is simply to maximise this basic physical need of all object?

No. Yuck. Please don't do that again. It's obscene.
A spark isn't trying to do anything. It just is. The spark is disconnected from later consequence, how well fuel is mixed with oxygen, shape of a cylinder or your need for speed. The spark depends on the potential and the dielectric with various 2nd and 3rd order effects which are mostly corrects to the dielectric. 

Beyond that, and this relates to ice melting and freezing, other dynamics are in play than just thermodynamics. Kinetics, convection, diffusion and more. Equilibrium style thermodynamics sets some limits, informs on how the kinetics of various processes changes with T but it's really very complex.

Consider the dual gradients of T and salinity in the water column. Model it as the consequence of what are differential equations involving the rates of diffusion, convection, turbulence, radiation, heat of fusion at the ice/water interface, salt exclusion and on. Simplify it to competing rates. Water pours into a jug at a fixed rate. As the jug fills, increasing the water column, a hole in the bottom of the jug leaks more and more water. Except that can be modeled by a simple differential equation and for freezing/thawing we have so many more variable.

Now it's perfectly reasonable to attempt to consider a single effect, to model a simplified system, or otherwise speculate but please, don't begin with completely bogus physics. Systems don't "want" to do things, or "try" to reach equilibrium or move heat. But I've ranted enough. Bad thermo does that to me.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 20, 2016, 07:11:32 PM »
And a side-by-side animation of the Arctic Basin 2012-2016.

That big chunk off NE Greenland looks to have split off in the last frames.
I'd say it's poised to run out the Fram if weather patterns change. Hope I'm reading that wrong.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 20, 2016, 08:20:32 AM »
You've stirred up quite a hornets nest Neven, but it had to be done and I'm glad you did.

I have no bona fides to pontificate, other than about 4 decades as a scientist. That's really neither here nor there. Nevertheless, FWIW, some have presented restrained concerns, others rather bombastic prognostications of doom. The former fit to my experience. The latter, remind me of childish ego driven stupidity. It's hard to discount a lifetime of experience. Ultimately, thanks Neven.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: August 13, 2016, 12:56:56 PM »

It seems to me that in a reversible process factors that are favorable for producing an equilibrium effect in one direction should ...

It's not an equilibrium process. Not even close. There's layerings of different salinity and thermal layers. The question is, how much mixing occurs and by what mechanisms. During summer melting you get light, low salinity cold water on top which is metastable.  During winter freezing you get high salinity water on top which is unstable because it's heavy. Larger ice sheets dampen swells which dampens one mode of mixing.  Freshman chemistry is a poor starting point to address dynamic systems.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: August 13, 2016, 04:26:17 AM »
What I'm intensely interested in, is the size of the swells that will be generated.

Indeed. I "feel" that this is where the principle vulnerability lays. Increased swell that both resurrects subsurface heat and mixes low salinity layers could do serious damage. Or so I fear. I'm fascinated whatever occurs.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 11, 2016, 05:35:50 AM »

So to summarize what my weak eyes see....

Was I incoherent, did I babble, I feel so alone ...

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 06, 2016, 12:21:12 AM »
Now the PSC has updated their PIOMAS  daily volume data, I updated my graphics, see the top post

Attached the current anomaly graph. July's curve of 2016 is closest to that of 2010, currently 3rd lowest year.


So to summarize what my weak eyes see.
The trend has been for an early dip in mid June. 2012 began that dip in the last week of May and was relentless through the 3rd week of June. 2010 began early in May and ran through the end of June.
2016 began mid May with a huge lead then stalled out mid June.
2011 also early May and kept surging through mid July.
As these are anomalies, it's all on a background of "average" melting.
This all seems to match the other metrics.
I'd interpret this as peripheral seas taking early hits with a stubborn core showing resistance. Weather plays its role as always and was a key factor in this year's reprieve. However, the overall trend is clear. The arctic is increasingly vulnerable to large ice volume losses in May and June.

Now, what is driving the "recovery" through July and into Aug? Is that an artifact of having melted the easy ice early? The reference line was still melting some of that easy ice in prior years during July and Aug? That's my read. The good news is that there's a core that is demonstrating some resilience. The bad news is that this core is absolutely facing a much earlier assault. Rebuttals and corrective analysis welcome.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 04, 2016, 09:54:37 AM »
Now that sea ice extent has strung together a string of century drops, I wonder about the thoughts of those who have been claiming extent is a meaningless/useless metric.
Off to make a cherry pie.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 24, 2016, 12:37:06 AM »
Not a joke after all

To my eyes, Fram export has been significantly increasing.
That figure scares me given the state of the ice. If that persists for a week or more, I worry we may be far closer to breaking a Sep record than it has seemed these last 6 weeks.  That's based on my assessment that the CAB is ahead of pace, mobile, and thus susceptible to be scattered towards peripheral seas as seems to have been in play lately. I hope we don't get a big storm in August to get the swells rocking.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 20, 2016, 07:58:30 PM »
I see your point about what extent may mean for the melting season, but what about the freezing season?  What does a higher extent of more broken up and widely dispersed ice portend for the freezing season?  As a chemist we know that crystals form more rapidly when there are already seed crystals present.  Supercooled water can remain liquid well below freezing until it is exposed to a tiny ice crystal.  And then bam!! (to quote or paraphrase Frivolous), ice will immediately form throughout the entirety of the water. 
No, that's not how it works (that's not how any of this works). That's taking some very little poorly comprehended laboratory science and misapplying it to the arctic.
Some hypothetically vast supercooled expanse of the arctic awaiting a seed crystal is utter nonsense. But if  you wanted to make it happen, you'd have to first turn off the wind and ocean currents and of course snow. Not that it would be sufficient, just necessary.
And please, don't insult chemists by suggesting that anyone who studied chemistry would propose any such nonsense. 

38
Neven: It is an unexpected honor to have something posted on the site.

The thanks is to you A4R, brilliant work. Keep it up.

39
Does ice ever significantly "spread out"? I don't mean in terms of floes.

I mean, does thicker ice ever turn into thinner ice that covers a larger area in a significant way?  Or does it merely crack into floes where the overall covered area is the same?

Do you mean, does 1,000,000 sq ft of 3 meter thick ice convert to 2,000,000 sq ft of 1.5 thick ice? Then no, not really.  Ice does not stretch out.  1,000,000 sq ft of 3 meter ice thins, first to something like 300,000 sq ft of 2 meter thick ice and 700,000 sq ft of 2.5 meter ice. Apologies for mixed dimensions and cartoonish simplifications.  But ice volume does not significantly flow into broader area.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Central Arctic Basin
« on: July 17, 2016, 06:05:13 PM »
So I've been following the regional figures ...

Been noticing that too. And, especially in context of other regions that are pretty much guaranteed to melt out anyway. Will CAB ice keep dispersing into regional zones with high melt rates?  I think it's pointing to lower final numbers than many are predicting, certainly approaching the record. I worry it's an unprecedented vulnerability, subject to the next 3 weeks of weather.

Included in that weather concern, how much will dispersed ice permit wave action that will harvest warmth from below? Is just a little bit significant? No clue what the thresholds are for turbulent flow of arctic currents or how much ice re-stabilizes layers. But that's getting far far ahead of things and far outside anything I have even minor competence to address.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 17, 2016, 05:46:36 PM »
Love the new graph. This year races ahead and then does slip into relative mediocrity. It matches well with my perception based on everything I've been trying to digest in this season.

Mentally, I'm transforming the chart to above or below a moving average, don't really need a new chart for that, except to press the obvious if others do the same. Such a chart, however, would be a bit over derived.

Then the mind wanders into assigning above or below average melting percentage as a value to be potentially correlated with one of many observable to search for predictors, or simply strong correlates. Well, there's lazy Sunday thoughts from the peanut gallery.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 16, 2016, 06:26:58 AM »
and predicting that one gets bashed,  ...

Nope, predicting a series of double century drops, again, after prior extreme predictions repeatedly fail, that gets one "bashed".  Sometimes I don't think you're reading the same forum.

you tempt me to provide 20 links to 20 of my recent posts on the matter but don't wanna take this further, i will make use of the nice ignore feature to keep this civil.

Then I guess you won't see that my note that my comment was not an attack on you, which was somewhat obvious, by virtue of my not attacking you but attacking a behavior that was explicitly specified. I'm limited to English.

Looks to me like we might indeed reach a new record, especially given the headstart of the CAB over prior years. I fear weather that might invoke Fram export on top of steady regional melting. Seems to me there remain significant vulnerabilities but wild uncertainties in what the next 3 weeks will bring.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 15, 2016, 08:26:57 PM »
and predicting that one gets bashed,  ...

Nope, predicting a series of double century drops, again, after prior extreme predictions repeatedly fail, that gets one "bashed".  Sometimes I don't think you're reading the same forum.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 13, 2016, 03:12:54 AM »
When I first de-lurked in May, I asked about the ideal set-up for a new record melt. The wisdom was that the set-up was pretty good but late June/early July were critical --- peak Sun after all. This year got a reprieve.  Secondary was strong export through the Fram, or maybe even more important. Why melt the ice in-situ if you can export it? I've been greatly puzzled by those who pooh-pooh export, especially when they say it's not "necessary". Just can't make sense of "necessary". Necessary for what? Seems to me that an added mechanism to remove ice, especially one that doesn't consume resident heat will remain a major factor in the state of the Arctic in Sep.

Question. I've skimmed a few papers on Fram export, and it's deepened my confusion (so that's progress of a sorts). Is there a chart of monthly export that is somewhat current? Thanks in advance.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 09, 2016, 04:09:56 PM »
... It even makes posting in this thread somewhat off-putting because if you're not jumping on the hype-train, the response can be quite negative at time. ...

I, and I readily presume others, recognize your contributions as among the most valuable to the forum, in raw content as well as reasoned, disciplined commentary. Please don't be put off.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 08, 2016, 10:06:18 AM »
I wonder... now this years extent data is drawing closer to 2012 - and may ultimately lose out to it - if the doubters will feel complacent, that an early melt doesn't mean disaster after all.

I doubt this year will turn out as bad as some are boldly predicting, but 'the disaster' has already occurred, years ago. Various "tipping points" or metaphorical phase-transitions may lay closely ahead, or may not. They aren't required for things to be declared a disaster, in the perspective of an old scientist with young grandchildren. 
The next four days were century+ drops for 2012, 2007. For this year's horse race, next 4 days are interesting. Big picture-wise, won't change much of anything whether ice melts twice as fast or half as fast as those years, because of the nature of big pictures.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 05, 2016, 11:19:16 PM »
....... that consistently fail to match the data.

interesting statement after approximately 150 days of record lows  :o
 ...
i hope this was nicely said because inside a feel pi...d off a bit and have to keep myself in check to not share the fate of others who lost their temper.

It was politely said but made a mistake, IMO. The people who disagree with the extreme claims of immanent doom are not claiming that everything is fine in the arctic, far far from it. Yes, it's been a record year, but, rather than accelerating out of control, it's slowed down. The fear was that early melt would produce an amplification, more heat absorbed, even more melt, like compounding interest. But weather still matters and we've caught a reprieve --- for this season, at least so far. And that's good, unless you're rooting for some "I told you so" shock, or think such a shock is required to spurn required changes.
But the point I'm trying to make is, the most extreme predictions aren't coming true, yet those who have made them remain unapologetic and seemingly oblivious to the 'boy who cried wolf' effect of extreme predictions that don't come true. The actual data is extreme enough, there's no need to make wild predictions that get far ahead of the data. Because then people remember the failed predictions of complete collapse instead of a record low year, and that's a very bad result.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 05, 2016, 09:59:25 PM »
...wishfull saying that "extent doesn't matter", which seems to pop up ...

Sorry for asking, but is this meant in jest/ i.e. as a satire, or seriously?

I read it as quite serious, and I agree. I've been reading "predictions" of the sky falling and an ice-free arctic this year that consistently fail to match the data. People have been fairly patient but it gets old and is counter-productive.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 28, 2016, 10:42:46 PM »
Extent is irrelevant.

\rant on
Irrelevant to what? You keep making these grand pronouncement with self-asserted sweeping authority, but you consistently fail to provide context.
Irrelevant to what? You seem to have some personal narrative in mind and only care about cherry-picked data that supports it. Perhaps you should start your own blog where you can keep the focus on your particular interests, whatever they are, seemingly telling your story of catastrophe. By all means, provide a perspective but could you tone down the Lordly Edicts? Because perhaps, just perhaps, not everyone here has your same narrow interests.
\rant off

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 24, 2016, 06:08:24 AM »
I would simply state that SIE is a relic metric from the early satellite days and that it is only a poor proxy for the actual condition of the Arctic.  The sooner that we stop concerning ourselves with it and pay more attention to PIOMAS monthly average volume changes the better!

A poor proxy for the condition of the Arctic respective to weather or respective to climate?
Respective to weather, I'd think extent is still important. It documents an area that is strongly tied to melt temperatures. This impacts near term weather, doesn't it? And that weather in turn has effects on longer term seasonal effects.
If you're instead worried about long term climate change effects, well then daily measures are for the neurotic and impatient. That might be a class that reflects on those who visit this blog on a daily basis but some of us, perhaps, have the self-awareness to laugh at our compunctions on that front and not get too worked up about it in rants of short term passion, as cathartic as such might be at times.  $0.02

Pages: [1] 2