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 - bbr2314

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37
1
Hey, Bbr, i have never heard you distance yourself from right-wing terrorists. Why is that? Are you a terrorist supporter?

(In case you didn't get what i just said, let me give you a hint: This is what you just did with Ilhan. I want no answer obviously. If you are answering anyway, you only show that you still don't get it which would be pretty embarrassing!)
....what? She literally said 9/11 is not a big deal. You are not worth engaging, my mistake.

2
Now he predicts that Sanders will not be allowed to win the nomination or that he will be killed:

Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Ayanna Presley, Rashida Talib, and Bernie Sanders are the most threatened people in the world right now. There are bulks of nazis out there promising to end them.

Secret service doing nothing of course. Since they are not from the establishment they can be spared...
Ilhan Omar is essentially a terrorist, "some people did something," also she is incredibly corrupt and is f*cking her own brother. AOC helped torpedo Amazon's HQ2 in NYC. Do you really want to back domestic actors whose main targets are opportunities and liberty?

3
Let me also point out that, while I think it probable that hundreds of millions, if not billions, will die of Global Warming in the next hundred years, I have always had a skepticism that I would reach the Beatles 64. First because nuclear war would destroy civilization. Then because the Millennium Bug would destroy civilization (I was a faithful reader of Gary North). Then because Peak Oil would destroy civilization. I have a couple years and change left, and so far I have a perfect score. Zero. A quarter would have an 87.5% chance of doing a better job and couldn't do any worse. But abortion has killed hundreds of millions of babies in my lifetime. I must make my vote on present realities, if necessary (and it is) choosing the lesser evil.
I think it is interesting to consider that bogeymen always exist in western society because of the lack of visible external threats. Humans have evolved to respond to constant threats. So whether they exist or not, we are hardwired to fear the millennium bug, peak oil, etc. Not so much females it seems -- perhaps because they typically were not the ones who dealt with external threats -- but among males, the paranoia is strong, and I am certainly no exception. When the DMI ran away back in 2016, I was convinced the world would be over by now. It is nice to be wrong!

4
You have always had it out for me. IDK why, I have never done anything to you. My "hare-brained" theories are also verifying in the form of massive +SWE departures growing season by season, and record cold temperatures becoming much more common across the "Triangle of Coldness".

I have also kept my posts on this theory confined to wherever it is relevant, specifically, I have stopped posting it in the main forum and taken it to my threads in the snowcover area, where you still harass me. Why don't you just put me on ignore? I can return the favor if you like, I thought we had no beef, but evidently, you still have a bone to pick.
I have NOT always had it out for you, and have no beef with you. I did and do have it out for your glaciation theory, which is not verifying btw (as opposed to massive fall/winter snows which have a good reason).
Here we are again, discussing it in the wrong thread, where I am unable to respond.

Who brought it up? It wasn't me. It was you. So don't blame me. I don't want to fight with you. I am happy to let this go.

5

OTOH, when a poster who has been advancing a hare-brained theory of impending glaciation for years all over the forum - despite lots of evidence and arguments to the contrary posted in the appropriate threads - has finally revealed his hand by claiming nothing should be done about AGW to avoid hastening this impending glaciation, maybe it's time to reconsider the policy of scientific tolerance.

I didn't say nothing should be done, I said, it is possible -- if not probable -- that at this point, our fate is sealed. Crucifying me for this would be like saying Mr. Andrews deserved to die on the Titanic because he said it would be at the bottom of the Atlantic within short order.

I support Bloomberg for many reasons, including his stance on climate change, which I believe to be more robust than any other candidate including Bernie Sanders. That does not mean it will make any difference. You have always had it out for me. IDK why, I have never done anything to you. My "hare-brained" theories are also verifying in the form of massive +SWE departures growing season by season, and record cold temperatures becoming much more common across the "Triangle of Coldness".

I have also kept my posts on this theory confined to wherever it is relevant, specifically, I have stopped posting it in the main forum and taken it to my threads in the snowcover area, where you still harass me. Why don't you just put me on ignore? I can return the favor if you like, I thought we had no beef, but evidently, you still have a bone to pick.

It is especially ironic that a poster who ascribes to the notion of AGW and imminent doom if it is not stopped would buckle at the prospect that, surprise, AGW is producing imminent doom, and a mechanism for said doom is now revealing itself across parts of North America. It's ok to say the world will end due to AGW, it is taboo to say how it will happen or that it will be occurring soon. LOL OK.

I will end with an addendum. I have nowhere else to post my ideas. I have no interest in posting anywhere else, either. There really is no other forum where my ideas can be read or received and discourse can be had on the subject. I am only here in good faith. I participate in all discussion regardless of the season or the subject and do my best to learn. The way you behave towards me is aggressive, it is mean, it is bullying. It is repetitive. It is non-stop. And it is tolerated. Yet I do not insult you, I do not stalk you, I leave you alone completely. Can you please just leave me alone?

6
I think these soundings support the notion that SSWs involve the partial or full collapse of the tropopause. The temperature at the surface, -51F, is only 10-15F warmer than the temperature at 100MB. The stratosphere in this instance appears to extend all the way to the surface. There is no tropopause. !

Will this verify? I don't know. But the models are now honing in on a very MAJOR SSW in the 10-15 day period. And its start is now before D10, in fact, the process of massive upwards heat transport is already underway in the ATL Ocean (IMO) which is preceding the main event up above.


7
Michael Bloomberg is a bigger advocate on climate change than Bernie, IMO. He also has an actual track record on the issue that includes actions, not just words.

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-03-05/our-highest-office-my-deepest-obligation

Quote
Here’s one way I’ll do that. In 2011, following the failure of cap and trade legislation in Congress, I teamed up with the Sierra Club on a campaign called Beyond Coal. By organizing and mobilizing communities affected by the harmful pollution of coal-fired power plants, we have helped close more than half the nation’s plants — 285 out of 530 — and replaced them with cleaner and cheaper energy. That was the single biggest reason the U.S. has been able to reduce its carbon footprint by 11 percent — and cut deaths from coal power plants from 13,000 to 3,000.

Now, I will take the next big steps. First, I will expand my support for the Beyond Coal campaign so that we can retire every single coal-fired power plant over the next 11 years. That’s not a pipe dream. We can do it. And second, I will launch a new, even more ambitious phase of the campaign — Beyond Carbon: a grassroots effort to begin moving America as quickly as possible away from oil and gas and toward a 100 percent clean energy economy.

At the heart of Beyond Carbon is the conviction that, as the science has made clear, every year matters. The idea of a Green New Deal — first suggested by the columnist Tom Friedman more than a decade ago — stands no chance of passage in the Senate over the next two years. But Mother Nature does not wait on our political calendar, and neither can we.

8
I don't understand why people here think Tom is not entitled to his opinion. I may disagree with Tom on this issue but I think he is allowed to have a separate opinion and I can respect his reasoning for this opinion. Screaming at him etc is not going to change his opinion. So let him have his viewpoint!

To get the record straight, Tom is the one proposing for forbidding things, not me. In case you have problems understanding basic logic again.
I did not say you were, but tom is entitled to his viewpoint even if both of us disagree with it 

This entire thread is analogous to an election on the titanic where the primary issue is fixing a leak. In fact the leak is a gaping chasm, it is unfixable, and the ship is going down whether or not an attempt to fix the leak is made.

9
If people are taking AGW seriously and are not angry to some degree or other, they are not really taking AGW seriously.

Maybe at some point I'm going to ban everyone from this forum who I feel doesn't take AGW seriously. Some of them will be right-leaning, others will be left-leaning, because let's face it, denial runs deep, regardless of tribe.

Currently, Sanders is the only option to be the Democratic nominee and president. If he doesn't become both, there is zero hope of improvement for the US and for the world. It has to start somewhere, and this is it, right here, right now. Everything else is just business as usual.

Any American on this forum who takes AGW seriously, has the moral imperative to vote for Sanders. Not doing so, would be unforgivable.

It really is as simple as that.
If reducing aerosols and CO2 results in an acceleration of the +SWE trends across North America (where they are most prominent), Americans would actually have a moral imperative to vote for Trump. I understand this viewpoint is controversial but history demonstrates that the Younger Dryas and other sustained advances in continental SWE have first impacted North America.

Paradoxically, this means we must actually support the agents behind AGW. It is easy for Greta to say America should stop polluting when Eurasia's glacial advance will be decades or centuries behind North America. It is not so easy for North Americans to say "we will sacrifice our continent so that Greta can frolic in meadows somewhere else while we starve and die".

Basically, we are extremely screwed and there is nothing we can really do about it, so blaming it on politicians or believing they can make a difference when we have already unleashed an event in the making that could fall somewhere between the Younger Dryas and the KT impact in terms of global significance, is completely folly. As is this entire thread. LOL. We are screwed and pretending we can do something about it is somewhat worse than acknowledging what may be impending and planning for a societal back-up as everything around us collapses.

10
I don't understand why people here think Tom is not entitled to his opinion. I may disagree with Tom on this issue but I think he is allowed to have a separate opinion and I can respect his reasoning for this opinion. Screaming at him etc is not going to change his opinion. So let him have his viewpoint!

11
I feel like the past few replies only bolster the notion that many on the far left are exceedingly angry (and nothing else), and that they would indeed pick Trump over Bloomberg by virtue of non-participation should Bloomberg win the D nomination. Saying I am the angry one here is the ad hominem attack.

12
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 17, 2019, 08:13:11 PM »
Trends in snow cover data for 1950–2012 in Canada. Upward (downward) pointing triangles indicate Positive (negative) trends. Solid triangles correspond to trends significant at the 5% level. (Vincent et al. 2015).

https://www.ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/past/snow_cover_triangles.jpg

Trends are almost uniformly down during this time frame.

"Snow depth measurements are made daily at Canadian climate stations from manual ruler observation or from automated gauges that continuously measure the distance to the snow surface via ultrasound. Trend analysis of stations with continuous daily snow depth data from 1950-2012 (Figure 2) shows that the duration of snow on the ground has decreased almost everywhere in Canada with the largest decreases in the spring. The average decrease in snow cover over the period was 18 days and was accompanied by decreases in maximum winter snow depths and a shift in the date of peak snow accumulation to earlier in the season. The decrease in the maximum snow depth over southern Canada is being driven by less winter precipitation and a lower fraction of precipitation falling as snow in response to winter warming (Vincent et al. 2015). Satellite monitoring of the total snow covered area of Canada began in the early 1970s and these data confirm the significant reductions in spring snow cover seen at the climate stations."

This is very useful however my whole thesis has been that 2012 was the "apex" of the warmth and we have only seen the snowy trend emerge in force since that year. Or perhaps 2007-2012 was the apex. In any case, this is still wonderful!

13
I think the reaction by some on the left re: Bloomberg shows they actually don't really dislike Trump at all. To say they are the same man is to admit one would not vote for Bloomberg over Trump, or rather, that one has no problem with Trump in the White House over someone who is immensely qualified for the position.

This reveals a deep hatred brewing in the left-wing of American society. It shows that they actually enjoy Trump. They like being angry. They like hating. They like having a lightning rod at which they can scream and bluster.

Removing Trump won't change any of this. They will still bluster and scream and shout. And as the socialists have done elsewhere, they will destroy this country as well, if given permission. It has already begun in places like NYC and California, where anemic participation in local elections has resulted in a crop of illegitimate socialists who could make Stalin blush with their predilection for their way, or the highway. 

B_lumenkraft is not a Democrat, or a liberal. He is an angry, illiterate socialist whose only goal is chaos and misery for all. Because he is an angry, sad human being, everyone else should also be angry and sad. The same can be said for the majority of the far-left Democrats.

This is very sad. But what can I do about it? Educating them won't change anything because they cannot be educated, they are clinically stupid. So I suppose I will simply ignore them. Let them froth and rage. But do not be mistaken -- these people are the very reason Trump was elected, whether they voted for him, or not. They feed on anger, it is their only sustenance. And that is why they would not vote for a dyed-in-the-wool centrist who could restore the policies of the Obama and Clinton eras over Donald Trump. Because they actually don't even dislike Trump. They love him. They love to hate! It is sick. Truly, disgustingly, sick.

14
What's the difference between Bloomberg and Trump politics wise?

I have news for you: None that would possibly make any difference.

So logically, any Bloomberg guy is also a Trump guy.
Bloomberg is a major advocate for action re: climate change, he is also very socially progressive. Bloomberg's legacy in NYC was fantastic.

Comparing the two and saying they are the same belies a deep ignorance and an unreasonable hatred for those who have money, whether they have earned it or not. Bloomberg is a self-made man. He did not get handouts.

If you think Bloomberg and Trump are the same on policy, I suggest you do some cursory Google-ing on Bloomberg's legacy -- I do not have the time or the will to advocate on behalf of a billionaire, but I do believe in his ability to restore the status quo, and I think that if you actually looked into the issues, you would find Bloomberg would be a great asset for the American people.

15
I notice, Bbr, you are talking about money. Wanna talk about politics?

As a Trump guy, do you want this ticket, because is's a losing ticket?
I am not a Trump guy, I am a NOT BERNIE OR WARREN guy, I would vote for Bloomberg in a heartbeat, I don't think I would vote otherwise unless it was against Warren / Bernie.

If you have not been paying attention, politics is money.

16
Bloomberg / Buttigieg is a winning ticket

Bloomberg has the muscle to outspend everyone else by leagues and miles, and while silly Democrats think this won't make a difference, he only had to spend $179 a voter to win his last mayoral election in NYC.

Bloomberg could spend $50 billion on the election and still have 5-10 billion leftover. More reasonably, he could spend $6 billion, outmatching Trump's 2016 spend by 10:1, and probably win handily. I think he could spend as little as $2-3 billion for a win -- the combined Hillary / Trump raise in 2016 was just shy of $2B.

17
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: November 16, 2019, 10:03:14 PM »
After careful deliberation, I have decided that Simon & Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" is actually about nuclear war. A cursory Google-ing of the subject reveals at least (and perhaps, at most) one other person agrees with this analysis.

https://religion101soundofsilenceblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/06/apocalyptic-attitude-simon-and-garfunkels-hidden-message-of-the-end/

I'm not sure if this belongs in the 'good music' thread or the 'human stupidity' thread because each and every analysis apart from the one linked above draw conclusions that are inherently vain (it's about depression, it's about the Vietnam War, it's about ME).

The flash of the neon light is the nuclear war being observed by the narrator. We simultaneously worship the "neon gods" i.e. nuclear power, with said worship only growing stronger in reverence since the song was originally written in 1964.

As the worship worsens and the signs of the prophet on subway walls & tenement halls goes unheeded (the end is nigh), the sound of silence begins to crescendo as global awareness regarding the potential of nuclear war declines. Ultimately the finale is the unleashing of our new Gods upon the entirety (or near-entirety) of the populace.
Quote
When my eyes were stabbed by the flash of a neon light
That split the night
And touched the sound of silence

And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence

They are all dead, though with skulls intact (for those not completely incinerated), the talking without speaking and hearing without listening make perfect sense, since the skeletons are indeed stuck in whatever positions they were last active, "talking" or "hearing" but nevertheless removed of the capacity for speaking and listening. And how could the voices share the songs on the parchment when the voices are now gone?

I think it is very bothersome, but also telling, that the actual meaning of the song is almost entirely lost on the entirety of everyone.

18
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 15, 2019, 11:04:19 PM »
The departures this month (to date) are, I believe, unprecedented. In Chicago, the monthly temp to date is below the all-time coldest November, which is quite a feat considering we are halfway through the warmest part of the month! While we may see some moderation in the second half, a top-5 finish would appear likely.

I think this is directly tied to the increasing precipitation totals in Montana. It is the most notable variable that appears to be correlated with these episodes of frigidity (and derivative of the lack of sea ice way up north). The lack of sea ice in Chukchi / etc sends the jetstream N->S across the Rockies instead of W->E. This results in CA dryness, and a HUGE increase in precipitation for north-facing slopes of the High Rockies east of the Continental Divide.







This is only going to get worse and worse as the sea ice continues to fade. AND, it is going to be coupled with dropping temps in the Great Lakes as it keeps getting worse. We may still see a year or two like 2011-12 in between now and BOE where the reaction fades, but I am now increasingly convinced we are hurtling towards a localized resurgence of the ice age, which will eventually become non-localized.


19
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: November 14, 2019, 04:16:46 AM »
Live in Chicago...it was damn cold Tuesday morning. Broke out my winter down parka earlier than any recent year.
I'm visiting currently and it is frigid omg

20
I change my vote to Bloomberg / Buttigieg

Bloomberg will crush kill destroy the competition if he does actually run


21
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: November 13, 2019, 05:35:08 AM »
LOL

New record-low-maximum of 17F, SMASHING the old record of 28F!


000
SXUS73 KLOT 122302
RERORD

RECORD EVENT REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
502 PM CST TUE NOV 12 2019

...RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE IL...
...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE IL...

A RECORD LOW MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE OF 17 DEGREES WAS SET AT CHICAGO-
OHARE IL TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE PREVIOUS RECORD OF 28 DEGREES SET IN
1995.

IN ADDITION...A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 7 DEGREES (AS OF 4 PM) WAS
SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE IL TODAY. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 8 SET
IN 1986.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 11:42:50 PM »
The Chuckchi sea (and the Bering) can really start the next melt season with the record low volume (again). But it won't be a catastrophe because the CAB still have the pretty thick ice that will mostly survive the melt season.
This is wrong. The Chukchi and Bering are, IMO, directly tied to the freezing season in North America and its duration. If the Chukchi and Bering's volume remains at record lows through the freezing season and into the spring, there is a very good chance winter will not abate until May, or even June, across the most productive food-growing regions on the planet.

We already have a catastrophe unfolding after this year's late start and early finish. If 2020 repeats the same pattern (or worse) there will be major shocks to food prices beyond what is already likely in the pipeline due to this year's harvest.

If the CAB has ice when people start to starve, BOE will be trivial at that point. The impacts are already well underway due to certain regions becoming increasingly ice-free, and we may not even need an ice-free CAB to see catastrophe unfold in the form of spiraling food prices.

Thus years harvest was not a catastrophe.  Corn production is only down about 9% from last year, and still above 2015 levels.  Wheat production was up 4% over 2018.  Food prices are down significantly from the spring scare, which caused more hype than harm.
It was a catastrophe, the data is still processing. There are more crops than corn. We obviously have redundancies but if the weather next year is worse than this one, the impacts will IMO be severe.

https://twitter.com/usda_oce/status/1182694890943275008

We are also free to disagree! :)

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 10:48:00 PM »
The Chuckchi sea (and the Bering) can really start the next melt season with the record low volume (again). But it won't be a catastrophe because the CAB still have the pretty thick ice that will mostly survive the melt season.
This is wrong. The Chukchi and Bering are, IMO, directly tied to the freezing season in North America and its duration. If the Chukchi and Bering's volume remains at record lows through the freezing season and into the spring, there is a very good chance winter will not abate until May, or even June, across the most productive food-growing regions on the planet.

We already have a catastrophe unfolding after this year's late start and early finish. If 2020 repeats the same pattern (or worse) there will be major shocks to food prices beyond what is already likely in the pipeline due to this year's harvest.

If the CAB has ice when people start to starve, BOE will be trivial at that point. The impacts are already well underway due to certain regions becoming increasingly ice-free, and we may not even need an ice-free CAB to see catastrophe unfold in the form of spiraling food prices.

24
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 12, 2019, 10:37:35 AM »
  an early freeze would reduce snowfall in the vicinity by killing lake effect snow .. b.c.
It doesn't eliminate LES, strong winds move ice around and re-open the Lakes until at least Feb / Mar, and even with full 100% coverage this will still happen. It does cut down on LES.

But with the Chukchi now open in all of November and Bering the same for DJF, there is probably enough offset from up north for the difference to be less relevant than it would be otherwise (and this is the primary reason for the supremely FRIGID temps of late, as the +precip / +snowfall in areas that are close to desert is enough to drop their temps dramatically, which translates downwind). This is specifically in reference to the elevated "Triangle of Coldness" between the Northern Rockies, Hudson Bay, and the GL.

By springtime, as the ice begins to melt, I think the flux and extant ice are very much supportive of much more snowfall as a percent of overall precip when the lakes are covered (at least in their vicinity +/- a few hundred miles).

25
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 12, 2019, 08:48:05 AM »
I think there is the best chance we have had for a total refreeze of Lake Michigan this winter. The background conditions are already frigid and the entirety of the lake is now surrounded by anomalously early snowcover (and has been from time to time this season, in fact Chicago has recorded snowfall 4 days so far this month, and this is after O'Hare had the record event in late October).

Conditions are priming Michigan, Superior, and Huron for a very early refreeze, I believe.



This will have major ramifications into springtime and maybe even summertime if it does occur. In 2013-14 the lakes had substantial coverage into April, with remnant ice making it into June in parts of Superior. Any additional headstart on that event could result in substantial comparative mass + coverage gain by springtime. And the later the ice melts in spring, the more it thickens in the meantime as it keeps snowing in the vicinity (generally speaking).

It would really be something to see Michigan freeze over 100% completely, which it never has before (mid-90s max). When a lake freezes completely I wonder if mass gain accelerates as well? IDK just a thought

26
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 12, 2019, 08:40:07 AM »

576
SXUS73 KLOT 120639 CCA
RERORD

RECORD EVENT REPORT...CORRECTED
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
1237 AM CST TUE NOV 12 2019

...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM SNOWFALL SET AND RECORD LOW SET AT CHICAGO-
OHARE IL...

A RECORD SNOWFALL OF 3.4 INCHES WAS SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE IL MONDAY
NOVEMBER 11TH. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 1.9 SET IN 1995.

A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 13 DEGREES WAS SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE IL
MONDAY NOVEMBER 11TH. THIS BREAKS THE OLD RECORD OF 15 DEGREES SET
IN 1950.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 02:28:15 AM »
First ice now appearing on Lake Superior, I think this is exceedingly early.



I anticipate a near-complete refreeze of the Great Lakes this winter, surpassing 2018-19 and comparing to or surpassing 2013-14.

28
...
Is it possible that, with the collapse of the tropospheric polar cell, that the stratosphere could actually reach the surface in places?

Per Wikipedia, the stratosphere drops as low as 20K feet around the poles and northern latitudes.
...
Mt. Everest (aka Sagarmatha or Chomolungma in more local languages - I saw it in person in 1980, standing on a bump on the side of a nearby mountain [at ~5,600 m] overlooking 'base camp') is 8.8 km tall, so the troposphere would have to thin more than half there.  Denali (in Alaska) is almost 6.2 km tall, so the troposphere would have to thin more than 2/3rds there.

But what might happen with climate chaos, I haven't a clue.

Not to nitpick but this is incorrect -- at Denali the tropopause is at 8KM (on occasion), so at 6.2KM, it only needs to drop ~20% to reach the peak.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 10, 2019, 06:08:07 AM »
Rapid refreeze now underway in Hudson Bay, should sustain for the next several days at least.



I think most of Hudson and all of the major Canadian lakes will be frozen by the end of the month, while Chukchi will remain mostly open and Beaufort / Bering too, the discrepancy between the refreeze date in these regions could be the worst on record (normally it would go Chukchi -> Bering / Hudson, not the other way around, and this has big implications for winter in North America IMO, in a snowy way).

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November 2019)
« on: November 10, 2019, 03:03:28 AM »
Volume gain is probably about 3,000 KM^3 at this point. That is low.

Continental snowfall mass gain is now at 750KM^3.

Snow-mass-gain is now approximately 25% of ice gain to date.

The recent average for the date (11/8) is about 500KM^3 of SWE equivalent gain on about 3,200KM^3 of ice volume growth. That is about 16% of ice gain on land, to date, in recent normals.

With SWE gain to date about 50% above normal, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that the balance of seasonal cryospheric growth does not disappear when the ice melts, at least initially -- it switches to the land. We now have 2013, 2014, 2017, 2018, and 2019 illustrating this trend in FORCE.

Ignoring this shift would be like looking at 07, 12, 16, 19, and saying the sea ice isn't dwindling to zero or near zero. It is. But the opposite is happening on land and 2018 was Greenland's first year of no net mass loss since 1972. WHY? The answer is clear. And it is really bad news for civilization. Like 100X worse than ordinary AGW or CC narrative.

31
I have a notion that may be insane but I think it belongs in here with sark's ideas.

Is it possible that, with the collapse of the tropospheric polar cell, that the stratosphere could actually reach the surface in places?

Per Wikipedia, the stratosphere drops as low as 20K feet around the poles and northern latitudes.

IF the tropospheric PV collapses / fragments, why couldn't it be possible that the stratosphere descends to 10K feet (or lower) on occasion in parts of the NHEM? This would result in "holes" in the troposphere where the stratosphere is connected directly to the surface. Perhaps this is part of what SSWs are -- or where they are heading, rather.

This would be quite possible in regions like the northernmost Rockies (the triangle of coldness and further north), as well as the high mountain ranges of Eurasia.

I don't know if I am explaining this well, but I think it would explain why we saw such a sudden drop in Greenland's temperature at the onset of Younger Dryas etc as well. If the polar cell collapses and we have remnant tropospheric PVs, why couldn't it be possible that chunks of the highest elevations then become connected to the stratosphere from time to time during winter -- or even more frequently in other parts of the year?

I have illustrated this below in a series of very poorly produced diagrams. The dark blue lines on the geographic map indicate the areas that could be most prone to stratospheric-surface coupling in instance of complete collapse of the trop polar cell, and the light blue areas would also be prone to impacts due to positioning in between the highly elevated "anchors" for surface-strat-coupling.

Please tell me whether this is insane or if it makes sense -- I suppose I am positing a system where the tropopause is no longer as dominant at the surface at current in future, and where it gives way to stratospheric "intrusions" or holes (massive vortexes) that connect directly with the surface.

This is quite possible IMO because as heights increase and equalize across the North Pole as the sea ice fails completely, there is going to be impetus for massively low heights across the snowbound portions of the highest elevations of the continents (the -500MB anomalies we are now seeing in Siberia and Canada). As the heights keep rising over the Pole, they will keep falling over the highest elevations in these regions. And thus, as tropospheric heights over the Pole equalize with those in mid-latitudes and the tropics to some extent, this results in massive holes ripping open the troposphere atop the highest mountains in the high latitudes, and the stratosphere couples with the surface, producing extreme cold that matches what we see in Greenland's ice records.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 06, 2019, 08:32:17 PM »
Hudson Bay does not illustrate this trend. This year may be a bit slow for the moment but look at 2018 which hit 1980s normals. I think that it is important to separate the seas where we are seeing a stark trend and those where we are not, and of all the peripheral bodies, Okhotsk and Hudson are a definite exception, even if they do have warm-ish moments. Given the extended weather forecast I anticipate a rapid Hudson refreeze, in fact it will likely do so before Chukchi IMO, but on that I could be wrong.

33
This is super far out but it illustrates what Sark is describing perfectly. And while it is super far out I think we will see a look like this by the middle of the month.



Oh, and the US is freaking FRIGID for the duration. The 00z GFS actually shows a major snowstorm in the Southeast, although I don't think it will verify, it is only 5 days out.

I would not be shocked if many locations in Montana etc "the Triangle of Coldness I will not shut up about" record their coldest Novembers on record. What is most disturbing is that there is such a seemingly strong correlation between this unprecedented cold in the NW Rockies and the ice-free conditions in the Bering etc. So what happens in 2025 when it is even worse, and doesn't refreeze at all, and we are piling up snow in these regions from September to May, and then it doesn't melt?



While the above frame is over 10 days out, there are a couple before then that look very similar, mimicking the weather we have seen since September, which I imagine will only get worse.




34
Florida

Eric Blake on Twitter: "#Miami is going to destroy its warmest October on record by at least one full degree. In fact it is warmer than ANY September before 1974, and warmer than the 1971-2000 average for AUGUST. Ridiculous period- come on Fall!”
https://mobile.twitter.com/ericblake12/status/1189669517003304960
Image below.
The growing disparity between locations like Miami and San Diego and those like Fargo and Helena is excellent at illustrating how the focus of the heat is increasingly becoming the oceans, while the middle of the continent is becoming the place where this excess is resolved in the form of higher albedo (rather, the oceanic heat is dissipated / resolved as it is transported onto land as snow, and as it travels atop areas of high albedo).

35
The models are now hunkering down on a period of extremely severe cold across most of North America centered in the "triangle of coldness" through 11/15 and maybe beyond.



Those are sub-0F temps being forecast across Iowa etc. And it is early November! The GFS and EURO are similar with overall picture. In fact the consensus would indicate parts of Montana / ND could be running up to -10C or cooler for November as a whole by the middle of the month.

Temperatures are forecast to remain intermittently above freezing or much above freezing across the Bering / Chukchi through D15 as well.

The out-of-sync nature of where Arctic airmasses should be vs. where they are is (IMO) going to result in a VERY early refreeze of most freshwater lakes in North America (possibly underway already in much of Canada). As we head deeper into November this may result in the gradient with Bering + Chukchi worsening even further, and I would think that will result in a "stuck" pattern worsening for much of the foreseeable future, with the core of the cold anomalies slowly dropping eastward alongside the albedo / snowfall gradient to gradually encompass all of the Midwest and Northeast.

36
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: October 30, 2019, 09:20:46 PM »
I think the Montana / "Triangle of Coldness" I won't shut up about is connected to the situation in SoCal (though not always). The engorged Hadley Cells press against the Rockies and the higher heights result in more topographic influence on sensible weather. In practical terms this results in the jetstream being forced from W->E across North America (on the west coast) to N->S.

The jet has shifted to N->S many times throughout history, however, it has never done so in recorded history on an extremely extended basis. The instances where this occurs for a long period result in severely cold temperatures in the Lower 48, like literally the coldest weather the States have ever seen, as the heart of the anomalies partially reside in the area of coldest ordinary temperatures.

The same phenomenon is responsible for the summertime desertification of California. When the jet shifts from W->E to N->S, precip that would normally deposit over the SW Rockies instead falls over the NW Rockies and Highest Plains. This feedback will worsen further as open water in the Arctic continues to increase on a seasonal basis.

Besides the fact that the shift in the jet deposits snow/rain over the Rockies of Montana and the plains of the Dakotas instead of California, the severe cold that accompanies the airmasses drifting down from the Arctic into Montana et al also sometimes descends on SoCal from the N / NE. This has been the case for both of the wind events of recent (previous and ongoing) as well as the events of 2017 and 2018.


38
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: October 26, 2019, 03:21:43 AM »
It is worth noting there were no "destructive" wildfires between 2008 and 2015. In 2017 there were five, in 2018 there were three. There haven't been any yet in 2019.

The below are the 500MB composite anomaly patterns for 10/7-8/2017, and 11/7-8/2018. The last image is the EURO's 72 hour forecast. The similarity with last year's 500MB look at the time of the Paradise and Woolsey Fires is uncanny. It is also a close match to the October 2017 event.

In 2017, almost 10,000 structures burned by the end of the year. In 2018, almost 20,000 burned. If those are at all analogous to what's impending in the next 72 hours, we are about to see a very bad situation unfold in California.


39
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: October 26, 2019, 03:02:02 AM »
I am extremely concerned about the upcoming period of high winds. Both 2017 and 2018 saw extensive devastating wildfires occurring during similar events. In 2017 much of Santa Rosa and Napa Valley burned, in 2018, Paradise burned to the ground, and much of Ventura County also caught fire. I would imagine we will see at least one major firestorm in Northern CA, possibly alongside one in Southern CA as well.

40
October is ending with quite a bang

Also note the correlation between the worst-ever pinks over the Chukchi etc this year and the worst-ever purples now occurring over the "Triangle of Coldness" on REPEAT this autumn.







I think the GFS is wrong in the delay between the second cold shot ^ and the worst one at the end of its run. The CMC maintains the cold more steadily and I think it is correct. But I think that also lends credence to the notion that these shots of cold are still worsening and so there will be some ridiculous -20F or greater departures across parts of the High Plains by early November as depicted by the most recent GFS in the very extended range.







41
There are a couple counties out west where this is now the case for 2019 (coldest max temps ever for rolling period yr to date)

It should also be noted that February 2019 sticks out like a sore thumb. The only months that came near it previously across the High Plains were February of 1936 and March of 1843, apparently.

The area of the negative departures (up to 30F this February) was coupled with what are some of the coldest areas naturally occurring in the Lower 48 resulting in particularly exceptional temperatures. Like, not seen since 1936.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281979%29107%3C1688%3ATETAOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2

I think 2019-20 will repeat these conditions but the core of the anomalies will be farther east, over the Dakotas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan / Ontario. That could result in the worst anomalies being situated much closer to population centers.

42
Who needs crops!



Hopefully not us

43
The polar cell has not disappeared, it has failed in its old form, and your maps scale is insufficiently specific to capture this change.

Here is the annual temp map for the US since 2016. We evidently go through cascading snowfall cycles that last multiple years (2011-2012 (WARM)->2012-2013 (transitioning to cold)->2013-2014 (COLD centered in Midwest / Rockies)->2014-2015 (COLD centered in Great Lakes) / reset (Super Nino, WARM winter 2015-2016). 2016->2019 is below.



We are probably going to see another reset or two before the BOE occurs. Until that point, there will not be enough +OHC in the Arctic to result in substantial year-round snowcover outside of Greenland, so the reaction will continue running out of steam (although its severity is likely to continue increasing). But by 2031? With a BOE? Maybe it won't run out of steam.

It is interesting to note the sheer decline in annual temps since 2016 across the High Plains. Splotches of South Dakota were 50F for a 365-day average around this date in 2016. In 2019, they are under 40F for the last full-year period -- that is a HUGE shift! There is a huge swath of the northern plains that has colder temps than most of the highest Rockies did in 2016.

44
The data is not yet apparent because the damage is still being done and has not been fully assessed, as sark's posts confirm. Also from the same account -- the soybean yield decrease this year is actually unprecedented.

It should be noted that it took about 2-4 years for the full impacts of the 2007 yield crisis to reverberate across the world. This was when Syria and Libya both collapsed, as did Egypt temporarily. What happens this go-round, especially if 2020 is worse than 2019?

Wyoming is clearly not going to become like Texas, in fact, Yellowstone's anomalies this year may be the coldest in the recent satellite record (no offense, sark). I believe Wyoming is at the center of the ongoing / worsening "cold pole" developing in tandem with the strengthening NAM remnant vortex.

It should be noted that lack of precipitation is the controlling factor for many areas of Greenland that do not have snow, as opposed to warm temps. I actually think this is also true in the High Rockies. Precipitation this year is 50-100% above normal (or higher) and much of that departure has come in the form of snowfall, and that is why we are now seeing yearly temps up to -6F over the Dakotas -- anomalies that could worsen further by December!

Yearly max temps up to 8F below normal is literally unprecedented in the modern record for the US (at least as far as I know). What happens if 10F, then 15F are around the corner? If winter expands further into May and June and September and October in these regions in the near future, which it is already showing signs of doing, we will hit those numbers very easily and in very short order. And by that point July and August will be next, and they will fall very quickly (IMO) and in tandem with the BOE (2031?).

While a Wyoming-to-Texas climate scenario is certainly possible, the increasing amount of moisture available at all times of year is (IMO) going to result in the snow line beginning to encompass much of the higher Rockies all year round. And this occurring already is why we are now seeing these ridiculous anomalies and failing crops.

45
Textbook!


46
Looks like GFS has backed off the snow in Ireland which is not too surprising. According to Rutgers we are now way above normal again. I suspect this will be reflected in Canuck extent imminently but it should be noted that despite the temporary extent drop we did see, SWE remained above +1SD in both Eurasia and NAmerica.


47
I think November is going to be cold for the Lower 48.

Across the pond, the GFS is now showing snow across much of Ireland in 4-5 days.



I believe such an event for Ireland would be unprecedented at this time of year, snow is rare enough there in general.


48
To date, in modern human history (and since 11,000 years ago), the annual snow engine has been idle enough to AVOID glacial expansion under the moribund equilibrium. Turning the Arctic Ocean ice-free will change that. When the land becomes the primary area of "cryospheric battery" for which the atmosphere gets more bang for its buck, I think it is possible we see primary annual ice-mass gain transfer from the ocean to the land, a process that is already underway. This eliminates the impact of warm Arctic waters on albedo, as well (from a net perspective, a la Daisyworld, and the system will indeed optimize for efficiency in this case as well)

I don't disagree with the overall picture expressed in this post, but I'm not sure there's enough time for a meaningful glacial expansion.  The Younger Dryas example is very interesting, but crucially, this occurred at a time when global temps were lower.  Now we are on this trajectory headed higher than even the conditions of the Eemian.

There will certainly be extremes of snow extending further out of the NHEM winter season.  I tend to think of it as the system fighting back, a negative feedback to global warming.  This is a system at the breaking point.  The incredible stability of the past 10,000 years of weather gives some indication that it is hard to break.  This also suggests that once broken, it will be very hard to get back.
I think the problem is that as the state-shift occurs the dual vortices are going to get much stronger. Winter is going to start earlier and last later for certain regions.

But what happens when we hit BOE and the re-icing is minimal? Like, 1M KM^2 minimum, on October 1st, with only 3-4M KM^2 in extent by New Years? At that point volume is going to barely recover.

But you know what will be taking up the slack? The snowfall on the continents. In fact the warmer the Arctic gets while Greenland is extant, the more snow will fall. We have melted .1% of Greenland since 2000. .1%!!!! In 20 years!!!! We are not getting to 10% let alone 5%, IMO.

The yearly anomalies for 2019 are going to be the most extreme since the 1970s or earlier across the United States. Parts of the Dakotas and Montana are going to finish -3/-4C for the YEAR. ! The highest maximums on the positive side are now substantially less relatively impressive than the colder minimums on the negative side. And that is with only .1% of Greenland gone!

What is going to happen next? The continental snowfall increase is going to start worsening exponentially as more and more open water persists each year. We are going to hit an annual max of 5,000 KM^3, then 6,000, then 7,000, then 10,000KM^3.

Around that point the annual cryospheric mass balance will probably shift to snow versus sea ice and we will see the first year with snow persisting in the higher elevations of North America through summer. That same summer could very well be the BOE up north. From that point the residual snowpack across the continents has an expanded baseline to grow on during summertime, through solstice, and it begins increasing exponentially in depth and water content. By the third or fourth year as the snows have spread, May, June, July, and August become the prime time for snowfall accumulation in the glacial zone, with the contrast between the GHG-enhanced oceanic warming and the albedo-cooled continental interior sufficient to result in quasi-permanent mega-storms in the flux regions of the -500MB vortices over Hudson Bay and the Kara (this is how Hansen's mega-storms occurred).

I think it is important to note that while each autumn will revert to the dual-vortex state mentioned by sark, without the sea ice, momentum is (IMO) on North America's side by springtime due to its positioning near Greenland, especially as sea ice dwindles further near Eurasia. If Hudson Bay becomes a bastion of MYI, which it will if snow begins building across North America's higher elevations, the Kara vortex will collapse by April or May as Eurasia is overwhelmed by the raw impact of continental heatwaves (since CO2 is still 420ppm or at that point, 435ppm or whatever).

The North American vortex will persist through the summer until a new Eurasian vortex again appears in the fall. So Eurasia becomes the focus of massive summertime heatwaves and an extension of major positive height anomalies while the opposite occurs in North America (much of Eurasia will eventually follow into perpetual winter as the NAmerican pack expands dramatically each year but it will take some time since concurrent with North America's cooling, there is a decent chance that through all of this the Arctic Ocean will STILL BE WARMING).

The coupling of the vortex, snowfall, sea ice, and residual ice sheet (Greenland) is likely to result in a much earlier "winter" for North America than Eurasia, and this event sequence is also confirmed by the staggering of the arrival of previous cold periods per geological records (it generally goes North America -> NW Europe -> Eurasia -> East Asia). So while the two vortices we are seeing form are quite interesting, I think the North American vortex is the more anomalous, and will eventually become more dominant on an inter-annual basis, at least for a few decades.

49
There are clearly many issues with the publication, but I like the conceptualization of ice sheets as a disease, or rather, as an organism. I think that is actually a sensible way of looking at things if Daisy  World is of real value (which it is). The ice sheet is not literally a living entity. But it helps in realizing why it spreads or retreats.



The models are trending very cold in the mid to long range across North America. These anomalies result in actual temps of something like -20F up at Yellowstone. While they are used to early winters, I think this year could be the worst start in quite some time.

Even before ^ output, the forecast is decidedly frigid. It is only mid-October.

50
I feel like there used to be one spinning top (the Polar Cell). Now we have multiple spinning tops. The switch from one spinning top to multiple spinning tops initially results in chaotic locations for the new vortices (tropospheric polar vortices, as distinguished from the traditional polar cell), but over time, as the old primary polar cell dwindles further and further (because it isn't entirely dead yet), the new cells are gaining much more continuity.

By the time the transition is complete, I wonder if we will have relatively stable multiple secondary vortices. In sync with no main polar cell at all. This would actually make quite a bit of sense if continental snowcover keeps increasing as sea ice heads towards 0.

If sea ice is under 1M KM^2 and there is something like 10-15M KM^2 of continental extent (or greater), and this is a scenario that is very possible in a very short order (relatively speaking -- like, maybe 10 years away, at most probably 15), the failure of the sea ice is going to put a wall of extreme +500MB anomalies across almost all of the Arctic Ocean. At that point we will have two (or more) vortices across North America / Greenland and Eurasia. Instead of the old weather we are used to, there will be relatively steady -500MB blobs focused in the continents, continually advecting cold blasts over the oceans, and ensuing oceanic heat up into the Arctic.

As long as Greenland is extant, we have at least one cold air source as potent as Antarctica remaining in the NHEM (although it is far smaller aerially). The higher the temps in the Arctic go, the more efficient the continental snow engine will become, and the more steady the pattern will also become, because Greenland is barely melting even with +1.5C of warming vs 100 years ago (or whatever we are at).

To date, in modern human history (and since 11,000 years ago), the annual snow engine has been idle enough to AVOID glacial expansion under the moribund equilibrium. Turning the Arctic Ocean ice-free will change that. When the land becomes the primary area of "cryospheric battery" for which the atmosphere gets more bang for its buck, I think it is possible we see primary annual ice-mass gain transfer from the ocean to the land, a process that is already underway. This eliminates the impact of warm Arctic waters on albedo, as well (from a net perspective, a la Daisyworld, and the system will indeed optimize for efficiency in this case as well)

The shifts in the atmosphere in recent years, as posted by Sark, illustrate this explicitly.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 37