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 - Thomas Barlow

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: January 02, 2018, 10:18:14 PM »
You can hardly see it, so I marked it myself but 2018 is off to a really bad start.
Lowest extent for date (Jan. 1) on record (significantly lower)

You can roll over the point here to see it yourself:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: January 01, 2018, 04:37:12 PM »
Lincoln Sea and Nares Straight -Jan 1

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 31, 2017, 05:05:07 PM »
Yesterday - Lowest extent for date (and day) on record.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 30, 2017, 05:02:26 PM »
Looks like by New Year's day (or earlier) could be the lowest extent on record for the date, starting off 2018 in a very bad place.

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 29, 2017, 04:32:09 PM »
Closing in?

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 24, 2017, 11:51:39 PM »
No biggie, but it appears that sea-ice extent is the 2nd lowest on record for this date (with 2016 the lowest. 2010 close)

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 22, 2017, 03:38:44 PM »
Now without the corduroy, the last 10 days, contrast enhanced of Nares mouth & Lincoln Sea.
Awesome!
One of those on the 1st of every month could be great.  :)

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 22, 2017, 03:36:17 PM »
Great animation, thank you Ice Shieldz.
It will probably freeze over by February.
There might need to be a thread to take bets on that.  :)

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 21, 2017, 07:15:28 PM »
Winter Solstice.
Lincoln Sea still broken up, ice still flowing south through Nares.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December update)
« on: December 20, 2017, 05:56:32 PM »

"The 2017/18 Festive Season in the Arctic"
Why does 2015/16 suddenly stop in January on the Area and Extent graphs?

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 20, 2017, 04:18:43 PM »
""In an accompanying annual report on the Arctic’s health — titled “Arctic shows no sign of returning to reliably frozen region of recent past decades” — the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees all official U.S. research in the region, coined a term: “New Arctic.”""

http://grist.org/article/let-it-go-the-arctic-will-never-be-frozen-again/

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 08, 2017, 06:19:41 PM »
Just when you thought it was safe to go outdoors again:

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 28, 2017, 04:01:33 PM »

""Arctic Sea-Ice is much thinner than we thought""
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=146&v=L6kndSJiu8c

15
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 15, 2017, 09:04:21 PM »
That is not exactly what you said but you did, just recently, say this. And none of the articles and research you have referenced support this statement.

Every time methane is released (in small or large quantities) there will be a massive CO2 sequestration that causes a cooling effect that far outweighs the warming effect of methane released into the atmosphere.

You are essentially arguing that sub-sea permafrost degradation, regardless of how extensive, with the associated methane releases will serve to cool the planet.

Bollocks!

Me saying "Every time methane is released (in small or large quantities) there will be a massive CO2 sequestration that causes a cooling effect that far outweighs the warming effect of methane released into the atmosphere" is completely different than someone saying "the way to fix or mitigate this is to release more carbon and methane into the ocean", which is what Captain Kiwi changed it to.

16
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 14, 2017, 04:23:52 PM »
That is not exactly what you said but you did, just recently, say this. And none of the articles and research you have referenced support this statement.

Every time methane is released (in small or large quantities) there will be a massive CO2 sequestration that causes a cooling effect that far outweighs the warming effect of methane released into the atmosphere.

You are essentially arguing that sub-sea permafrost degradation, regardless of how extensive, with the associated methane releases will serve to cool the planet.

Bollocks!
i didn't say that.

17
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 13, 2017, 12:54:53 AM »
Yet... you are saying the way to fix or mitigate this is to release more carbon and methane into the ocean.
No. This is not what I am saying Captain Kiwi. Not even close.
Go back and read all my posts, <snip, N.>


18
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 11, 2017, 06:13:03 PM »
TB - I was looking to see whether algae blooms have empirically appeared in greater numbers in areas of methane seeps, compared to areas with no seeps. If they appear over the whole arctic, then maybe they are not connected to methane.
For methane, just in shallow peripheral seas at this point, I would think.
There's too much ice over the arctic ocean most of the time, and most methane would likely just be absorbed by other processes before it is emitted to atmosphere, is my understanding. So, effect can only be observed in shallow seas (ESS, Beaufort. etc.), because wider Arctic is covered, and we know methane would mostly be absorbed under ice (or even if there is some open water, it wouldn't be significant enough). The bottom of the Arctic Ocean emitting methane is not really the concern right now, but if it does emit in large quantities, and there is a large swathe of open water, I think you will sea the blooms. We are maybe years from that though.
I think it is mostly in the shallow seas that Shakova and Wadhams and others are talking about (and the tundra, which has other possible mitigating factors to mass methane release)
But, yes, there are many other things that cause algae blooms, as you know more about than me (river effluence, Ekman Flux, for example). It's not definitive, I was just suggesting that if there are methane releases going on (which we know there are), it would show up as algae blooms in the shallow seas where those releases are. To try to delineate in satellite photos which are river effluence, Ekman Effect, etc., and which are methane effects, will be more difficult, but I doubt anyone can point to an algae bloom in shallow seas yet (away from rivers) and definitively say that "methane did not have an impact".
Greenland will be interesting because there is so much iron and other minerals in the surface ice that when it melts, it will cause the same effects around Greenland, maybe not obvious algae blooms but other ecosystem activity. I've been thinking this for years now, so when studies showed it with methane (nutrient bursts), then it is a no-brainer to me. Like someone said "The Earth is round", and I say, "Wow, yes, of course it is. How come I never thought of that before?" Everyone is going to have to modify their viewpoint on this, including Wadhams and Shakova, etc.
(but like I say, it is likely just a mitigating factor, not a reversal of global warming or ice receding over time).

19
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 11, 2017, 03:52:08 PM »
The reason I said people need to go back a few pages on this topic area and read my posts is because it is not just one study.  Focusing on one study is not enough. To me, in science, several studies, on a similar effect, showing similar results (eg. biological activity is a net cooling effect) is pointing to a growing body of evidence. Taking one study on its own and thinking that is how you are going to analyze the topic is not being informed on the topic. That's why, a few pages back here, I said that the first study I posted (for which I was given the derogatory charge or 'hopium' and "that study was debunked' with no citation to said debunking), I said that "it's just one study, the juries out on this one". But since then, I have posted several studies on similar or related effects, some published recently, and it is becoming a body of research. Just like you wouldn't pick apart one study on climate-change research (eg. saying "appeared" is not a scientific term), to ignore or trash all the others, is not a valid approach here. The overall effect is a growing body of research and needs to be taken as a whole. Every time methane is released (in small or large quantities) there will be a massive CO2 sequestration that causes a cooling effect that far outweighs the warming effect of methane released into the atmosphere.
And, no, I doubt any warming effect of algae or biological activity on the ocean amounts to much compared to the overall cooling balance. But let me know when someone does a full published study on it, and that will be a start.

However, the net cooling effect (that I think is one reason the Arctic ice is not disappearing super fast - just somewhat fast) will not be enough to reverse Arctic meltdown. Other problems, such as pollution and plastic in the Arctic ocean (because it seems to gather plastic from elsewhere), warming N. Atlantic which seeps under the Arctic, soot from more and more wildfires landing on the ice, and general global warming, mean that the net cooling effect may not be enough to slow the Arctic Ice melt. It may mitigate (not stop) global human disaster in general, giving time for a reprieve, but the state of the other oceans is so bad now (acidic, fished out, ecosystem out of balance - sure glad I've been vegetarian for 35 years), it's hard to see how dying oceans are not in our future. I hope nature has more surprises for us, because with the leaders we have in power, we are not going to do it.
This net cooling effect, will be a feature of the melting Arctic, and could slow some warming, but I doubt would reverse anything, just make the demise less abrupt.

20
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 10, 2017, 05:35:28 PM »
You need to go back and read all my posts on this.

You'll need to forgive me since I won't.
OK, then please stay uninformed.

21
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 10, 2017, 05:32:15 PM »
Two idiot questions pertaining to all of the above:
TB - if the research shows that methane release causes explosions of algae blooms, thus saving us.
This balancing effect of methane to CO2 sequestration is not going to save us. It's just science, and science is always unfolding. It is somewhat good news in terms of massive global warming of over 6 degrees C over 10-20 years, which a linear, unbalanced, mass methane release would cause, and you'll all be dead at about 4 degrees. It provides a somewhat better scenario than that. Only some.
Consider that S&S have discovered numerous methane hot spots above the ESAS, so ARE there explosions of algae blooms in the ESS? I mean, here's a real life test case, from the little I understand of the research.
Yes, you can see them on satellite photos in shallow Arctic seas whenever there is a open water and a clear sky
Is AGW in its current level enough to cause such a profound change? Or is it the loss of ESS summer ice cover?
Both.

22
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 10, 2017, 05:19:51 PM »
From what I read it would seem that when local conditions favour slow release of ch4 this allows the ch4 bubbles to completely dissolve in the ocean thus encouraging algal blooms.
Not only hydrates but there are also perhaps large amounts of free ch4 gas at greater depth formed from the decay over many thousands of years of carbon rich soil confined under pressure would be released as the hydrate layer thinned and broke. Rather like the classic geology of oil and gas under pressure trapped under a salt dome. Puncture the cap and whoosh! a gusher.
Yes, some big explosions into the atmo., but that is not the main issue, and they will cause MASSIVE algae blooms. The CO2 sequestration will be huge. It is nature's carbon-credit, just like businesses are encouraged to do.
The biological activity would be much larger than when just bubbles. It's a no-brainer. You all forget that the reason life evolved on Earth (in the ocean) is because it is the IDEAL place for an explosion of biological activity and diversity. It's what the ocean does. Linear thinking humans cannot really conceive of the biological powerhouse that is the ocean.
So when a mass of methane is released the activity will be bigger and last longer.
Different geomorphology and ocean depth and temperatures produce different results. The logic is too persuasive for comfort, especially if the Arctic ocean in the ESAS continues to warm.
Oh, it's not going to be good, but not a linear straight line effect without any nuance or gray areas.
And of course many other factors of climate-change make it almost a moot point, but there is a known balancing effect that was not known a few years ago, is now obvious (6 or 7 studies - science-denial and personal opinion is fast becoming irrelevant on this)

23
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 09, 2017, 06:31:07 PM »
Semiletov and Shakhova were not 'hinting' at anything.  They were telling you point blank.

The area of hotspots of methane are spreading, now encompassing a full 10% of the 2 million sq km of the ESAS. Which is 200,000 sq km.
Not only is the area of release spreading, the rate and volume of release is increasing, and they expect it to increase exponentially 3-5 orders of magnitude.
That there is no way to shut this off, short of sea level dropping and exposing the shelves to temperatures capable of refreezing the permafrost.  We know that isn't going to happen.
That the methane will continue to release until there is no more to release, and that just 1% of the available methane will be enough to cause catastrophic climate change.
The interview with Semiletov and Shakhova was published 24 June 2017.  their paper,  Current rates and mechanisms of subsea permafrost degradation in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, was published 22 June 2017.

You want to challenge their research, I've provided links.   

You still don't understand the studies I posted. Please explain them to me - even if you don't 'believe' them, so that I am sure you actually understand them. Otherwise there is no point discussing this with you, since you are technically discussing a completely different topic, focused on the amount of methane that could get released. That has nothing to do with the core finding of the studies I posted. You don't understand the studies.
 Shakova  et al do not in any way address the research I have been posting ( 5 or 6 studies, I lost count). They are ONLY talking about methane release. You are just name-dropping because you haven't read (or do not understand) the research I posted.
Please explain to me what you think the studies I posted are saying. I don't think you read them, because your answers do not address the core points at all.

24
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 09, 2017, 06:21:37 PM »
I still doubt that subsea permafrost degradation causing increases in the release of methane will be a net positive with regards to general warming of the planet. This is what I believe notwithstanding the research you have posted which I have not read.
Yes, after 5 or 6 studies I posted here, you are welcome to stick with your "beliefs", as you call them.

I admit I am a scientific lightweight. I will assume that the research you reference is accurate. The researchers have identified a process where sub-sea methane releases can trigger an explosive growth in organisms which will increase carbon uptake. This may even mean that there can be specific time periods and locations where this results in a net reduction in atmospheric CO2e. It is one thing to scientifically demonstrate a process and then argue that this natural process should be assumed to absolutely operate continuously on a global scale. There are other things to consider such as growing seasons which will reduce the growth and carbon uptake of these organisms. It is quite incorrect to suggest that methane releases from areas of the sea floor have a similar seasonal periodicity. Once the permafrost in the ESS and Laptev has degraded and begun to release methane, this release occurs year round, no pause during the dark Arctic winter.

No, it does not happen year-round.
That is the whole point of the 'ice cap' in this reguard. It caps the methane long enough for it to degrade in the ocean. Where there is no ice, and methane is released from the ocean floor, the methane is released immediately to the atmosphere, but the accompanying explosion of algae and life will sequester CO2 at a rate that is hundreds of times more than the warming effect of the methane being released into the atmosphere. It is like finding out the Earth is round, and then saying, "Yea, of course it is. It's a no-brainer. How come I never thought of that before? The evidence is everywhere. Kindof self-evident really" But people get stuck in their former paradigms, they can't shift, especially if it does't come from them, or someone they admire, or are in their clique. This is science. It is hard-core, and does not involve "belief" as you put it. It involves discussion of scientific findings, and evolving with those findings.

Humans may be screwed, but one thing that is unlikely to be the worst factor is methane release from arctic or tundra. You need to go back and read all my posts on this.


25
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 08, 2017, 03:37:08 PM »
This stops here. I've sent PMs.

I reread my comment and do understand that I started it. Won't happen again.

Here is what I should have typed.....

I refrain from making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable.

Here is what I know. Greenhouse gases of all types are rising rapidly. This simple fact means the planet will continue to warm. Do I believe that increased releases of methane due to permafrost degradation will change this growth trend? Call me skeptical.


And I repeat.
Everyone knows that greenhouse gases are increasing. This is a specific discussion about a MAJOR theme in Arctic science, which previously many of us thought would spell the end for humans within 10-20 years. Including me. And climate-scientists Shakova and Wadhams hinted strongly the same or very similar. Now this new research shows nuances to the ecosystem that are new information, that could give more time, compared to a straightforward methane release linear equation. People like Cid-Yama are stuck in a sheeple paradigm in which he lashes out like a science-denier against anything that questions his cult,  instead of discuss actual science, so he just rants against anyone who talks about the NUANCES of climate-change.
This is a discussion about methane in the arctic, not wether we think there are other problems on planet Earth, or not. And how recent studies (at least 5 now) are showing that the mass methane release that would put us over 6 degrees in 10 years, is not as big a problem as scientists previously thought it was, because there is a 200 X balancing cooling effect from a simultaneous CO2 sequestration.

26
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 08, 2017, 03:17:14 PM »
You keep posting the same two papers, that have already been debunked, over and over again.  You stink of desperation.

They are not the same two papers, there are at least 5, and you need to stop saying they have been debunked. That is extremist science-denial.
I post 5 or 6 papers that report on a new set of studies, starting a few pages back, and I get called all sorts of things. You can't post science and reason on this forum without people like you coming out and insulting people - ie. Anti-rational. You and the flat-earthers. No brain.

IT'S SCIENCE.
IT HAS NOT BEEN DEBUNKED. I POSTED  5 or 6 STUDIES, NOT 2, YOU ARE LYING, JUST LIKE THE CLIMATE-SCIENCE DENIERS DO.

I've avoided using the same assessment that Tillerson made of the President towards you, mainly because that desperation makes me feel sorry for you.  Like a rat trapped in a cage.
So now you're calling me a moron, and Neven lets you stay on this forum.  Pathetic. What's your real name, we can discuss this over a cup of coffee, see how big your insults are then.

You don't have to live a long life to live a full one.  I know, it seems totally unfair.  But it is what it is.

Oh Doomer is it? Science-denier? Just like the climate-science deniers, you deny anything that goes against your paradigm, and are not worthy of this forum. A whole post of insults.

Now you can waste what time you have left in desperate denials, or live each day as fully as possible as if you had a year to live.  You might have several.  But no matter how it works out, you will be able to say I lived a full life when it's over.
 

We are not on this forum to discuss your one-sided doomer cult which won't listen to any other science. I have never said humans are not in trouble, but this new research is clear about how the methane doom you spread all over the internet is now questionable. Only a science-denier would not  take this FIVE or SIX papers I have posted, and re-think the science.

You are a fool, a science-denier, and a luddite. It's disgusting that Neven let's you, a fake-name guy stay on this forum., but I bet you've got a couple of other fake names.


27
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 08, 2017, 12:39:03 AM »
I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2 at faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere.

I refrain making such sweeping statements about anything. Yes, the research is interesting but, I suspect, hardly unassailable. Individuals who latch on to new research that presents some hope as absolute truth are no different than doomsdayers.
Lol, you really have not been paying attention and do not understand the several studies I posted in this topic. Get back to me when you understand them instead of insulting people. It's a no-brainer, and you have no argument against it because you have no understanding whatsoever of the material. Stop responding with posts that show your complete ignorance of the research posted, and insulting people while you're at it. Whoever you are under that fake name of yours, you are just posting egoistic nonsense that shows a complete lack of understanding of the several research papers posted by me  in several posts on the last few pages. Get back to me when you've read all my posts on this and you actually start to understand it. Your post is completely irrelevant to the research posted, but you don't know that, because you are clueless what that research is, nor do you know anything whatsoever about it.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 07, 2017, 05:59:39 PM »
but the 2017 melt season was fairly average.  The total melt for the year (max - min) was rather unspectacular, 9.78 compare to an average 0f 9.58, and the lowest total melt since 2006.
I think that is incorrect. You forget that the 'average' on the extent graphs descends each year due to recent lows. If the 'average' was left at say, pre-1999 level, then the difference would seem much greater. It is like the drought in California. The average on graphs and charts now include a 5 year period of the worst drought on record, so the 'average' is now much lower than it was 7-10 years ago. There is nothing 'fairly average' going on with the Arctic Ocean ice right now. When you see it jump back to pre-1990 levels, you can say 'we dodged a bullet'. Let me know when that happens.
Just sayin'

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 07, 2017, 05:15:50 PM »
Of course it depends on how one considers horrendous. If I clearly understand what does mean "horrendous", it doesn't looks horrendous for me. We have already experienced the bullet and the cannonball by the end of the freezing season, so horrendous should be something more :) The thing that one should be concerned about is the pacific side.It still looks warm and iceless, I'm curious to see how the Chuckchi/Beaufort/ESS will track further in the season
Fair enough. I tend to look at recent years as all in the same boat. Until I see it all jump back up to pre-1990 levels, I won't consider it positive news. Maybe because I was promoting renewable energy in the early 1980s, and dedicated my life's work to warning of the dangers ahead, and finding solutions. To me, a slightly better "bad year" this year is not "dodging a bullet", as some call it. I think that's newcomers to the pollution disaster (ie. 10-15 years only) saying that kind of thing.

30
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 07, 2017, 04:54:32 PM »

When she says "each year matters", she is talking months to years, not decades, and there is no way to turn it off.
Please limit your point to the bit you think is important, because I've read all that in the past. I'm not reading all of that again, because Shakhova's concerns were aired before a lot of the recent research came out, and I don't know if she has fully absorbed the new stuff yet.
If you understand the research I have been posting, then you would understand that with every degree of warming caused by methane release, there is a simultaneous CO2 absorption that is 200 times that ... in cooling effect. That means, if it's true. we dodge a bullet on this one - EVEN IF THE METHANE IS RELEASED.
It seems like a no-brainer to me. Shakova and others (eg. Wadhams) have not absorbed the new evidence yet. The methane effect will be bad, but nothing like as bad as the doomers have been saying (eg. human extinction).
It is actually one of the reasons I think the Arctic ice may be in slow decline (not super-fast), because of a net COOLING effect - in the Arctic - from methane release (due to algae and other simultaneous explosion of CO2-sequestering lifeforms).
However, we are still screwed for many other reasons, so continue as you were :D No need to get happy yet.

31
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 07, 2017, 04:46:37 PM »
Nice, however photosynthesis is limited some times of the year.
As is methane release.  :o

32
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: October 07, 2017, 04:34:55 PM »


""Analysis of the data confirmed that methane was entering the atmosphere above the shallowest (water depth of 260-295 feet or 80-90 meters) Svalbard margin seeps. However, the data also showed that significant amounts of carbon dioxide were being absorbed by the waters near the ocean surface, and that the cooling effect resulting from carbon dioxide uptake is up to 230 times greater than the warming effect expected from the methane emitted.""


https://phys.org/news/2017-05-ocean-absorption-carbon-dioxide-compensates.html
Nice to hear something positive Thomas! Thanks for that!
I would really appreciate a comment from you, or anyone else, on a couple of things that came to the mind of a layman when reading that.
1) Would the water at the ocean surface at some point become "saturated" or in some way altered in composition? For example the algae having other negative effects?
I'm no expert (and it's still an unfolding science - ie. I doubt anyone is an expert on all the nuances of what will happen), but I was thinking about that the other day, and I think that, yes, the mush caused by an explosion of algae and plankton could affect sea-ice quality (a lot of it falls to the bottom of the ocean though, taking carbon with it), and perhaps more importantly, all the plastic fragments floating in the Arctic ocean would add to that (as well as all the soot landing on the ice from above, due to increase in forest fires in N. hemisphere). So, in the end, mushy crap (natural, and pollution) all over the place would affect the ice quality I would think, maybe even ocean surface temps. in open water areas.
As far as I understand it, the main places where methane release will happen are in shallow coastal regions, so those areas tend to be ice-free for a longer period anyway, so how algae-mush, light sediments, or other microbes, affect ice-quality, and surface open-water temps, seems limited, since the ice melts away there anyway. Mushy stuff might make it melt a little faster in those peripheral seas (Beaufort, Laptev Sea, etc.) , and ice-free last longer, but not much I think.

2) Are you aware that on their web site they say: "The USGS Gas Hydrate Project takes part in US and international programs to investigate the potential of deepwater marine and permafrost gas hydrates as an energy resource. Long-term production tests are the next step in this research."
Am I getting too cynical?
I don't care about the fossil-fuel industry. I think they are an archaic dinosaur going out of the window, but old farts like Putin and Trump will try to keep it going, but it is going to fade (I hope).
I don't believe the research I posted is based on bias for that industry. I think it's a no-brainer that explosions of algae and life will absorb CO2, creating cooling at a faster rate than the methane can heat the atmosphere. Note: I have railed against industry involvement in research for decades, researching and writing about it, starting fledgling groups to counteract it - eg. GMO research twisted by industry interests, nuclear industry, pesticide industry, etc.
I just don't think this research is like that.
The researchers are at USGS (before Trump era), and Norwegian and German institutions -- Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel (GEOMAR), and the Centre for Arctic Gas Hydrate, Environment and Climate (CAGE) at the University of Tromso, Norway, both of which have a track-record of good, straight science. The evidence for false data would have be pretty convincing for me to be worried it is not accurate. It's almost a no-brainer even without the research though.

However, there are plenty other things that are bad news, it's just the doomer memes going around about the methane release being the and of human existence are over-stated - I was on that side of the fence a couple of years ago, based on the evidence available at that time.
 (like I say, plenty other things almost as bad to concern ourselves with)

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 06, 2017, 06:15:13 PM »
It tracks colder than last year. Also the freezing of the Laptev sea happens two weeks earlier than 2016. So I wouldn't say this years' start is a horrendously bad start

 Last year WAS horrendous, and local conditions are NOT the whole Arctic Ocean.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 06, 2017, 04:34:07 AM »
This freezing season is off to a horrendously bad start - see below. Add to that, the latest assessments are that globally, September shattered records.

35
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: October 06, 2017, 04:32:35 AM »
I suppose if we have a repeat of this ridiculously warm winter, it may happen again.
It is off to a horrendously bad start - see below. Add to that, the latest assessments are that globally, September shattered records.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 05, 2017, 04:20:54 AM »
Peter Wadhams interview on Radio NZ - Oct. 2 2017"You can't measure ice thickness from space...well, only with extreme difficulty...so the best way to measure thickness is to sail underneath the ice, and use an upward-looking echo-sounder."
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201860805/peter-wadhams-preparing-for-an-arctic-without-ice
That may be, provided the sub can keep a perfectly level course despite passing through waters of different buoyancy.
Pretty sure they accounted for that  ::)

However, the expense is colossal
It's paid for by Her Majesty's Royal Navy. On a Navy sub.

it only provides a very narrow swath of thicknesses, and it's not likely to be repeated regularly during the year.
Apparently not, according the Wadhams .. expert on the topic.

It may not be any more accurate than em induction thicknesses based from helicopter or plane.
Again, the actual expert claims otherwise. I suggest you get several papers published in respected peer-reviewed journals on the topic, and then, maybe, you can take it up with him.


37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 03, 2017, 04:17:03 PM »
Peter Wadhams interview on Radio NZ - Oct. 2 2017.
""You can't measure ice thickness from space...well, only with extreme difficulty...so the best way to measure thickness is to sail underneath the ice, and use an upward-looking echo-sounder.""

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201860805/peter-wadhams-preparing-for-an-arctic-without-ice

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: September 26, 2017, 06:09:57 PM »
I am very concerned that ice-aficionados are going to let the climate-science-deniers get away with it, because these ice-observers themselves are saying "things are not that bad, because extent (of sea-ice in the N. Hemisphere) is better than expected". I think it's dangerous, and neglectful.
I didn't think that deniers would ever be really interested in this forum, that is bar the odd troll.
So unless I am way off track here, I think we are all on the same hymn sheet and have great concern for the Arctic.

Yes, you are WAY off track to what I posted.
Try again. Go back, read it again, without prejudice. It's English, so if English is your second language, I'm sorry, let me know and I will re-explain it.
I said NOTHNG about people here having to hold their tongue. Your prejudice is palpable, and you are wasting cyber-space with erroneous interpretations.

And why didn't you pick up on HIS statements about people on this forum? : eg. ""The last one is an inconvenient statement for some with apocalyptic thoughts who want to see the blue Arctic in their lifetimes ;-) preferably next year."" His whole post was a critique/smear of people on this forum (not of me, because I am not a doomer, but a rationalist). whereas mine wasn't. His was CLEARLY a veiled comment on some people's doomerism here. There's nothing really wrong with his comment by the way (except that it seems OT to me), and it stimulates conversation - about the topic at hand, not whole posts about personality judgements, as yours is -  but you deciding that I am  the one 'gaslighting' instead of the other, is just you projecting your own prejudices, and wasting space.

Unless English is your second language, in which case I apologize.

Stop wasting space with personality attacks, and deal with the substance of my post. You are just deflecting from the discussion and substance of the post with these  personality cliques.

(If you delete your post, I'll delete this one, because this personality BS is a waste of space. You can try critiquing the substance of my post instead - about the Arctic. Maybe it needs the be on a different thread though. This is 'The 2017 Freezing Season', not some place to critique people's concerns or lack thereof about the Arctic, as Sterks started with. I'm quite happy to have this discussion moved elsewhere. Deal with the substance of my post next time.)

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: September 26, 2017, 03:19:05 PM »
Starting to get less and less interested on stories that fall on the side of greatest drama. Like a bell I have been hearing for years and is not alarming or thrilling anymore, but a bit bothering.
What about "Volume rebounds 2000 km3 from spring, but statisticaly continues its downward trend just as area and extent do"
Maybe  "A relatively cold spring and summer at high latitudes helps the Arctic end in slightly better conditions than 2016 and 2015"
Or perhaps "The least drama side (or cold-facts side) of several scientists expecting seasonally ice-free Arctic by somewhere mid-century, while not dramatic, may have some base after all"
The last one is an inconvenient statement for some with apocalyptic thoughts who want to see the blue Arctic in their lifetimes  ;) preferably next year.
With all due respect, I may have misread you, but I think you are looking at it in a very black and white way: Ie. "Is it at the lowest, or is it not?", as are many people on the internet today.
I'm sorry, but that is just a very primitive way to think about the Arctic.

First off, to me (and I think this is what Wadhams thinks too based on e-mails and knowing how old Oxford boffins from a bygone era, tend to talk), is that a "Blue Ocean Event" doesn't really mean a full blown open ocean like the Mediterranean or something. It means a ton of icebergs floating around all over the place, with enough room to sail ships through them in most places, and a load of ice clinging to land masses.
ie. Icebergs everywhere, but no discernible (or very small) "ice-pack". Huge portions of the Arctic Ocean were getting close to that this year.

The Arctic Ocean itself is close to, or at, the worst shape (volume) on record, apart from thick ice crushed against land-masses. And this is the answer you should give to climate-science deniers who are all over the Net now, braying about how the "Arctic is growing".

North Atlantic waters seeping into the Arctic are warmer than ever, the Nares was open all year since last year, the SSTs all around are warmer, the overall Arctic Ocean volume (ignoring thick ice crushed against land) is close to the worst state on record at start of freezing season, if not the worst, the ice itself is said to be poor quality, the fire seasons are pouring more soot over the Arctic than ever, and the fire seasons are longer than before, the seabeds are thawing, the tundra is warming.

I try really hard to see the good news, and the idea that 'we dodged a bullet' being floated all over the internet now. I don't see it. “Extent” is not telling the true state the overall Arctic Ocean.
These general extent graphs are deceptive. I do think volume is the most important factor, and that volume in the overall Arctic Ocean to be the most important indicator. There could be more snow in winter, but that's about it (which is what climate-scientists predicted for decades now).

So "dodging a bullet",  or "7th worst on record", it is not.
But wait for the science-deniers across the right-wing news to start shouting that ""the Arctic ice is in the best shape in years, and getting better.""

I am very concerned that ice-aficionados are going to let the climate-science-deniers get away with it, because these ice-observers themselves are saying "things are not that bad, because extent (of sea-ice in the N. Hemisphere) is better than expected". I think it's dangerous, and neglectful.

(I know this is largely OT, just responding to what may be an OT comment - could put it somewhere else.)
.

40
Permafrost / Re: Modelling permafrost carbon feedback
« on: September 24, 2017, 03:58:55 PM »
Abstract: “Permafrost, which covers 15 million km2 of the land surface, is one of the components of the Earth system that is most sensitive to warming. Loss of permafrost would radically change high-latitude hydrology and biogeochemical cycling, and could therefore provide very significant feedbacks on climate change The latest climate models all predict warming of high-latitude soils and thus thawing of permafrost under future climate change, but with widely varying magnitudes of permafrost thaw. Here we show that in each of the models, their present-day spatial distribution of permafrost and air temperature can be used to infer the sensitivity of permafrost to future global warming. Using the same approach for the observed permafrost distribution and air temperature, we estimate a sensitivity of permafrost area loss to global mean warming at stabilization of ~ 4 million km2 °C−1 (1σ confidence), which is around 20% higher than previous studies. Our method facilitates an assessment for COP21 climate change targets: if the climate is stabilized at 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, we estimate that the permafrost area would eventually be reduced by over 40%. Stabilizing at 1.5 °C rather than 2 °C would save approximately 2 million km2 of permafrost.”
There will be massive natural carbon sequestration as permafrost and Arctic Ocean beds warm, that, in its cooling effect, far exceeds the warming effect of natural CO2 and methane release to atmosphere.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,12.msg125558.html#msg125558

41
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: September 24, 2017, 02:31:48 AM »
More to add to the above.
We still have a chance. This methane scare is likely not as bad as many previously thought, including me.

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/news/natural-methane-time-bomb-unlikely-wreak-climate-havoc
 

42
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: September 19, 2017, 10:10:43 PM »
Do you think the Nares will freeze this winter?

Yes.
Rationale please?
Since it didn't freeze last winter.
https://media.giphy.com/media/l378aPcRIiXYF3S5W/giphy.gif

43
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: September 19, 2017, 03:20:31 PM »
Do you think the Nares will freeze this winter?

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 19, 2017, 03:09:28 PM »
Here ends a very bad season.
Not being a Negative Nancy here, just realistic:
North Atlantic waters seeping into the Arctic are warmer than ever, the Nares was open all year since last year, the SSTs all around are warmer, the overall Arctic Ocean volume (ignoring thick ice crushed against land) is close to the worst state on record at start of freezing season, if not the worst, the ice itself is said to be poor quality, the fire seasons are pouring more soot over the Arctic than ever, and the fire seasons are longer than before.

This next paragraph was going to be the good news. I am trying really hard to see the good news here, and the idea that 'we dodged a bullet' being floated all over the internet now. I don't see it. “Extent” is not telling the true state the overall Arctic Ocean.
These general extent graphs are deceptive. I could be wrong, because I do think volume is the most important factor, and that volume in the overall Arctic Ocean to be the most important indicator, but the overall picture is very bad.

Ok, I'll try again to find something  positive ...
I'm trying... help me out here. The only positive I can think of is that bigger and bigger storms in the Atlantic could cool surface waters (but that's not very good news for those in the path of those storms). I would hope for a really cold winter over the Arctic, but that's not likely. The only good news is there might be more snow than previous years (due to warmer air), and that could shield the ice a little next Spring. Can it help volume by next Sept.? I doubt it.

So "dodging a bullet",  or "7th worst on record", it is not.
But wait for the science-deniers across the right-wing news to start shouting that ""the Arctic ice is in the best shape in years, and getting better.""

If anyone can think of a positive outcome from this melt season let me know. I may have missed it.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: September 17, 2017, 12:37:53 AM »
Judging how, by eye, Thomas ? As to pronounce which is worst, I wouldn't wish to comment as brain/eye can be deceptive.
No, not really. It's pretty clear to a well trained eye. ;-)

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: September 16, 2017, 10:43:58 PM »
Judging by this, the Arctic Ocean itself (ignoring all peripherals such as CAA and Fram, etc., and thick ice crushed against land - "bits of ice stuck to land", as Wadhams puts it, re. a future 'Blue Ocean Event') looks like the overall ocean itself (ignoring fjords and coastal build-up) is about as bad a state as it gets for volume, maybe worst, at the start of freezing season.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 15, 2017, 04:26:39 PM »
Judging by this, the Arctic Ocean itself (ignoring all peripherals such as CAA and Fram, etc., and thick ice crushed against land - "bits of ice stuck to land", as Wadhams puts it, re. a future 'Blue Ocean Event') looks like the overall ocean itself (ignoring fjords and coastal build-up) is about as bad a state as it gets for volume, maybe worst, at the start of freezing season.

48
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 11, 2017, 11:31:27 PM »
Tropical Storm Irma Over the Southeastern U.S. at 12:30 p.m. EDT
Wow !

49
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 11, 2017, 07:17:36 PM »
Hurricane JOSE projection - from today, up to Saturday 16th shown here.
This could spin off into Atlantic, but if it gets close to Florida again, the evacuation will be interesting / a headache for officials / non-existent / chaos? ? ?

50
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 09, 2017, 05:56:58 PM »
.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6