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 - Iceismylife

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: October 23, 2018, 07:52:33 PM »,60.48,794/loc=-148.891,58.120

Is that a hurricane forming? Or is it a GAC?  Do hurricanes even forum that far north?
At 32 km/h (20 miles/hr) it doesn't seem too powerful.
I saw but didn't link to something like 80 km/h  edge of hurricane strength.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2018
« on: October 23, 2018, 07:43:35 PM »

The rest / Re: Money
« on: May 16, 2018, 08:39:20 PM »

During the GFC Bernanke was vilified by the Right for printing money to buy securities, to support the contracting money supply.  All the evidence is that much more of that should have been done, and faster.
printing money by buying...

My opinion at the time was that QE didn't have traction. It was just spinning its wheals.  The contraction of our manufacturing base meant that the jobs weren't there to support more debt.

More QE maybe.  More wages that gets you more debt. Upping the minimum wage a lot, that gets you more wages. Ten years later we are still not seeing upward pressure on wages.

The rest / Re: Money
« on: May 16, 2018, 07:58:50 PM »
What's up with the crazy fear of deflation, drummed up by so many economists?
Passing on the dropping cost of production as a result of increasing volume of production is not deflation.  A contraction in the availability of money, that is deflation that scares the crap out of me.

Money is debt, sort of, but we are on the labor standard as we have a statute that defines the value of money.  The minimum wage law.

The rest / Re: Money
« on: May 16, 2018, 04:22:15 AM »
Some debt is unsustainable, much may be sustainable.  Sustainability of a given debt is strongly related to interest rates.
Don't forget that one entity's debt is always another entity's asset.
Decreasing debts also decreases assets.  Such decreases shrink the money supply, causing deflation.

Deflation is highly destructive to economic activity.  When deflation is the norm, it pays to hold on to physical currency, and not spend it.  This causes further contraction of the money supply, causing further deflation.  We had this during the Great Depression, and for a time during the global financial crisis.
Deflation. I'd rather have 20% inflation than 3% deflation.

I agree 100% about deflation and debt write off.  Very destructive for an economy.  But there is going to be no strong economic growth until debt as % of GDP goes down.  two ways to get it. Debt write off and wage inflation.  You can use the minimum wage law to change the ration of debt to % GDP a 4x on minimum wages would reset debt to GDP ratio to a much more conducive to growth level.

As it is any contraction in the economy tends to threaten a repeat of 2008.  But upping the minimum wage far enough to trigger inflation means raising interest rates to control it.

regulatory capture
Don't worry regulatory capture isn't real. It is just a conspiracy.

And we all know conspiracy theories aren't real.  So regulatory capture isn't real.  The top isn't conspiring against the bottom.  Not hat is just nuts, they would never do that.

The rest / Re: Money
« on: May 12, 2018, 01:19:34 AM »
When interest rates creep up, and they will,

In general, interest rates have been on a decline since ~1980.  I used to be among those who said "this trend can't continue."  I'm not so sure now. 

I'm of the "have to go up eventually" school of thought.  Eventually is the end of the debt bubble.  The pop of that thing doesn't look pretty.  My bet is hyperinflation.  The accumulation of debt in the system is long term unsustainable.

But you wont get higher interest rates until you get wage equilibration with where the manufacturing jobs went to.  Or you can get inflation by radically increasing the minimum wage.

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: May 10, 2018, 12:04:53 AM »
New Republic on the repression of labour in the USA:

"Pay is supposed to increase during periods of low unemployment ...But that hasn’t happened to a meaningful degree today "

I've thought that unemployment has been misrepresented.  With 25% of our manufacturing workers out of work and not counted as unemployed we will not see upward pressure on wages until they get an opportunity to work for reasonable pay.  So the current 4% unemployment rate does not work like the historic 4% rate did.  It acts more like 6~8%

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: May 09, 2018, 06:47:57 PM »
We are watching those cloud streets heading south from Svalbard, meanwhile in Nordkapp, Norway - conditions and the risk of big avalanches is extremely high in several parts of Norway and is still increasing due to continuous snowfall there. Some roads have been closed in several days in a row and some shops within isolated areas are running out of some sorts of food. Photo: Camilla Daae-Qvale via Severe Weather Scandinavia.
any news as to what happened?

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: May 07, 2018, 10:46:11 PM »
I figured that a $30hr minimum wage would correct the ratio of median house price to median house hold income. it would support house prices above the peak of the last bubble.  Undoing the fraud retroactively.

Then I ran across the idea of a global market.  The Gini coefficient is bad.  But going from a national to global economy means we need to close the global Gini coefficient.

The discussion about a gold standard was based on money not being worth anything. But the minimum wage law pegs the dollar to low end wages.  That can be done globally.  And it can be done with purely domestic US policies. Just put a tax penalty on capital gains of 110% if the company uses labor at less than US minimum wage anywhere on the planet.  The same for dividend income.

This is not "correct economic thinking"

The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: May 07, 2018, 12:10:40 AM »
Surprise, surprise.  Economists have been miscalculatin employment and profuctivity in manufacturing for years. And that might have elected Trump. The article is worth reading, as are the references poste in it.
Nice one. 

The sacking of America.

Why pay workers to work when you can give them a loan instead.

We need to replace the lost wages.  US minimum wage to all workers making stuff for America and then Up the minimum wage to $30hr.  If we aren't going to have the productive jobs then we need the jobs we do have to pay what those we lost don't.

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: April 26, 2018, 08:13:41 PM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.
That is not a permanent solution.  Heat it up and it will come out. Eventually it will be heated up.  The longer it takes the more there is.  Too much and we do Venus.  Over heat it and melt the ice.  Out gas it maybe burn it, and no ice on earth.  End the age of ice.  that will stabilize the environment long term.

I'd really like to know if you're serious or whether you're attempting to troll.
I'm serious.  Do we put ourselves ahead of the biosphere?  Or do we put the biosphere ahead of ourselves?

The numbers as of now that I've seen bantered around look like this.  The is something like 5,000gt  Methane in the arctic permafrost.  that works out to 3,750gt carbon.  But methane is 100 times as good as CO2 at global warming.  We've added 300gt of carbon as CO2 to the atmosphere so we are looking at 1,000 times as much global warming if we out gas the methane as we've done so far.

If you raise the temperature of the sea water at the equator to 100C then the sea water will tend to go into the atmosphere.  heat it up enough and you drive out the CO2 from the rock And we have something like Venus.

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:27:16 AM »
If you have a pipe to send the methane out to space, past the Earth's atmosphere, then we could take the methane out of the permafrost.

Since you probably don't we need to leave that methane sequestered.
That is not a permanent solution.  Heat it up and it will come out. Eventually it will be heated up.  The longer it takes the more there is.  Too much and we do Venus.  Over heat it and melt the ice.  Out gas it maybe burn it, and no ice on earth.  End the age of ice.  that will stabilize the environment long term. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« on: April 26, 2018, 04:22:45 AM »
I wonder what the impact of this will be. That is a lot of runoff at once and it could continue for a few days. Hemispherically, also major.

Ice jams. Slow down the overturning?  Flooding?

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: April 25, 2018, 04:11:31 AM »
"... enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus."

I dont think venus scenaro is possible, even with all known sources of CH4 dumping. I think Hansen once did analysis like that, but i could be wrong. If i find the reference i shall post.

Then we need to out gas the methane now.

Is it correct that methane builds over time as in geological time frames?  So in several million years enough mint build up?

Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: April 25, 2018, 03:35:31 AM »

Humanity already know what plan to follow and how to mitigate, we're just not doing it.
We (the top 10%) are still aiming for the stars and another rush for money and geoengineering.

Do we?

If you look at sort term (our life time and the lifetime of our great grandkids) comfort and convenience for us then we need to stop and reverse global warming.

If you look long term then you get a different answer.  The long term health of the biosphere depends on getting the methane out of the arctic permafrost as the permafrost sequesters it and enough could build up overtime to drive the planet to a state like Venus.

So it is in the long term, the health of the planet involves intentional AGW now.  Or some other way of dealing with the sequestered methane and how to convert it to solid carbon.

The rest / Good music
« on: April 21, 2018, 01:45:54 AM »

please share and if you don't like someone else's idea of good music keep it to yourself. And share the music you like.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« on: April 21, 2018, 01:18:26 AM »
I'm curious what mechanism bbr2314 proposes for mid-latitude snow on the land to affect arctic sea ice levels.
The Cryosphere is dependent on albedo not latitude. The situation today exists only because the Arctic sea ice exists.
As heat rises in the oceans, it combines with the extant 2.9 million KM^3 mound of ice in GREENLAND to result in prolific snows beginning first across the Canadian shield, which is downwind of Greenland when oceanic heat forcing is sufficient (normally it is the opposite, but engorged Hadley Cells have a way of their own).
Could understand prolific snows across Greenland if the ocean warms but the Canadian shield would get its water (snow) from the south. Any wind off Greenland would be dry and subject to adiabatic warming as it flows from the high interior. (Recently the Greenland mass balance has been showing early losses from the south/west as precipitation was occurring on the southeast?)
The ability of air to hold water goes up with temps. One or 2C warmer (water temp) and you get a lot more precipitation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« on: April 21, 2018, 12:58:07 AM »
I believe you are referring to the following baseline:

temperature leads ice volume.  Nice.  Ice volume goes up then cooling.

Up to about 1.25 million years ago nice correlation.  From 1.25 million years ago to 2.5 million years ago.  Not so tight.

So as the temperature goes up we should see an upswing in ice volume.  That reflects water in the air. (Humidity)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Land snow cover effect on sea ice
« on: April 21, 2018, 12:48:27 AM »
Correlation is not causation, of course. Milankovitch cycles explain this well - just at it was getting warmer the axis tilted/wobbled again, summer became shorter/colder, snow didn't melt, glaciation came back.
But you claim that because it was getting warmer, snow increased so much that it created its own climate, prevented its own melting despite the increasing general heat, glaciation returned. I find that to be highly improbable in a warming world. Is there any scientific paper/analysis supporting this causation?
It looks like there should be... A strong negative feedback loop that kicks in between where we are now and 1C warmer.

A micro climate made by snow maybe not.  How about this? Enough freshwater run off to shut down the overturning in the North Atlantic? 

The lower reaches of Greenland melt about 1.5m of water a year.  So would we get that much SWE far enough north to stick around all summer?  That much lake effect snow on the CAA.  If it does then you could get a pile of snow deep enough to have the top high enough to not melt out very far south.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: April 16, 2018, 11:17:29 PM »
And how would this planet look like if the arctic would be ice free all year long ?
That is the big question. Neven's less white is telling. If the average night time low is -28C and ice free gets you 20 C warmer, and open sea water freezes at -10C Then you have a margin of 2C. Ice at the edges open in the middle.  Stormy enough to mix up the stratification in the Ocean. Overturning in the CAB.

That is actually an interesting idea! I would not be 100% surprised.
If it is so, then why are we trying to stop AGW?

Is it more about the concentration of power than what is good for the long term health of our planet?  Outgassing the methane now is in the long term health of our planet.

If the earth was a living organism and evolved species to fill certain needs Did it evolve us to defrost the permafrost before enough methane built up to drive us to a climate like Venus when it finally melted?

If you want a conversation outside of your box why not?

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: April 14, 2018, 01:43:02 AM »

The cold comes after the snowcover increase... IT IS THE WATER!!!!!
That is the converse of what I think ended the little ice age.

Soot got into the permanent sea ice.  Caused it to melt, brake up, less reflected light, warmer.  Starting something like 1700ish.  That melting started the slowdown.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: April 12, 2018, 09:26:26 PM »
I think it's pretty clear that Wadhams shouldn't be taken seriously anymore.  He's promoting pseudo-scientific nonsense about ghosts, mediumship and paranormality as well as various conspiracy theories.  He seriously believes that he has precognitive dreams in which he can foresee future events.  That is probably the reason for the unscientific predictions that he has been making in recent years (e.g. here), which are an easy target for climate deniers who use extremists like Wadhams to ridiculize the entire climate science community.
The conversation that this comment sparked and this comment mint belong here.

Having said that.

Music isn't good science. Apply the scientific method to the generation of new music and you get crap.  That doesn't mean that music isn't real.  When alchemy was tossed in favor of chemistry a lot of real stuff was tossed with some stuff that wasn't real.

Faith healing. The placebo effect.  Feeling pain when the storms are coming. There is an aspect of weather that isn't in the models. A good faith healer should be able to affect the weather.  Applying the scientific method to weather manipulation by a faith healer won't get meaningful results. But take a look at California's water year. Did it get much wetter starting about the start of February?  Then did it get warmer and stay wet? A four S.D. event followed by an over 5 S.D. event in atmospheric angular momentum. You want an "act of god"  that would be it.

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: April 08, 2018, 01:43:04 AM »
I don't know if YouTube qualifies as social media, but it's going down the drain (I also constantly get recommended videos from corporate media news sources that I hardly ever watch or want to watch):

I've got an idea about how to "fix" this, and make some money tooo!!!!!! Wana talk?

Walking the walk / Re: Is solar thermal heating out of date ?
« on: April 06, 2018, 10:52:11 PM »
How did we go from solar heat to heat pumps, and why?
Milk and cookies.  Some things are more than the sum of their parts.

If you have 25% T.E. and get 4X the heat out of a heat pump that you do out of the mechanical work. You have 75% plus 4 times 25% or 100% for a total of 175% heat in the fuel going into the house.

Now if your house is in a glass box the heat goes from the house into the glass box and back into the house with the heat pump. And you get solar heat as well.

Walking the walk / Re: Is solar thermal heating out of date ?
« on: April 06, 2018, 09:12:33 PM »

Heat pumps are another example of systems that currently are very energy efficient but are still very dollar cost inefficient for heating. They can use 1/4 the input energy compared to natural gas systems but the electricity still costs more than the natural gas ( at least in North America).
Burn natural gas in an ICE and then you could have 200% efficient instead of 95% with combustion alone.

And then there is one more type of efficiency to consider - carbon use efficiency. That's the one driving me to replace my high efficiency natural gas furnace with a ground source heat pump.
One idea I've had is a glass box big enough for your house and an air cycle heat pump moving the heat from the glass box back into the house.

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: April 06, 2018, 07:05:53 PM »
Well, we first need to see whether 2018 is an outlier, and how much longer than normal that snow will linger.
Outlier we had a 4 standard deviation event followed by an over 5SD event in atmospheric angular momentum this winter.  New normal?

My take on how much longer it will linger is not very. If we get on the order of 1.5m of SWE then we can start thinking about year round snow/ice sheet.
I don't know if we can have an ice-free Arctic due to AGW, while at the same time new continental ice sheets start to form. At some point all that extra precipitation starts to fall as rain instead of snow.
High arctic snow 1.5m SWE and we rebuild the continental ice sheet.

I'm interested to see if this is a negative feedback on summer ice melt. Intuition says it will be, but the Arctic has this nasty habit of doing counter-intuitive things.
You said it.

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: April 06, 2018, 06:35:12 PM »
The snow cover is definitely high this year. However, glaciers grow by the net remaining snow cover, the difference between winter snows and summer melt. Temperate glaciers tend to get more snowfall, but also get more summer melt.
Mass gain exceeds mass loss and you grow an ice sheet.

We need more than 1.5m water equivalent in snow fall to grow an ice sheet.  Blue ocean in the arctic mint get that much lake effect snow.

Arctic sea ice / Re: First year PIOMAS volume below 1000km^3 poll 2018
« on: April 03, 2018, 04:17:38 AM »
 You can infer all you like, but at some point, logic has to step in.
Did you really read what you wrote?

Let us try some logic.

Max volume is dropping.

How long can this be kept up?


Run some numbers.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: April 02, 2018, 11:53:23 PM »

Heat from the Pacific and Atlantic current is already being transported into the Arctic Ocean and if the Arctic Ocean were not as protected as it is from warmer waters, I think an all year long BOE could set up very soon but this is not the case.
Part of that protection is the stratification in the arctic ocean. Because of it ice formation doesn't lead to bottom water generation.  Mix up the stratification and have open water then you get bottom water.  Take the surface water and run it down to the bottom more surface water will replace it.  Surface water is on the surface because it has low density.  Cooling it or adding salt makes it denser.  (adding fresh water reduces density)  Overturn the water inside of the CAB and you pull in surface water to replace what was on the surface.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 31, 2018, 11:46:27 PM »
There is a very real possibility IMO that an odd equilibrium will exist where at the height of the freeze season you find large expanses of ice along the shores across the Arctic , with a violent, treacherous, ice filled, stormy, open ocean winter in the center of the CAB. Think Bering Sea but much nastier.
...and that will bring in the heat of the gulf stream.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 29, 2018, 06:12:23 PM »
I see 3/4 very differently, take a look at the currents here water rises off of Africa and whether due to coming from the deep, or from nearer the poles, is moving slower than the Earth, it is driven west. It ends up in the Carribean where it overflows and moves north, the surface speed rapidly changes as the water moves north, but the water still slower hugs the coast, then @350 or thereabouts the waters inertia is faster than surface speed and separates from the coast, flowing east.
 From there its path is determined by the path of least resistance, if there was no net flow from the Arctic either as fresher water coming down through Labrador, or strongly saline falling into the deep, Denmark strait etc., there'd be no physical reason for that water to move north. Despite some metrics to the contrary the evidence of more Gulf waters penetrating deeper into the  Arctic speaks to an accelerated rate of turnover.
I don't think it's useful to make any particular case since so many variables are in play, but I do expect to see a tidal signature emerging and contributing to the destruction of the ice this year, more on the Atlantic side but not confined to it.
A blue ocean event means more heat transfer from the water to the environment.  That means one of two things.  More ice production or more bottom water production.  Accelerated rate of turnover that is what I think will happen.

Bottom water generation in the CAB means the surface water will come from somewhere else. 

Here is where I've been looking.   You've talked about flow separation.  The Gulf Stream separates about @350. If you pull surface water north into the CAB then you should pull the Gulf Stream too.  Boundary layer control.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 Melting Season - Predictions and Speculation
« on: March 29, 2018, 03:21:10 AM »
high pressure over Greenland.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 29, 2018, 02:11:54 AM »


Climate models show that a slow down of the Gulf Stream (actually the Atlantic Meriodonal Overturning Current, or AMOC) is more likely due to global warming.  There's a good summary of it here:
climate models are based on assumptions.  I don't forget 2012 reaching the median prediction for 2100 in sea ice extent.  I am not impressed with models predictive ability.  (I predicted that Katrina would turn and hit New Orleans when they had it hitting Mexico.  The same with the next one.  I said the next one would go straight they said it would turn and it did. I was 2 for 3 they were 1 for 3)

Nice article. 

Has anyone modeled open water in the arctic?

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 28, 2018, 11:25:18 PM »
My assumptions justifying thinking the gulf stream will find its way into the arctic ocean.

1. A BOE will let the stratification of the arctic ocean be disrupted by wave action.

2. when the sun sets and things cool off with the stratification a thing of the past you get bottom water production rather than ice.

3. what drives the currents around Greenland and the CAA currently is the Earth's rotation the warmth coming up from the equator (gulf stream) and the large freshwater input from ice melt and run off.

4. it is the cold reduced salinity run off water plus ocean water surface water current that pushes the gulf stream away from the east coat of north America.

The freshwater mixes with surface water, if that becomes bottom water then the surface water needs to be replaced.  The cold water would sink rather than stay on the surface.  So instead of a current coming out of the arctic ocean past Greenland you would have a current going in instead.

No current pushing the gulf stream east.  So it would go north into the arctic ocean.

With 20C water coming into the arctic basin you could see 20C air temps over the water and storms like there was no tomorrow.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic sea ice minimum early prediction
« on: March 28, 2018, 03:39:55 AM »
In spite of last years embarrassment over not melting very much I'm voting for a lot of melt.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 27, 2018, 02:32:41 AM »

I disagree that an ice-free Arctic in summer will lead to an ice-free winter.  Open water will lose more heat,
I agree with you up to here.
and it will refreeze.
I disagree with you here.  Open water is subject to physical processes that ice covered water isn't.  It is subject to mixing by wave action.  The arctic ocean has a low salinity top layer that limits heat available to reject to the atmosphere.  Mix that layer in with the warmer lower water and there is plenty of heat to keep it from refreezing.
  Additionally, the ice adjacent to the islands will spur further ice growth seaward.
I agree with you.  Butt and this is a big one.  Generate enough bottom water and you reverse the surface flow past Greenland. That would pull the heat from the equator into the arctic ocean.
The cloud albedo is only part of the radiation equation; the clouds themselves will absorb solar radiation and retaliate heat skyward, in the same manner that they absorb terrestrial heat and reradiate earthward.
The gulf stream will melt all the ice that forms next to the islands.  Once ice free it will stay ice free. IMO.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: March 27, 2018, 01:35:21 AM »
The Slater Projection has stalled/died out for whatever reason. Appears to only have a lead of 30 days now rather than 50, no updates for ~20 days.

Anybody know what is going on there?
Can't see what's wrong, seems fine.

When I click your link Oren, I see the lead projection is currently at approx May 1st. Only ~35 days out.
You are correct, missed that.
It may need some maintaining that he is unable to do as he is late.

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 27, 2018, 01:14:32 AM »

We are referring to ice-free at minimum, not maximum.  It will be a very long time (if ever) before the Arctic will be ice-free during the winter.
First.  How long can we sustain the trend of the last four years being the lowest extent at maximum before the minimum reaches zero?  The minimum is a fraction and a function of the maximum.  The relation is complicated and not linear. But if you keep dropping maximum then the minimum should follow.
Second.  There has been some math done on this forum that shows that if you go ice free you stay ice free in the arctic ocean in the winter.  But you can see it in these two photos. The first one is in infrared the second is in visible light.

The cloud tops are cooler (darker) than the ice.  Open water will have less heat loss do to radiation than ice covered water.  It will have a lot more heat loss do to evaporation.  But with mixing from waves and other sources there is plenty of heat there to keep the water open after it goes ice free.

(And with those clouds going from one side of the arctic ocean to the other when they hit a rise on the other side they will drop a fraction of their water as snow. But that is for another thread)

Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 25, 2018, 11:24:32 PM »
  Therefore, making the extraordinary claim of an ice-free Arctic in less than a decade, requires extraordinary evidence to go against the current trend.

The current trend is the four lowest maximum ice volume years are the last four years.

The current trend is ice free very soon.

nice thread. I will read it through and through.  This comment is just so I can find it again.

The last three million years may prove a poor guide, for we are at CO2 levels that have not been seen over that period.

The question is this what is stronger the as yet undefined negative feed back loop or the CO2?  Or the methane that the ESAS is getting ready to release?

If we get more snowfall than snow melt then we rebuild the ice sheets.  Albedo kicks GHG butt every day.
This argument somehow crops up in every possible thread. But we do not get more snowfall than snow melt, it's a myth. If you believe otherwise, please show specific historical evidence of higher snowfall leading to significantly later melt-out date in some location. Best to do so in one of the appropriate threads - NHEM snow cover, or Negative feedback of positive snowfall anomalies.
Ice free arctic ocean.  How much lake effect snow will we get downwind from an ice free arctic?  More than 60 feet and we start to look at rebuilding the north American ice sheet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 Melting Season - Predictions and Speculation
« on: March 22, 2018, 10:28:09 PM »
And if you can move comments here that detract from there then that would make things better.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 Melting Season - Predictions and Speculation
« on: March 22, 2018, 09:39:46 PM »
I predict an impressive melt season.  So how do we get the most melt?  High pressure over Greenland? GAC or two or three? Mid July?  Do we need a GAC now to brake up the ice?  Or put it off for a bit?

The last three million years may prove a poor guide, for we are at CO2 levels that have not been seen over that period.

The question is this what is stronger the as yet undefined negative feed back loop or the CO2?  Or the methane that the ESAS is getting ready to release?

If we get more snowfall than snow melt then we rebuild the ice sheets.  Albedo kicks GHG butt every day.

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: March 22, 2018, 03:13:08 AM »
So will we get 60 feet of snowfall with open water in the Arctic basin each year?

After the first ice free arctic, the winter will be horrible. The atmosphere will be soup relative to the historical levels of the holocene, but the arctic night is a formidable negative forcing. I don't see how temperatures won't drop below freezing, specially after the oceans released all the albedo heat. It might not get cold enough to get much sea ice, but it's going to snow like it never has during the holocene.  I don't know if 60 deep over the whole hemisphere for many months, but it's going to be huge.

But after a few iterations of ice free arctics, snow should be a rare thing.
What I see happening is this.  Ice free.  big wind.  lots of waves.  All the fresh water run off mixed in with salt water to the point that it sinks to the abysmal depths.

This pulls the gulfstream through the CAA and around the west side of Greenland.  Is 60 feet of lake effect snow doable?

Edit: Minus 10c not freezing. Open water gets + 20C warmer forcing.  Right on the edge of freezing over.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: March 22, 2018, 03:06:14 AM »

I don't see a need for more generic bs about butterflies flapping their wings in the Amazon...
Then how about a scientific discussion about rainmaking?

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: March 22, 2018, 02:17:06 AM »

The question we have to ask moving forward is how deep it has to get & how cold it has to stay in Quebec & NE Siberia for cover to last all year... and I think we are very close.
Just how deep does it have to get.  The surface will be at zero C.  If you don't get 100% melt out each year you get a new ice sheet.
The lower reaches of Greenland melt 5 feet of ice a year. At 12 inches of snow for an inch of water. That works out to 60 feet of snowfall.  Less than that will melt out more than that will not.

So will we get 60 feet of snowfall with open water in the Arctic basin each year?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6