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 - Hyperion

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / SMOS
« on: June 30, 2018, 10:32:55 AM »
Actually this thread was started by Neven. I can't accept the credit.  8)

Here's how the CMOS microwave maps look for the past 40 days.

Downloaded from:
There is a definite trend from beige to other colours: dry -> wet

I played around a bit with those SMOS images.  I wrote a script to download the daily SMOS images for June 2010-2018 and to count the number of beige pixels in each image:

Average for the first 28 days of June:

(For what it's worth...)
Great effort Steve. But let's make sure we remember that we are/have transitioned to a predominantly bottom melt regime, rather than the meltpond surface melt regime historically. The salinity gradient and porosity of the young ice combined with the disintegrating pycnocline and more mobile ice and turbulent ocean surface mean, paradoxically that SMOS thin ice thickness maps are mostly more accurate than the were in past years where melt ponding was the norm for melt initiation. And therefore less beige Pixels were present due to melt ponds eliminating them. I love SMOS for its raw data feeds unmuddied by fiddling due to preconceived opinions of what should be presented, and what not. But the beige cutoff at levels where the error gets high, and the preemptive statement that the thickness scale should be ignored during melt season due to melt ponding making it inaccurate makes inter year comparison in a fast changing Arctic difficult.
The previous years in your chart continuing a steep descent while 2017, and more so this year not, most probably speaks more about less melt ponding and more bottom melt rather than any kind of slowdown.

A few proposals for remediation and recovery I have been working on over the last few years. Lets discuss. To my mind some hope, however tenuous is better for the soul than scrabbling for reasons to rejoice in, avoid thinking about, or even resign oneself to Calamity.

Lets start with one I was working on a couple of years ago to tame beasts like the ESAS amongst a whole emergent ZOO this approach now seems screaming for.

Kelp Farming and Ice dyking for habitat enhancement and negative Carbon fuels and chemical production.

A purpose built craft like this Ground effect plane / hovercraft triphibian concept could be ideal.  The laterally rigid sideskirts with vertically flexable surface contouring  ski bottoms would allow transitions between air, water ,ice, snow, earth surfaces of all types and the waterscoop tail could directly hose the water onto the ice with foil effect to counter lateral reaction thrust.

 Snow making, firefighting, and ecology seeding also in its functionality.

At pumping of 10tons per second, 50m x 100m/s = 5000sqm,  10000kg/5000sqm = 2 kg per sqm per pass. About 2mm per pass.

If we assume conditions that will allow 2 mm to freeze in 30 seconds then 4mm per minute = 240mm per hour = 5760mm (near 6m thick) per day could be made of 50m wide by 100m/s x 30s = 3km long  of icedyke by a mobile spray vehicle at 100m/s.

3000m x 6m x 50m = 900 000 tons per day of ice making.

A fleet of 50 working for 100 days therefore could make 5000 x 900 000 = 45 000 000 000 tons or near 5 cubic kilometers of ice.

if we are looking at an average needed to ground them of say 30m thick then 50m wide is cross section area of 1500 sqm.

5 000 000 000 cubic m / 1500 sqm =  3.33333 million meters or 3333 km.
Ball park figure of 1000kw vehicle power My estimates deem adequate to do this.

Very likely a rope mesh reinforcement would need to be floated on the water and anchored in place to hold together the dyke been formed. Doing this work in polynyas seems the best way, then towing into position of sections to be anchored and further thickened.
If 100 such vehicles were used you've got near seven thousand km of icedyke which could be enough for such a layout as this below.

For methane plume hotspots to the surface hexagonal tiles would need to be formed and towed into place if they are too rich for ice to form inside the rings in situ.

Stationary pumping systems might have too high costs per area in most places with limits of small volumes per pump plausible due to area feasible to distribute the water to, and ice layup rates. Though in saying this high cost is often seen  as a benefit for commercial interests. They can make more money doing it the hard way.

The purposes of kelp farming in the less methane emissive areas is as follows:
  • Biomass for biofuels and biochemicals of around 500 ton per hectare per year can be harvested.
    The growing kelp oxygenates the water to support consumers of methane and riverine fluxes of organic carbon.
    The artificial kelp forests provide habitat and food for a diverse and rich ecology of which fisheries and abalone/ mussel/ crabs / lobster etc farming potential.
    Unlike micro algaes the kelp biomass is easily harvested and so does not rot and anoxify the water at the end of summer.
    sedimentation rates and water clarity are vastly improved by the kelp forests, thereby improving albedo and enhancing natural carbon burial in sediments.
    Simple and low cost infrastructure only is neccessary to process the kelp locally into liquids fror low transport costs to refinaries for further upgrading.
    It would be easy to use the CO from an initial  biomass pyrolysis to convert methane collected nearby to methanol for easy low cost transportation.
    Combining these systems would allow zero carbon emmission liquid fuels via the energy component of the fossil methane and biomass being used as hydrogen and the carbon turned into biochar and hi performance bioglues and recyclable polymers, allowing further longterm  C sequestration by wood, biofibre etc component for  construction materials, also replacing high C emmission steel, concrete etc.
Aaron Franklin.

This is known to be of utmost importance. If the lower salinity lens on the surface is mixed away or exported, then there is much too much thermal energy in the Atlantic and Pacific warmer, saltier layers beneath for the central Arctic Basin to refreeze in winter. Data is scarce due to only one drift buoy still active this year.

Woods ITP97 has for nearly 500 days been transiting from near Bering towards the CAA across some of the deepest parts of the basin.

The Temperature and Salinity plots show some interesting incontinuities that seem to suggest to me areas of surface/depth mixing, where the Halocline has ruptured.

Perhaps even better illustrated by the Dissolved Oxygen plot.

The Copernicus salinity models are obviously not as fine a resolution as what the Buoys are measuring. The 5m Salinity fronts actually do not appear to have changed much 2012-2017. But the Thickness of the surface mixed zone appears to be increasing throughout the basin.
hope these animate if you click them. 1 colour bar is 25m on the Thickness plot so we have the CAB gone from less than 25m surface mixed layer to up around 75m in five years it seems:

Pages: [1]