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.

Topics - bbr2314

Pages: [1]
The rest / How Many Hours A Day Do You Sleep
« on: December 07, 2018, 07:18:26 AM »

Permafrost / Northern Hemisphere Winter 2018-2019 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: August 17, 2018, 03:06:26 AM »
I am starting a new thread for this since we are at the dawn of a new freezing season, and snows are now falling once more over the highest latitudes.

I think the main question to ask this winter is, will we see a repeat (or worse) of 2017-2018's anomalies? Besides that, if we see anomalies skyrocket as we did in early 2018, will we see a similar result in the spring of 2019 re: all-time historical record cold across many portions of North America (or elsewhere)?

I would like to begin the discussion with a few key observations.

1) The Bering Sea has been ice-free for more than 365 days across most locations. It has been accumulating heat like never before. In fact, much of it may have become entirely ice-free due to the ongoing situation since 2007-2012 and residual accumulations of oceanic heat.

2) The situation in the High Atlantic is similarly perilous. The ATL front has been at its most-withdrawn ever position this year, and we still have a month of melt season to go. How much additional retreat do we see north of Svalbard, and how anemic of a refreeze will we see this year?

3) The situation in the ATL has been, IMO, partially caused and exacerbated by the extremely early melt-out of Scandinavia (which, combined with the late melt out of Quebec, resulted in forcing of +++anomalies over much of Europe this summer). Will this extra heat mean that refreeze in 2018-19 is even more anemic than what we saw in 2017-18? There is also the heat content in the NW NATL S of the cool pool which has been making its way to the NE NATL in spurts. This will continue arriving through winter.

4) The situation this spring and summer have severely worsened the ATL cool pool E of Quebec and S of Greenland.

And now, for questions.

1) Snows are already falling, or will be imminently, over much of the Canadian shield. Will early snowfalls (assuming they are sustained, and I see no reason they wouldn't be given the "stuck" pattern we are in) allow colder airmasses over Quebec/etc earlier in the season than normal? Will this worsen the cool pool as a result?

2) What happens in the High Arctic if we see early continental albedo anomalies this year, combined with residual oceanic +++anomalies in the Bering, Laptev, and Barentz? Will the dislocation of the cryosphere to more northerly mid-latitudes so early on cause even MORE oceanic heat to be advected north, prolonging the melt season for the High Arctic (or at least delaying refreeze)?

3) What years are the best analogy to our current situation, and based on those, what can we expect moving forward?

Interestingly enough, the closest recent match appears to be 2014. It features a nearly identical pattern of anomalies across the NHEM for the first two weeks of August. In fact, the only difference this year is MORE heat over the High Arctic (it has actually been warmer than 2012 as well, though the overall pattern has been WAY different).

I would argue that the similarity may be due to the Laptev opening so early in both summers. This "highest of latitudes" oceanic ++++anomaly may be the driving factor that forces cold to "stay" in North America vs. giving it more leeway (i.e. the traditional jet), and distributing it across the entire NHEM.

If the summer of 2018 is any indicator, we will see even more blocking than we did in 2014-15. ENSO conditions are somewhat similar but the Arctic is even warmer than that year.  But, the patterns are still fairly similar.

If a similar winter to 14-15 is realized, but with more high latitude blocking in the same regions seen that year, we are likely to realize severe negative temperature departures for DJF across most of North America east of the Rockies. Additionally, Western Europe could also be prone to colder weather than 2014-15, as the residual effects of a colder Quebec / etc = cooler cold pool, cooler cold fronts into W Europe from the NATL. It should be noted that the spring of 2015 saw the development of a major El Nino event simultaneous to severe and enduring -springtime anomalies over my favorite Canadian province. Perhaps this portends another strong ENSO event in 2019, and a similar situation to the spring of 2018 over the same regions previously impacted?

This, funny enough, would also follow the pattern set in 2012 (severe melt year), 2013 and 2014 (relative recoveries but cold winters, and 2015 (severe melt year). 2016 was a severe melt year without major ENSO, 2017 and 2018 are both looking like "relative" recoveries in dubious ENSO waters, while 2019 could be our next equivalent to 2015, meaning both 2019 and 2020 could have bad conditions for preserving sea ice.

Thoughts welcome / criticism & contribution of ideas also welcome, please no personal attacks :)

Permafrost / 2018 North America SWE Prediction Thread
« on: April 16, 2018, 05:30:08 AM »
I am creating a new thread. If we can predict SIE/SIA, why not SWE?

I have included the below for my first guess.

The pink dots show where we would be at if the current anomaly vs. normal (about 800KM^3) persists). The pink line is "normal" between the standard deviation curves. The first pink dot is our current position.

The red line is my guess. The green line is when we fall below normal peak SWE of approx 1,100KM^3. I believe this will happen around 5/15 (approximately two months later than normal).

It is worth noting several things --

April melt usually results in a SWE loss of about 500 KM^3. May melt usually results in a loss of 300KM^3. And June takes care of almost all the rest (another 200 KM^3 or so).

This is very interesting for several reasons. Even if we reduce the absolute anomaly, as we move forward, even losing mass as fast as most years will result in a widening RELATIVE anomaly.

Mass loss typically declines due to less snow available to melt. In fact, April usually has more losses than May, simply due to this reason. But even April usually only sees a loss of 500KM^3 (month to date, April has seen an increase, btw. lol)

I anticipate we will see about 100KM^3 of melt in April relative to 4/1. That is 1/5 of normal. But May is likely to be a different story. Even if May is 2X normal, that is only a 600KM^3 loss. 1.5X normal April losses would be a 750KM^3 loss. Something in that range would seem reasonable.

That puts us at about 800KM^3 remaining come 6/1 (IMO). While that is only 600KM^3 more than normal -- a bit less than where we are right now (1,550KM^3 vs. 800KM^3), the RELATIVE difference becomes absolutely jaw dropping. While we are currently at 2X normal volume (or approaching), by 6/1, we are likely to be at 4X normal volume.

In fact, continuing very aggressive melt would still yield 200-250KM^3 left by 7/1! At that point, insolation begins to drop. But how much does it have to drop and how open does the Arctic have to become for gains to start again?

This begets another major question. Snowpack has been shown to have a shielding effect for ice cover. Will a SWE anomaly of 2-4X normal shield Hudson Bay substantially more than normal, creating additional feedbacks as we head deeper into summer?

For this thread's purposes, I think we should have a deadline of 5/1. I may revise my graph by then, to be either prettier, or somewhat different. I welcome others' contributions and look forward to seeing how wrong I am come late summer. :)

In reading various writings, it seems increasingly evident that the French Revolution (1789) was an historical error in an otherwise generally-streamlined track toward authoritarianism.

I suspect this occurred because the large capital outflows from Europe during the eighteenth century were used to fund massive expansion & wars in the new continents. The capital drain ended up resulting in the implosion of all the accumulated wealth back east "the extant order." As this worsened, it ultimately resulted in the "reset" of governmental progress in Europe/Asia as well, as the unrestrained consumerism/capitalism that came with the development of the Americas destroyed the accumulation of resources (i.e. stability) that had been the driving force behind order.

The establishment of the U.S.A. would have possibly been truncated early on in its existence, if not for another major development: the industrial revolution. This occurred almost synchronously with the establishment of the U.S.A. and allowed even MORE growth without limits (railroads, cars, etc).

This was a double-violation of the old order and is responsible for our climate predicament today. LIBERALISM is predicated on the consumers' ability to take whatever they want whenever they want regardless of the impact it has on the planet or society, on the alleged basis that material goods equate to happiness. The plague that started in the U.S.A. spread to France by 1789, and over the next 200 years, reached every corner of the planet.

But, it too had consequences. Unrestrained consumerism without thought to its benefits has destroyed the planet's ecosystem. While limitation of supposed "freedoms" under Absolutism certainly draws criticism, the balance maintained under the system was, actually, far better for the longevity of both humanity and Earth.

This is where the story begins to get interesting once more. By the 1990s, as liberalism infiltrated every corner of the planet, it became increasingly clear that access to material goods does NOT increase happiness. The situation in the U.S.A. for plebeians is essentially no better than it was in ancient Rome, despite  assurances to the contrary (it is a country of obese medicated wage slaves who are driven into the ground by the demands of the labor force. participation is NOT voluntary, in fact, it is slavery by any other name).

I think that this is becoming increasingly evident to the ruling apes across the globe, which is why Absolutism is now making a fast comeback. It seems to have taken hold in the areas touched by liberalism last, that had accumulated enough "order" prior to the discovery of the Americas, and did NOT participate in its exploration/conquest (i.e., China and Russia, though Russia did have Alaska, it was empty).

As we move forward into the twenty-first century, the return of normative order in both China and Russia could be a sign that liberalism is finally running its course as environmental degradation mounts. Intellectually, it is especially vacant; the problems we address on this forum (i.e. AGW and its impacts) are inherently a RESULT of consumerism. When society's minds try to reconcile unbridled future consumerism with "a 2C warming limit," this is, in fact, impossible. The DRIVING force behind liberalism is expansion at any and all costs of the monetary system (i.e. generating more and more HEAT). There is no feasible way this can be accomplished even with massive technological improvements, in a way that 8-10 billion apes will not live like slaves in another 50 years (7 billon are in this state today).

I think we must ask ourselves: does this mean that the end of liberalism is actually a good thing? Are protectionist trade policies that reduce consumption actually bad, when that is explicitly what we should be doing on a planetary basis? And does the concerted effort from China and Russia portend a return to the established order in Europe, and its initial awakening in the United States?

I would look at the unfolding/evolving chaos as an indicator that Absolutism is on the rise. I think this is a direct response to worsening climate change as well (i.e., Japan, Germany, and FDR's unprecedented consolidation of power -- obviously the latter within the bounds of liberalism -- all occurred in the 1930s, the last time the planet was experiencing rapid global warming).

The question then becomes, was the rise of fascism in the 1930s due to an abundance of hatred and misery, or was it a temporary attempt at resetting order to the olden days out of a necessity to reduce consumption? Paradoxically, this makes the actions of Germany/USSR worse than they are viewed contemporaneously, as the genocides/slaughter/Holocaust were not borne out of "inherent evil" (though they certainly were inherently evil), rather, they were consolidations/redistributions of wealth on national scales for the purposes of the state, which is actually even more horrific as it shows *intention* and explains perfectly why ordinary citizens can acquiesce to genocide (if it benefits them, that is all that matters).

I shall expand on this further, wanted to put it out there for discussion because I feel like the existing threads on the topic are missing the forest for the trees...

Science / Was the Medieval Warm Period the Result of AGW?
« on: September 18, 2015, 07:39:28 AM »
It has been difficult/impossible to find anything specific relating to this, but wondering -- could it be possible that the "Medieval Warm Period" was in fact the result/after-effect of peak emissions from the Roman period through the time of Genghis Khan & the Black Death?

Current theory seems to blame solar/other influences but it seems oddly coincidental that the "Little Ice Age" would follow the only widely-established human population decline in the last several thousand years.

Does anyone have any information on Roman-era carbon output? From this account it would seem it got to about where we were in 1750 or so. And while the popular narrative says AGW only began recently, the ongoing extinctions of megafauna/etc would argue that perhaps the impacts of AGW began *far* long ago, and we may actually be able to look at the Medieval Warm Period & ensuing Little Ice Age as an example of what happens when carbon emissions see a relatively rapid rise and decline (although not absolute, the derivative of output surely decreased as societies in Europe/Asia fell apart from ~1250-1500, and importantly, the end of this timeframe is when the Americas genocide occurred).

With industrial output only reaching levels it attained back in 0-200AD in ~1650 or so, that = a cooldown in human GDP output for approximately 400 years... which is perhaps not coincidentally approximately the length of the "little ice age."

IF this is anywhere near valid or true (and it could be completely off-base), then is it possible that the derivative annual change of our carbon addiction is more important to the direction global climate state than its actual figure?

I would think the explanation for this would be that the planet has an extraordinary capacity for absorbing CO2, and as we have seen, we have been surprised by the uptake of the deep oceans/everything else considering how much pollution humans have spewed.

Once industrial output begins to decline/carbon emissions decrease, that leaves the planet with its newfound "infrastructure" of expanded carbon sinks, and then these work to dissolve/distribute the excess CO2 at a pace that then surpasses humanity's inputs. These processes are particularly obvious to us over areas like the North Atlantic, and it could be possible that some variation of AMOC shutdown was responsible for the LIE over Europe as well.

Obviously modern output/sheer volume would potentially induce a sharper reaction both in terms of warming and cooling, assuming the warming does not run out of control. Is this insane or possible?

(this paper also a great read!

Pages: [1]