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 - SCYetti

Pages: [1]
1
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 26, 2017, 12:22:06 AM »
I would like the thoughts of others on these two hot spots in Greenland. The northern spot first appeared on June 5 then reappeared August 11, 23, 24th. The southern spot appeared August 7, 13, 16, 24th. Both spots seem to be in midstream not on land.

2
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 06, 2017, 12:51:49 AM »
On NASA's Worldview 2 more fires appear today.

3
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: August 04, 2017, 01:35:32 AM »
This may be a little off topic. But exactly what is burning in SW Greenland?

4
Permafrost / Re: Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
« on: May 04, 2017, 05:33:35 PM »
I am curious about the CO2 equivalency of methane. I find it stated as the 100 year equivalent of anywhere between 20 and 34. The 20 year equivalent of between 75 and 86. IIRC the one year equivalent was once given as about 170.

Since I started following the subject 5 years ago the presence of methane has increased only slightly but seems to have been consistently above 1700 parts per billion. If we were to use the 1 year CO2 equivalent of 170 at 1.7 parts per million total CO2 we would get equivalence of over 700 parts per million CO2. Is that possible? What would climate models look like using similar numbers?

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Slow Transition
« on: January 01, 2017, 11:24:00 PM »
Shared Humanity
But you did learn something. There is no apparent correlation between length of freezing and melting seasons with the final totals of ice extent. I wonder what the correlation with freezing degree days and thawing degree days would be.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: October 25, 2016, 08:11:45 PM »
Brian Brettschneider has this interesting tweet. Unfortunely, it doesn't tell us if these stations from World Climate Service are just located in Alaska or around the whole Arctic.



What to expect in the future?

http://www.nims.go.jp/water/temp_water.html
Temperature of ice water in a glass



It would be cool if there were really clear practical descriptive experiments based around this principle to describe to people what happens when the arctic melts completely.

Sea water would have a different result due in part because of the density of sea water. Fresh water is the most dense at about 4C. Sea water continues to become more dense until it reaches freezing point of about -1.8C. If you did this experiment with sea water I would expect the temperature at the top and bottom would both be -1.8C.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freezing Season Basics?
« on: September 11, 2016, 04:23:26 PM »
You're right that is fun to watch. This happens in shallow placid water in the Antarctic when it has ice forming on the surface. In most of the ocean the water is much deeper and more turbulent so  brinicles don't form. But doesn't the brine still absorb heat from the surrounding water? So does the water remain -1.8C but with a lower enthalpy?

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: July 24, 2016, 08:26:14 PM »
Andreas - you understood my question despite a misplaced question mark. I'll give it some more thought and do some research and maybe get back to you if I find anything.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: July 24, 2016, 03:58:59 PM »
Thanks AndreasT for your post. The mechanics of freezing is something I've given a lot of thought. I agree with everything you posted except for the super-cooling. Wouldn't super cooling have to occur in the Arctic Ocean at depth. Each 10 meters of water equals about 1 atmosphere pressure?

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Spelling
« on: April 22, 2016, 07:06:20 PM »
I wish to speak on behalf misspellers here and elsewhere. If you haven't done so examine my screen name and you will realise. I speak with authority on misspelling.Spelling is really no big deal:
 
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Or rather...
According to a researcher (sic) at Cambridge University, it doesn't matter in what order the letters in a word are, the only important thing is that the first and last letter be at the right place. The rest can be a total mess and you can still read it without problem. This is because the human mind does not read every letter by itself but the word as a whole.
http://www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/people/matt.davis/cmabridge/

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others
« on: February 23, 2016, 03:08:19 PM »
glos·sa·ry
An alphabetical list of terms or words found in or relating to a specific subject, text, or dialect, with explanations; a brief dictionary.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: February 15, 2016, 06:48:34 PM »
Please check this out

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: February 15, 2016, 02:33:37 PM »
Oren and AndreasT thank you for your responses to my stupid question. But it is the nature of things that the difference between stupid and genius is that genius has limits. Thus I have tons more questions.

I recently set my refrigerator  to too low a setting and everything froze except the bottles of soft drinks. But when I opened a bottle it immediately filled with ice. It seemed to be more ice than could be accounted for by merely the temperature change of the expanding gas. It seems pressure can constrain freezing as it does boiling. The pressure at the depth of 10 meters, I would assume, are greater than the pressure in my drink bottle. Could the water absorb or release a great amount of latent energy without temperature change or phase change?

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: February 14, 2016, 07:07:50 PM »
I have a stupid question about the heat content of water at the freezing point. I haven't attended college so I'm going to word my question at a high school level, using grams and calories.

Water freezes at 0C. It takes about 1 calorie to raise or lower the temperature of 1 gram 1 degree C. 80 calories must be lost from a gram at 0C to change it from liquid to ice. Though the freezing point of sea water is lower I assume this is true of the Arctic Ocean as well. So my question is can we discern the actual energy content of freezing temperature water? Shouldn't we expect a pause in temperature increase as the water changes from almost freezing to almost warming?

In other words couldn't there be a large change in enthalpy without a change in temperature?

15
I have just changed my vote to 1 million sq. k. I have no idea that this will actually be the case but I read Prof. Wadhams claims that this will be the year. I myself believe he has about a 5% chance of being right and our poll numbers should reasonably reflect that.

16
Antarctica / Re: Increasing Antarctic Albedo?
« on: March 01, 2015, 08:56:22 PM »
The biggest difference may be that the Antarctic's increased albedo occurs in the dark of winter. The Arctic's lessened albedo occurs in the light of summer.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: October 25, 2014, 03:10:31 PM »
OMSM,

I'm not trying to correct anyone, I'm just pointing out that Kinnard is for August. (I have said that this is a minor issue in the context of 1450 years of data)
Those who post comments here are interested in accuracy as are you. Writers at newspapers are more interested in sensationalism thus 6th instead of 7th. If they had known to talk to Viddaloo their  headline would have read 4th lowest.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: October 25, 2014, 02:56:57 PM »
4th lowest? Thanks for that Viddaloo. In the past 6 weeks or so your posts on the yearly average and Chris Reynolds's freezing degree day posts have answered questions of mine. To me the state of the ice is important. However it is just one indicator of the total energy in the Arctic system. It may be as significant or even more significant that the water flowing out through the Greenland Sea is .5 degrees C warmer than a few years ago. If it is a trend.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: October 24, 2014, 05:22:16 PM »
Chris Reynolds, the article in the Guardian was quoting the NSIDC when it said 6th lowest:

 "Following the seasonal daily minimum of 5.02 million square kilometers (1.94 million square miles) that was set on September 17, 2014 (6th lowest in the satellite record), Arctic sea ice has started its seasonal cycle of growth. Arctic sea ice extent averaged for the month of September 2014 was 5.28 million square kilometers (2.04 million square miles), also the 6th lowest in the satellite record. This is 1.24 million square kilometers (479,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average extent, and 1.65 million square kilometers (637,000 square miles) above the record low monthly average for September that occurred in 2012."
 I think 6th or 7th depends on whose and which estimate one uses.

20
Permafrost / Re: Dialling back on the methane scare stories.
« on: October 20, 2014, 08:55:48 PM »
I don't comment much because while I am interested I don't have a lot to add. As regards Peter Wadhams I don't think his opinions are misinformed or ignorant. Those scientists that have ventured  into the Arctic and studied generally seem more concerned about methane than those who have studied maybe less intensely and from afar.

I only began following Neven's blog since April or May 2012 so I missed the blog entry on the bubbling methane. I think it's found here: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/12/arctic-methane-russian-researchers-report.html

21
The rest / Re: Could geoengineering be started and hidden while illegal?
« on: August 13, 2014, 02:41:22 PM »
An old joke comes to mind. "A man's doctor told him his x-rays showed he needed an operation that would cost thousands of dollars. The man said he didn't have the money. So the doctor suggested he could just touch up the x-rays for 50 dollars." ( It was funny when I first heard it over 50 years ago.)

My point is: This illustrates what the governments are most likely to do. For the government the Arctic melting is more of a political problem than a physical one. They will seek to repress and minimalize reports of Arctic melting rather than minimalize Arctic melting its self.

22
According to your post, Seattlerocks, Mr. Dyson admits to not knowing a whole lot about the subject but he objects to the outspokenness and stridency of many who do. I believe the problem is that many who make a full-time study of AGW soon come to an "OMG WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" moment. At that point a more subdued and balanced approach you advocate seems totally inappropriate. Much of their sensitivity to criticism might be due to the nature of much of the criticism. Global warming has been called the greatest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of the world by members of the US Congress. Some consider scientists as nothing more than con-men looking to enrich themselves with government study grants. It's enough to make one overly defensive.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 07, 2014, 12:43:30 AM »

Posted by: ChasingIce
« on: August 06, 2014, 06:23:56 AM » Insert Quote
: SCYetti  August 06, 2014, 03:56:19 AM
The PIOMAS validation page states that their model has a bias that under estimates thick ice and over estimates thin ice. What is the effect of this when the Arctic ice is overwhelmingly thin.

apparently, it would over-estimate thin ice, and under-estimate thick(er) ice
Really? Well, duh! :P
Obviously I did not express myself adequately. I wanted quantification rather than verification. I should have asked " How great would be the effects of over-estimating thin ice would be.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 06, 2014, 03:56:19 AM »
The PIOMAS validation page states that their model has a bias that under estimates thick ice and over estimates thin ice. What is the effect of this when the Arctic ice is overwhelmingly thin.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: June 20, 2014, 04:09:10 PM »
What is the immediate ghg equivalency of methane? I understand using the 20 or 100 year equivalency when reporting the release of a particular mass of methane such as 50 gt. I don't understand using a 20 or 100 year equivalency when reporting parts per billion. If methane in the atmosphere is 1865 ppb its ghg effect will only decrease if its parts per billion decreases. It makes more sense to me to report the 100 year effect when discussing a mass or volume of menthane but use the immediate effect when discussing fractions of the atmosphere.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: May 04, 2014, 01:55:19 AM »
Jai Mitchel,
 the DMI chart to which you linked goes bach to 1958 and shows just how unusual last years Arctic summer was. Despite increased melt over the last 55 years the summer temperatuers appear to me to be surprisingly consistant. Last year there was a noticeable drop. I would suggest that this was because air was exosed to -2C sea water as opposed to 0C ice and melt ponds.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2014 Melting Season
« on: April 08, 2014, 04:20:03 PM »
F.Tnioli
I am in almost complete agreement with your post. We are on a downward slope and the further we go the faster we go.

I disagree with your using a fresh water lake as an analogy for the Arctic Ocean however. Salt water behaves differently when freezing than fresh water. As fresh water cools and freezes it reaches its maximum density at about 4 degrees C. So the bottom of a freshwater lake in winter is warmer than the top. Salt water continues to gain density until it actually freezes at about -2 C. So ice can form on a lake with water temperature at the bottom being  +4C. In the Arctic the entire upper level of the halocline must be -2C for ice to form (theoretically. Water could cool and freeze faster than it could sink.)

A better comparison could be the Sea of Okhotsk or the Hudson Bay.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: Fracturing event, Two point Oh
« on: January 09, 2014, 11:29:02 PM »
jdallen it appears I was somewhat misinformed or mis-remembered or simply wrong about the warmth of the Arctic ocean at its deepest parts. The warmth is merely about 1 degree C. At least in 1998 the date of the paper I found. The paper did make this statement however:

Unlike tropical oceans, which are temperature-stratified (i.e. there is a thermocline), the Arctic Ocean is salinity-stratified, although at high latitudes the ocean is much less stable. The temperature profile is nearly uniform at 0 to 1 C in the Arctic Ocean, but the salinity increases slightly with depth, especially at 10-100 m below the surface. The presence of this halocline is important in the formation of ice. Because of its salt, ocean water freezes only at -1.8C. And salt water is most dense at its freezing point, unlike fresh water, which is most dense at 4C. So if there were no halocline in the Arctic Ocean, the entire ocean column would have to cool to -1.8 C before its surface could freeze (Note 11.5).
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap17/arctic.html

I am on a quest for knowledge and being challenged on my facts is actually helpful. So, thanks jdallen

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: Fracturing event, Two point Oh
« on: January 09, 2014, 10:25:27 PM »
I didn't have a specific reference in mind. I thought it was a well known fact that if the heat in the arctic were distributed evenly from top to bottom that the ice would melt. But the salinity of warmer Atlantic water causes it to sink to the bottom leaving fresher colder water at the top. I'll look up a reference and post it later today or tomorrow. 

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Fracturing event, Two point Oh
« on: January 09, 2014, 08:30:14 PM »
I think we sometimes miss the overall point of our arctic studies. I can empathize with many of my ignorant friends who feel that the arctic ice is totally unimportant to their lives. I have never been to the arctic and in my later arthritic years hope to never be made to go there. However climate change. sea-level rise and catastrophic weather affect everybody. This year's cracking as well as last years cracking event are manifestations of energy in the Arctic Ocean and also a manifestation of global warming.

One of the most interesting things that I have learned about the Arctic Ocean is that there is presently enough energy in the arctic waters to keep the ocean ice free year around. This warmth is now at the bottom of the ocean. I suspect that the melting of the polar ice will not nicely fit any linear or logarithmic projections. It will be sudden and we will all say, "WOW."

31
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Aquifer under Greenland ice
« on: December 29, 2013, 06:30:03 PM »
This new information raises a great many questions in my mind about the stability of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This aquifer is said to be about 72,000 square kilometers in area and located 5 meters deep in some places and 50 meters deep in others. What are the vertical dimensions if the aquifer itself? More important what does this mean for the stability of the GIS? My thoughts are that this makes a sudden partial and yet catastrophic collapse more likely and sooner than we may have thought. I am curious as to the thoughts of others.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: This melt seasons analysis
« on: September 30, 2013, 12:54:44 PM »
Chris, the ice I used was fresh water ice with a freezing and melting point of 0C. The ice in the salt water cooled the salt water to 28.8F or almost -2C. Somewhat the same principle as a hand cranked ice cream freezer that cools the ice cream mixture with ice and rock salt.

I stirred both just once. If I had continued the stirring throughout the experiment I am almost certain both would have melted faster. In that case I don't know which would have melted first. The purpose of my little kitchen experiment was to clarify in my mind the source of the low temperatures in the Arctic which of course, is the ice melting. 

I am curious about the mechanics of sea ice freezing and melting. There is a lot more to it than I thought. It seems that the ice loses a significant amount of salt in the initial freezing process, thus brinicles. While salt content lowers the freezing point it doesn't lower the melting point as much, as the salt merely leaches out. This is of course why multi-year ice is nearly salt free.

For me this has been an interesting year. I couldn't predicted any of it.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: This melt seasons analysis
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:52:23 PM »
Sorry to read about your father Werther - wish you the best.
Werther, I wasn't able to read anything of your father but I would like to echo the sentiment that "I wish you the best." My father died 22 years ago when I was 39 and I still miss him.

I agree with your melt season analysis and would like to add my inexpert view.

I live in South Carolina where the climate is hot and humid in the summer with mild winters. Yet our weather is usually said to come from elsewhere. We get tropical storms and hurricanes from the Caribbean and sometimes from the northeast coast of Africa. Most weather comes from the west. Sometimes bringing warmth and moisture from the Gulf of Mexico. Sometimes it brings cool air down from Canada. Thus when I read that the weather in the Arctic was unusually cold this summer I wondered where that came from. Of course it had to originate in the Arctic itself. The broken ice kept the Arctic water at about -2 C. The Arctic cyclones prevented the usual freshwater surface layer from developing by mixing the deeper salt water and the winter's ice having leached out much of its salt content could not melt at -2C.

Basically what happened in the Arctic stayed in the Arctic. Any cool Arctic breezes that might have cooled Alaska or Siberia would have had to have been offset by warm air blowing into the Arctic. With a diminishing jet stream this may be a new normal for a couple of years. In noting however how the Norwegian and Russian side of the ice pack continues to recede we must conclude AGW continues.

I would like to include the results of a little kitchen experiment I did. I prepared about a gallon of ice water, to have water at a consistent temperature. I placed 8 ounces of crushed ice in two identical 16 oz. cups. I mixed 16 oz. of my ice water with 1 tbs. salt to roughly simulate sea water.  I filled one cup with 8 oz (by weight)  ice and then the rest of the volume with ice cold tap water, 32F or 0C. The other cup I filled with the same 8 oz. ice and salt water also 32F. Shortly after, I measured the temperature of both. The plain water was 32F and the salt water was 29F. It took 2 and 1/2 hours for the plain ice water to melt completely. I weighed the ice remaining in the salt water and found it to be 1 oz. (My kitchen scales are only accurate to .2 oz.) I am suggesting something similar happened in the Arctic this year as to the preservation of so much ice.

While I sit back and await my Nobel prize  (there isn't any emoticon as goofy as that statement) I would appreciate any comments or criticism.

34
In reading this discussion I've had the thought that the Arctic could possibly be ice free this year because of the fragmentation event since February. This is due to the increased speed of the Arctic Drift and the Beaufort Gyre. A-Team's visualisation of movement in the gyre showed 479 km movement in less than 6 weeks. This shows extraordinary thinness and weakness of the ice that not only makes it more susceptible to melt but also to being flushed into the Atlantic.

In order to contribute more than my opinion; I found this article that discusses ice speed and thickness and how lack of consideration these relate to the inadequacies of Arctic Models.

http://web.mit.edu/~rampal/rampal_homepage/Publications_files/Rampal2011_J.%20Geophys.%20Res.pdf

Pages: [1]