Messages

1

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (Oktober, mid-monthly update)

« on: Today at 09:40:10 AM »

This should best be discussed in the Cryosat SMOS thread, or in PIOMAS vs. Cryosat thread.

2

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion

« on: October 19, 2020, 03:33:51 PM »

Thanks again paolo. Perfect.

3

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion

« on: October 19, 2020, 12:37:21 PM »

Thank you paolo.
A bit of feedback - make the satellite images at the end stay longer, and the last image much longer, so the viewer can understand the visual summary of what happened.

4

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 19, 2020, 06:00:22 AM »

Have finally read Polyakov 2020, very good paper and very concerning. Thanks A-Team for bringing it to our attention.
I also recommend reading the new Jennifer Francis paper, though I can't give an intelligent opinion about its contents.

I don't think I've seen this new Jennifer Francis paper referenced on the ASIF:
https://www.woodwellclimate.org/why-has-no-new-record-minimum-arctic-sea-ice-extent-occurred-since-september-2012/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047
Abstract
One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 years ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

5

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: October 19, 2020, 05:56:01 AM »

Cross posting, an interesting paper.

I don't think I've seen this new Jennifer Francis paper referenced on the ASIF:
https://www.woodwellclimate.org/why-has-no-new-record-minimum-arctic-sea-ice-extent-occurred-since-september-2012/

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abc047
Abstract
One of the clearest indicators of human-caused climate change is the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice. The summer minimum coverage is now approximately half of its extent only 40 years ago. Four records in the minimum extent were broken since 2000, the most recent occurring in September 2012. No new records have been set since then, however, owing to an abrupt atmospheric shift during each August/early-September that brought low sea-level pressure, cloudiness, and unfavorable wind conditions for ice reduction. While random variability could be the cause, we identify a recently increased prevalence of a characteristic large-scale atmospheric pattern over the northern hemisphere. This pattern is associated not only with anomalously low pressure over the Arctic during summer, but also with frequent heatwaves over East Asia, Scandinavia, and northern North America, as well as the tendency for a split jet stream over the continents. This jet-stream configuration has been identified as favoring extreme summer weather events in northern mid-latitudes. We propose a mechanism linking these features with diminishing spring snow cover on northern-hemisphere continents that acts as a negative feedback on the loss of Arctic sea ice during summer.

6

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures

« on: October 19, 2020, 05:44:25 AM »

Thanks morganism, just posting the images. 2020 top, 2010 bottom.

7

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 19, 2020, 05:34:03 AM »

@Oren, the static chart is a valuable addition to the analysis.

csv data as text file attached. conversion from day numbers/year may need checking.

Thanks for the data uniquorn. But what to do when Excel fails you? Except for showing that 2020 is literally off the chart, this graphic is not useful for much else. I have filtered the data for location between 137-150 longitude and 73.5-78 latitude, based on the animation showing a more or less uniform behavior for that sub-region. Issues I have tried to grapple with:
* Excel insists on assigning a "soft" and similar-looking palette to all lines.
* Periods of no data for a given year (gaps between different buoys) are shown with a visually disruptive connecting line.
* Each day has several measurements of varying temperatures, because of intra-day variations -and/or the combination of data from multiple buoys. This causes many annual "lines" to overlap.

If I ever get the inspiration and the time I might do some intra-day averaging to reduce noise and somehow separate the data parts of each year from the connecting periods. And manually fix the palette so that each year gets a visually different color.

And of course, click and click again to enlarge.

8

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (Oktober, mid-monthly update)

« on: October 19, 2020, 03:40:16 AM »

Thanks again Wipneus for providing the data.

The total volume is nearly at record low, thanks to:
* Very poor growth in the CAB, which shifted to lowest on record and is leading by nearly 200 km3.
* A wobble in the Beaufort, which lost a lot of its seasonal advantage by letting the remaining "Tail" go on melting for too long. A sub-100 km3 minimum was reached on day 279 before sharp growth began.
* A rather average showing in the CAA and the Greenland Sea.

However the main story is shifting to the Siberian side, where volume has been record low for an astounding 189-day period, ever since day 111. So far this autumn it's been bearable as a few other years remained quite low as well, but the 2nd half of October is a period of sharp growth in Siberian volume. Every day this growth is delayed for 2020 will make the situation worse.

2020 was a latecomer in producing low volume numbers, thanks to the cold winter. However despite getting into the game only on day 171, the year has managed to garner a respectable number of 4th, 3rd and 2nd daily awards, though it's still far from the performance of leader 2017 as well as several other years. I have no doubt the next reporting period will finally bring a number of the coveted daily record low awards.

Click to enlarge charts.

9

Arctic sea ice / Re: 365 day average extent poll

« on: October 18, 2020, 07:14:01 PM »

Thanks for these update Gero.
Looking at the long term chart it is quite obvious that Arctic sea ice has not been stable since 2012 (or 2007) as some people think.

10

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 18, 2020, 07:10:28 PM »

Thanks for the clarification. I think the mixing in question is not about pulling energy from below but about losing the freshwater lens and getting higher surface salinity. But hey, maybe I should finally find the time to read the paper...
In any case, I don't feel this forum is an echo chamber.

11

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 18, 2020, 05:40:00 PM »

Yep, worst start to a freezing season we have ever seen. The maps at Climate reanalyzer are crazy.

There is hope that after a record poor start to the freezing season that January through March could be good for new ice. I think there's a better than average chance of a SSW this winter given the La Niña and westerly QBO.

Hi FishOutofWater,
What does SSW mean? I couldn't find anything in the glossary. Thank you

Thanks, GdGL. I was sure SSW was in the glossary already. Added now.

12

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 18, 2020, 04:29:58 PM »

Gandul, I haven't read the paper itself yet but I get the feeling you are misreading this paragraph. While the positive feedback (reduced sea ice => higher mixing rates => reduced sea ice) is a (very reasonable) hypothesis, the increased coupling of AW heat and the sea ice is not, if I read this correctly.

13

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars

« on: October 18, 2020, 04:01:47 PM »

Car magazines and newspaper car sections are beholden to the incumbents and their advertising budgets.

14

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: October 17, 2020, 06:16:46 PM »

You know, I am a graybeard now (literally) and I remember getting measles and mumps and chicken pox, but except for Gay people we in the developed world really hadn't had to worry about communicable diseases for the last half century or so...until now. I hope this new era doesn't last another half century.

(At the risk of a slight excursion off-topic)
Seriously Tom? Do you believe HIV (and other STDs) affects only gay people?
Of course, the flu is a communicable disease too, but I'm sure that's not what you meant.

15

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 17, 2020, 05:33:35 PM »

Here's an animation comparing the first 16 days of October with 2012

Thanks BFTV. It seems to me that the regions that were late to melt are early to freeze in both years. If true, this is probably due to the mixing that goes on when a region has been ice free for a longer period.

16

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 17, 2020, 11:16:19 AM »

In the years 2007, 2012 and 2019, after the very low minimum sea ice extent in those years, extent sharply rebounded in the second half of October and the first few days in November. After that, for the remainder of the freezing season, extent gains were much more average in those years.

This was NOT the case in 2016. There was no massive increase in extent gains at that time or during the entire freezing season. As a result the March 2017 maximum was a record low. What was the difference? I'm not sure.

So what happens in October and what happened in 2016? October is the month when the Siberian seas: ESS, Laptev and usually Kara freeze over, as can be seen in the cropped Wipneus NSIDC extent graphic. That is a huge region of 2.6M km2. However 2016 (the blue line) had a confluence of events. It saw half the ESS refreeze pushed to November, and the Kara pushed to late Nov and December.
Meanwhile, 1M km2 of Hudson Bay which usually freezes in Nov was pushed to early Dec., which is why no Nov spike appeared. December saw delays in the Chukchi and the Barents. Thus a cascade of events made the October spike disappear altogether.

This year, I fully expect the Siberian seas to have a delayed refreeze, though refreeze they eventually will. So the October spike will almost certainly not happen, but it is quite plausible that it will appear in November and/or December.

17

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: October 16, 2020, 07:27:15 PM »

Sorry for stirring the pot. A few final words on a not very important subject.
I am not against Tesla and I don't hate Musk. I actually hope for Tesla to succeed (IMHO it already did) and admire Musk for his approach to innovation. And I am not looking to regulate anything here. However, in this case I find that Tesla's marketing messages ring hollow. They are supposedly above the habit of pricing against the (theoretical) competition, they are supposedly pricing based on their cost and pass on savings when they can, knowing their EVs are way better than anyone else's. Especially as we're talking about the good guys here, new EV makers such as Lucid (and Rivian etc.), rather than the bad guys such as Mercedes and VW. That's all.

18

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 16, 2020, 02:28:06 PM »

Welcome, s_w_h. The first post is the hardest.

19

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: October 16, 2020, 11:39:11 AM »

Neil you wrote so many words but did not address my (and Gero's) point about Lucid. Did I say Tesla was a scam? Did I say some of the incumbents were not going to go belly up? But I did point out Tesla cut their prices specifically to undercut a potential new entrant competitor, despite all their nice talk talk talk about supporting other EV makers and about cutting prices when their production costs go down. Their actions belie their sweet words.

20

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 16, 2020, 11:28:17 AM »

Folks, please don't get tied up in knots.
El Cid, I thought yours was a good question. However, it seems the analogy doesn't work so well because the ocean is not much warmer than the wind, and because the ocean is deep. OTOH yes, the wind will help mix and cool the deeper layers and eventually achieve refreeze. But when the wind is warmer than the ocean, well I guess the opposite is true. Of course, all this would not have happened if the ocean was not abmormally warm, so nothing here to be happy about.
Other folks, please treat questions nicely and please make your answers to the point, especially avoiding sarcasm.
In general I find it best to avoid analogies from everyday life as they often don't fit what goes on in the Arctic.

21

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues

« on: October 15, 2020, 11:36:20 PM »

In a STEPS scenario, renewables will meet 80% of the growth in global electricity over the next decade.

While this is good news, it's far from good enough. Renewables should meet 100% of electricity growth, plus at least 5% of current electricity generation, if we are to achieve decarbonized global electricity within two decades. Instead, non-renewable electricity generation is expected to grow throughout the coming decade.

22

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: October 15, 2020, 11:22:27 PM »

My thoughts exactly. Tesla claims to oass on cost savings to buyers and to encourage other EV makers which fits with the "mission".
But when the rubber hits the road, Tesla either cuts ovet-greedy prices to a reasonable level, or cuts them to a loss level to tackle a new entrant to the field, despite Tesla's huge lead and secure market position. Not nice at all.
As a side note, somehow the eternal supporters find this behavior a good thing.

23

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 14, 2020, 11:05:13 PM »

Amazing animation. And there does appear to be a warming trend.

24

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: October 14, 2020, 11:01:15 PM »

I am guessing Musk is referring to the perceived significance of the numbers 69 and 420 .

25

Arctic background / Re: Pay-Walled Scientific Publications: Requests and Linked Access

« on: October 14, 2020, 05:58:33 AM »

Or maybe you can use a free VPN such as provided with the Opera browser.

26

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 13, 2020, 06:07:44 PM »

We are going in full circles.
Initially FF and short term storage will serve as backup, along with long range interconnects, then larger storage and some capacity overbuild. Expensive and non-dispatchable nuclear is the worst possible source to complement cheap and intermittent renewables.
With that, I'll let this debate be.

27

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 12, 2020, 04:54:21 PM »

The other point on Storage is that 4 hours is no good.  It simply won't do and that needs to be faced up front.  There needs to be a minimum 12 hours storage for every utility put in if corresponding fixed power is to be removed from the grid. 

You are mixing the timelines. 4 hour storage can do a world of good and make solar and wind even more useful and cheaper than they already are. Removing power from the grid is one or two decades away, when  statistics are much better known and storage much increased. You shoot down the idea because it's not all ready on day one. But why would anyone shut down the backup generators before the solution is ready?

28

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 12, 2020, 04:56:57 AM »

Neil, you do bring up some good points. Ditching existing nuclear (as Germany did post Fukushima) is wrong, when considering climate risks. Switching Poland from coal to gas could cause problematic reliance on imports, and it's probably better for the Poles to keep coal as (a less ideal) backup instead. Volume taken up by storage solutions is indeed a concern.
However, it seems your main point is wrong, assuming I got the math correct. 20GW stored for two days is indeed 960 GWh, but the cost of which would be $48B under your $50/KWh assumption. The $1.5Tn figure appears to have some wrong factor in it. I think this changes the whole argument, from impossible to doable, bearing in mind storing two days of 2/3 of the grid demand is a future requirement over a decade or two, not a present one.

29

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: October 11, 2020, 08:16:59 PM »

It is indeed false equivalence Tom. A private person not liking the election result and a president saying he might not accept the result.

30

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA

« on: October 11, 2020, 06:21:27 PM »

Can you imagine the hysteria that would ensue if Trump gave such a lunatic answer to a question that momentous?

Do you mean, for example, the question of whether he will accept the result of the election? A rather momentuous issue I would say.

31

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 11, 2020, 06:17:36 PM »

You paint a dire picture but it's unjustified. Solar and wind can be increased incrementally far higher. Nuclear and gas have not been shut down and why should they? The goal should be to decrease gas usage as much as possible, while continuing renewable buildout and increasing storage capacity as much as possible. Eventually gas will be delegated to backup status, and when gravity-based long term storage solutions are available gas can be let go. But that is far into the future.
In any case this will all be much cheaper than new nuclear. And economics play a large role in the transition, so ignoring costs leads nowhere.
Extra renewable capacity that needs to be curtailed at peak times can be used for dispatchable loads such as pumped-up hydro and EV charging, as well as export to other countries. But even curtailment is not a dirty word, as long as the economics still work.

32

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 11, 2020, 01:42:04 PM »

Latest Five Day Forecast
Wind + Temp @ Surface
Large GiF!

The central Beaufort should finally see surface freeze, and the tail should lose its shape (already begun yesterday), thanks to the very low temps. However big trouble is coming from Laptev and the ESS, with some temps even rising above zero. So not much growth this coming week. 2020 will probably be lowest on record in both area and extent.

33

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: October 11, 2020, 09:15:36 AM »

My sister and her husband both had a loss of smell and turned out negative too. Weird but I guess it's not as uncommon as one might think.

34

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 11, 2020, 01:04:26 AM »

To complement an intermittent but very cheap source you need a dispatchable source that can withstand a low capacity factor for a reasonable cost. For that dreaded week of being becalmed, natural gas plants are the ideal solution, along with cross-border interconnects. Later, large scale storage will be the solution to get rid of the last gas plants. Nuclear is the worst solution possible, as it is non dispatchable, prohibitively expensive even when assumed to be running constantly, and suffers outages of several months for maintenance which could just coincide with that dreaded week.

35

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?

« on: October 10, 2020, 10:41:55 AM »

The only problem is that the planet is not in energy balance, and the herd of cows helps maintain methane levels that lead to further warming until the new balance is reached.
While the GWP of methane assume a pulse of methane being absorbed and decayed rather quickly, in truth the level of methane has been stable or rising. As humanity's problem is short-term and not just long-term, it should be realized that methane will help push the planet above 2C and into huge positive feedbacks, and then it will not help much that the methane decayed at some point when we stopped maintaining (and even increasing) its atmospheric level.
Thus the downplaying of methane using RF and GWP justifications is IMHO very wrong. IMHO Co2eq of methane should be calculated by the short-term warming it induces. I think this is what Stephan does.
However, emission of methane should be evaluated in comparison not to the resulting growth in methane concentrations over a year, but compared to the baseline where methane should have decayed from a year ago. I think this is where some posters are missing the issue. However the emission part is probably off-topic here, so I'll avoid further discussion.

36

Arctic sea ice / Re: PIOMAS 2020 Arctic Sea Ice Volume September Average: August poll

« on: October 10, 2020, 10:20:56 AM »

An email to  the nice Dr. Zhang is needed (I have been too busy to write one).

37

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 10, 2020, 10:19:40 AM »

Folks, an interesting discussion but when too long it becomes off-topic. I suggest we have covered the issue well and there seems to be a general agreement - the extra added energy in the system (from sun-albedo and from lower latitude transport) is (mostly) released during winter, with open water serving as a main release mechanism. This release is causing climate-changing winter effects, leading to higher temps and lower overall ice growth. The mechanism is not expected to lead to a colder winter or thicker ice, compared with a normal year. Further discussion can be taken elsewhere, where it will better survive the test of time.

Also another request, please don't start discussing specific posters. Discuss science, not persons.

38

Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others

« on: October 10, 2020, 10:03:51 AM »

Added entries for Peripheral Seas and for High Arctic. Edited CAA entry to include list of main waterways. Edited CAB to include mention of the Lincoln Sea - and the Wandel Sea...

39

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: October 09, 2020, 07:49:55 PM »

Sorry to disappoint but before its second lockdown began Israel had a day with ~9000 new confirmed infections, for a population of 9 million.

40

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power

« on: October 09, 2020, 04:18:09 PM »

If you want to make your case you have to explain why, when the UK has 37GW of installed solar and wind, out of 42GW total daily generating output, why the vast majority of power generated, all year, is Nuclear and CCGT?

NeilT, why should it matter what the nameplate capacity is? It's just a number. What matters is its combination with the capacity factor and the intermittency pattern, which determine actual production - the physical parameter that matters. As long as wind and solar don't generate more than the total demand, there is no problem increasing them further, and with storage of several hours yet further. The more they generate, the less the existing gas facilities will generate, greatly cutting the use of fossil fuels.
Nuclear is a different story, in that an existing plant is mostly carbon free and mostly paid off, except for the huge decommissioning costs. However building a new nuclear plant will be much more costly than new solar and wind infrastructure, when comparing produced MWh and even when accounting for storage. As long as gas backup is available, I really don't see any reason to build crazily expensive nuclear, and all the reasons to continue rolling out new PV and wind.
It's true that the higher the latitude the less efficient the solar, and the higher the need for heating. This should be considered on a case by case basis, but seeing that the northerly UK has managed to do quite well, I would expect Poland would also find it doable. And don't forget the possibility of interconnects to more southerly and sunny locations, which for Poland should not be that difficult.
Of course, if a country doesn't care about GHG emissions, then sure go for coal.

41

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 09, 2020, 11:57:57 AM »

Thanks for the clarification!

42

Science / Re: Where are we now in CO2e , which pathway are we on?

« on: October 09, 2020, 11:09:45 AM »

Nanning, if you wish to learn more about Radiative Forcing, Global Warming Potential and other related issues, you will be smarter (and much more confused) if you read this old thread here.
You will discover the difference between concentration-based calculations (=Radiative Forcing) and emission-based calculations (=GWP). But the confusion will stem from the big argument between Ned W and ASLR. Ned W was out to prove at all costs that methane is not important using narrowly defined science (I think he was wrong and tried to explain why, as you'll see if you read to the end). ASLR was out to prove the opposite at all costs but used very widely defined science and thus they talked past each other to no avail. Still I learned a lot from that thread.

In essence:
* RF is derived from a given concentration compared to a baseline concentration. For example CO2 today vs. CO2 one year ago.
* GWP is derived by assessing what would happen given an x amount of emissions, some of which would be absorbed or decayed over time. For example, a pulse of 1GT of methane.
* And my position was that to discuss RF properly one must calculate a baseline RF - concentration now compared to concentration if humanity ceased all emissions, thus taking into account the emission and decay rates separately, rather than lumping them together.

43

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 09, 2020, 10:34:18 AM »

Binntho, I admit I cannot figure out if the above is sarcastic or not, but if it is then please avoid that. If not then ignore this comment.

44

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 09, 2020, 06:59:47 AM »

On another note, the transformation of the Beaufort tail over the last 2-3 weeks has been pretty dramatic when directly compared. I was pretty surprised myself when I looked at the two images side-by-side. September 17 vs October 8 ASMR2 product.

Thanks for the comparison. Indeed, all that thick MYI diligently exported from the CAB has mostly melted out or thinned considerably, with bottom melt enhanced by the vigorous movements to and fro. The deep freezing temps have never reached this far south in the Beaufort yet, though they've been around more central parts of the basin for nearly a month. Finally the forecast now calls for cooling of the "tail" region in the next few days, but too little too late IMHO.

45

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: October 09, 2020, 06:51:41 AM »

The issue is quite simple. Heat escape is driven by more heat in the system. The more heat, the longer it remains, the longer open water refuses to freeze. Sure, the heat is eventually lost to space during the long winter. Sure, the more heat is there the more heat is lost. But this process by itself cannot protect the Arctic and its sea ice. It cannot be called a proper negative feedback. The Arctic is trying to heal its summer wounds, is all.
Eventually a time will come when the freezing season ends while some open water has still not frozen. Currently this doesn't happen within the Arctic Basin, with maybe some localized exceptions. However, a late freeze is disastrous in itself, as the resulting ice is thinner and more prone to melt next season.

46

The rest / Re: Good music

« on: October 09, 2020, 04:58:53 AM »

For nanning, supremacy is bad, but this is another matter.

Diana Ross and The Supremes - You Can't Hurry Love

47

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 08, 2020, 09:15:27 AM »

A couple of graphs for 50dbar (roughly 50 meters depth), covering the same period as in uniquorn's animation upthread. I haven't compared the locations of the various buoys.
Click to enlarge.

48

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 08, 2020, 06:44:48 AM »

to write a VBA macro to merge multiple dat files into a single one. Should be doable I think.

Turns out the helpful Internet has already given thought to the matter, and while VBA is doable there is a much simpler solution.
Run command line (DOS), navigate to the directory where the files are, and type:
copy *.dat onefile.txt
So simple...
In the itp case I actually used "copy itp121g*.dat onefile.txt" to avoid concatenating the rest of the dat files in the directory.

Edit: The other four files are attached, itp 121, 110, 88, 62. Rename each file to zip by removing the .txt, and then extract.

49

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 08, 2020, 05:46:19 AM »

Thank you wildfit. Looking at it again, this is not what I am trying to do. I was trying to download files from ftp, and my browser would not download anything. Finally I installed Firefox and it downloaded successfully.

For example the link ftp://ftp.whoi.edu/whoinet/itpdata/itp121grddata.zip

Anyway, that is already solved.

50

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season

« on: October 06, 2020, 11:42:59 PM »

Thanks wildfit (and welcome!). No mac.

Thanks uniquorn, this will be very handy. It gives me the idea to write a VBA macro to merge multiple dat files into a single one. Should be doable I think.