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 - Tommy

Pages: [1] 2
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 08:49:12 PM »
<snip>

<Tommy, this is off-topic. The topic is 'The 2015 melting season'. Everything is connected in the universe. That doesn't mean we can dump everything in one single thread on a forum, especially if all the other persons want to know about what's happening NOW, and not read verbose comments about some theory. You can open a separate thread in this Arctic Sea Ice category to discuss your theory; Neven>

----

Second edit: Tommy has re-modified his comment twice, undoing my edits, and so I've decided that it's better he finds another forum to hijack. Apologies for letting this go on for as long as it did.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 06:05:05 PM »
Quote
The IPCC lowered the range of climate sensitivity from 2 -4.5 C down to 1.5-4.5 C in their last assessment. Over 95 percent of climate models have overestimated the warming trend since 1979. It has become increasingly clear that the climate is less sensitive then originally projected.
-- weatherdude88

Oh good. Thanks.
That's reassuring.
Tommy.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:40:35 PM »
PS. There is a very strong chance that I will be kayaking on the Beaufort next July, and taking video of the ice, and try to get to some of that "Tommy's Gap", so stay tuned.
Tommy

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:03:40 PM »
53.
You?

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 04:59:21 PM »
Addendum.
I have to post this because some scientists and many wannabee scientists are very incapable of reason, and simply attack, trying to use straw-man arguments.
So, for that reason, I am forced to say more than the average person.You force me into that. Do not delete any of my posts please, They are based in reason. This is the only one not about the Arctic, but I was forced into this. Please do not delete it.
If anyone thinks I am anti-science because I think many scientists can't see the big picture in life, due to limited education (linear thinking), I am a WAY WAY bigger defender of science than most of you are.
Here is me, sticking it to Mike Huckabee, (a very powerful, influential anti-science fundamentalist christian in America, and climate-change denying cheer-leader ) -- SMACK. Right in the face, when he was  Presidential candidate in 2010. (If you are American, you know who Mike Huckabee is)
At about 41 minutes 45 seconds (you can just click on the gray-red bar to that part), you can hear me nail Mike Huckabee like he has never been whacked before. It is like a huge smackdown of his anti-science agenda, that he has never experienced before, and he is noticeably shaken by it. And then he just lies in his answer, as more recent statements have shown.
I am one of the BIGGEST defender of science here:
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2010/08/11/politics-punditry-with-mike-huckabee

That program goes out nationally in the USA, and has a HUGE audience.
Let me know when any of you have defended science, and defended climate-science as I did in that clip, in front of a massive national audience.

I encourage people to read my posts more carefully. If you don't have time, ignore them, but don't just claim I am clutterling the thread, when 90% of what I say in those posts have to do with PUBLISHED SCIENCE ABOUT THE ARCTIC, in response to people's comments about the Arctic, or questions.... if you took the time to read them, instead of taking tiny aspects out of context, and re-posting them.

Tommy

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 04:53:21 PM »
Quote
seaicesailor
Tommy
It is very depressing for an artist, because studies show that we have more empathy.
And it is very depressing for me. :(

Quote
WTF!
You are cluttering this thread, with idiotic comments like this

Wow, a science denier.
Go back and read my posts, all with references to studies. Stop denying science. OBVIOUSLY that was just tiny part of that post, and you are just using it to try to create a straw-man argument.
Posting every post, of which 90% of each post is about the Arctic, is not "cluttering".

The fact is that I HAVE to explain things to you lot, in detail, because scientists have poor comprehension overall as shown in published studies (see above), and worse, wannabee sceintists tend to nit-pick on one little thing to try to discredit a whole post or a person ... which you just did, instead of dealing with the over-whelming Arctic-related content of the post.
Quite frankly it is disgusting, and you should apologize for trying to nit-pick to try to discredit everything else I said --- which have studies attached to them, unlike you.
You can't handle the facts I posted, that's WHY you just said what you did, you want to skirt around it all, and make yourself look intelligent. It's not working for you.
Now, go back and read all my posts, and try to deal with facts, not your anger and emotions.
Thanks
Tommy


7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 03:42:09 PM »
Quote
Nick_Naylor
One problem with thickness and volume data is that good near-real-time data just isn't available.
We don't have a lot of confidence in the DMI modeled data, and we'll soon have similar data from PIOMAS, which may show a very different picture. With imperfect data, we need to consider all the data sources and attempt to reconcile them if we want to avoid emulating Fox.
Very true. But the majority of recent studies on all things climate-change, have shown a 'worse-than-predicted-scenario' (that may not even show up in initial daily/monthly measuring, but will show up in more in-depth research 6 months from now). Therefore, if one took all the studies on different aspects of climate-change in the last 10 years say, and did a content analysis, I predict that one over-riding theme would be that scientists consistently are shocked that the negative effects of climate change are happening faster than they previously predicted. My fear is that such a study would produce an exponential line. That is, it would show that the understanding of the seriousness of problems, gets exponentially worse over time. (I don't want to be depressing about climate, but studies show artists do have more gray matter, better critical-thinking, broader comprehension, so we see things before they happen :) )
Such a content-analysis will, I fear, produce proof that climate-science periodically demonstrated most things are worse than was previously predicted.
So, based on this scenario, unfortunately, the lower levels being stated are likely closer to reality.
Therefore, I have to conclude, based on good logic, sound reasoning, and objective observation, that there is a high statistical chance that volume and thickness are worse than being predicted right now.

Quote
Another thing to keep in mind is that extent and area do matter quite a lot, since those metrics more directly reflect the ice pack's ability to perform its historic role in regulating the arctic's temperature, halocline, and weather regimes at a point in time.
I understand. But one thing people in this discussion have failed to understand about alot of what I have said (eg. Pacific Blob warming surface Arctic), is that those previous conditions upon which the models are based ... have changed. Even since 2012. For example, the differential between Pacific, Arctic, and Antarctic, has probably lessened since then, based on the data, thus ocean currents will have changed, probably weakened. Ice thickness has probably lessened in the last few years (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/arctic-sea-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster-than-expected)
And, taking all this into account, where water circulation has weakened, there is a 90% chance that the halocine, etc. have weakened over  time.

I seriously hope I am wrong about all of this, and the other posts I made.
It is very depressing for an artist, because studies show that we have more empathy.
And it is very depressing for me. :(

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 02:54:35 PM »
Quote
stackmaster
..as a noob to posting here and a blue collar guy-i build elevators for a living-it seems to me that you might be missing a couple things about fresh water in the arctic. 
What I see is the melting sea ice and snow from greenland creates fresher, lighter water.  I agree with you there.
However, there is a difference between that and river water and that difference is temperature.  River water melts ice because it's warm, not because it's fresh.
I think the jury is still out on this one. I doubt anyone can say with certainty.
And I agree, I was one of the first people I ever heard say that the extra ice area recently seen in Antarctica (that many conservatives were parading as proof there was no global warming ) that, in fact, it is evidence OF of global warming. The ice likely melts off the Antarctic and spreads out across the surface, and in a cold snap will freeze quickly, because fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than salt water (but fresh water on the surface, when the weather is ABOVE freezing, melts ice, especially if there is alien particulate matter in the ice.)

However, in the case of Greenland, it could be different from the Antarctic.
Mad scientists want to seed the ocean with iron (and the sky with chemicals). Iron could increase algae blooms, create a huge carbon sink, since they absorb CO2, die, and take it to the bottom of the ocean -- is the theory:
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

However, algae also is implicated in more heat in the oceans:
"“More heat is trapped in the upper layers of the ocean, where it can be easily released back into the atmosphere,” Park said...
http://www.climatecentral.org/news/algae-accelerate-arctic-warming-18929

And to wrap those points together... iron is one of the major particulate deposits in Greenland ice. Ok, it may not float to the Arctic ice pack, but it could warm the waters all around the ice-pack:
"Measurements of the amount of available iron in meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet shows that extensive melting of the ice sheet might add an amount of iron to the Atlantic Ocean equivalent to that added by airborne dust."
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Iron_Glaciers

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 02:34:08 PM »
Quote
Nick_Naylor
In spite of the 'hiatus' in area/extent losses the last few days, DMI continues to show impressive volume loss rates.

Yes. Extent is not worth looking at. I think the the only thing worth looking at are volume and ice thickness. Once ALL the ice is gone (god forbid) , there could quite possibly be a very wide area of thin ice appear from time to time in early Spring, early winter, and I suppose it could theoretically cover a very wide area. Fox News will jump on on that news (in between their oxycontin hits) and shout that there is no global warming!

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 05:28:05 AM »
Quote
Are the smoke particles making their way to the north pole?
-- cesium62
I said the Arctic, not the North Pole. The North Pole is a tiny spot in the Eastern Arctic. I don't know if the smoke reached that tiny spot.
http://robertscribbler.com/2015/07/13/wildfire-smoke-over-north-pole-web-cam-shows-melt-ponds-beneath-dark-haze/

Also:
"BB burning not only directly releases greenhouse gas emissions, often from carbon pools that have been stored for centuries, but also these emissions can be transported long distances [18-22] and strongly feedback to the atmosphere and climate systems, the extent to which is currently being realized. Significant quantities of BB emissions were recently and unexpectedly discovered in the Arctic spring during a field campaign designed to investigate Arctic haze, and these BB emissions, specifically black carbon, have implications for the sensitive early-season ice, snow and cloud albedo feedbacks in Arctic"
http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/conference/ei20/session7/asoja.pdf

Quote
Are they staying on top of the ice or are they being flushed out by some process?
-- cesium62 
Do dark particles melt snow and ice?
http://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2180.epdf?referrer_access_token=GntY8wyhry92LOLYb65ArdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M9PGwIyKjSmktz08GZvRoPeVTEjKfMKXWRWpogNrpZG_BiBcmn1apzF8Nwqa3De99-IWVHJlLZH1gE1k7OPDRaiHiT8YBhDMZWuzIAiqrEeEvrqjZNg8bJhivgNT4Oh3HgSThqmiHhVGkDumJgjwIku4kwnwZ1lpFxKf2zKOi1j1L250y2QrirwFkZD6FxDdomxNrYNnuC3ukIxXuuScCv&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

See photo below.
Taken this year in the Beaufort.

Quote
Cesium62
So, fresh water and salt water can't mix?  So the Arctic ocean is all fresh water?  How many meters of fresh water lie on top of the salt water in the Arctic ocean?  Currents can't carry fresh water away from the Fresh water freezes more quickly and melts later.  That would increase the length of the freezing system and be a negative feedback.
Perhaps.
But if you think Greenland water is too cold (which the longer it sits on land, the warmer it will be)
"Measurements of the amount of available iron in meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet shows that extensive melting of the ice sheet might add an amount of iron to the Atlantic Ocean equivalent to that added by airborne dust."
http://www.whoi.edu/news-release/Iron_Glaciers

And since Greenland is warming, more  and more water will be warmed before it gets to the ocean (like any river or pond):
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4067

The jury is still out on this one though.

Quote
Fresh water freezes more quickly and melts later.  That would increase the length of the freezing system.
-- cesium62
Freezes only temporarily, or very late in the season, and only at the very surface. It is not significant. Fresh water ABOVE freezing temps. will melt sea ice, especially if the sea ice has alien particulate matter in it.

Quote
Should we abandon peer review as a plank of science and just go with what everyone knows?
-- cesium62
No, you should go find some peer-reviewed science that refutes what almost every climate-change scientist says, and is common knowledge to every schoolkid today. It's like asking for studies on wether the Earth is round or not. Ridiculous.

What you will need to prove, to counter the overwhelming body of scientists are:
1. Soot does not reduce albedo.
2. Smoke from wildfires does not float over the Arctic ( I don't know about the North Pole, I never mentioned that. The North pole is a tiny fraction of the Arctic. )

Quote
For someone who was complaining about the arrogance of scientists who are sure they know everything you seem awfully sure of what you know to be true.
One does not need to provide peer-reviewed journals to support the over-whelming consensus among climate scientists. That's just silly.

Here below, are peer-reviewed evidence that artists are smarter than scientists ;) I  can find dozens of others.

But, first:
You don't even need peer-reviewed evidence.
It is self-evident:
How many artists worked hard to promote nuclear power? (Chernobyl, Fukushima)
Answer: None.
How many scientists worked hard to promote nuclear power?
Answer: Millions.
How many artists protested against unbridled pollution from polluting technologies over the decades?
Answer: Hundreds of millions.
How many scientists protested against unbridled pollution from polluting technologies over the decades?
Answer: a few hundred.
Who started the Green Party in the 1960s, which started the green movement?
Answer: Artist: Joseph Beuys.
Who is using peer-reviewed science to back up his claims?
Answer: Me, the artist.
Who is not using peer-reviewed science to back up his claims?
Answer: You, the scientist.

Also, I can show you hundreds of paintings at the dawn of the industrial revolution and since, that were direct statements about the direction man was going, and direct critiques about industrial pollution of the environment and the populace.

But let's cut to the chase:
1, Art Makes You Smart: http://educationnext.org/the-educational-value-of-field-trips/

2. Aragón I., et al -- "Van Gogh painted perfect turbulence" http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060703/full/news060703-17.html

3. "Artists' Brains Have More 'Grey Matter' Than The Rest Of Us, Study Finds"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/artist-brains_n_5187216.html

I am astounded that anyone here does not know that:
1. Smoke from North America often blows over parts of the Arctic.
2. Smoke particles weaken albedo on ice.
3. Ice melts when dark.

Do you live in Florida or something?
Have you even seen ice before?

All your posts are just attempts to 'catch me out', as if one little phrase from you can refute my 10 points above. I can't be bothered.

Go ahead find the peer-reviewed journals that refute what most climate-change scientists consider fact.

Don't worry if you don't understand this post. It's not just you. Like most people, you have less gray matter than artists, and are less well developed by nurture in critical thinking, broad comprehension, and empathy, and so just take it from me  ... I am right, you are wrong. :)
I'm off to bed.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 04:06:21 AM »


Quote
It's called "Tommy's Gap" :)
-- Tommy

Quote
Tommy.
Can I borrow it?  If not I'll scream and scream and scream until I make myself sick  :P
epiphyte

You can have it.
As long as I can go kayaking on it next summer.
Tommy.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 04:03:41 AM »
Quote
cesium62
Do we have peer reviewed evidence for 4 and 8?  [Because I don't want to be a Republican, I like to have peer reviewed evidence for things that I'd like to believe on faith.]

Quote
...

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

I don't think you can have peer-reviewed studies on something that is still unfolding, but it is common knowledge that we have one of the biggest fire seasons this year, and as I am sure you know, smoke particles landing on ice, weaken the albedo effect of ice (so it absorbs heat.)  But maybe you mean something else?
...

Quote
8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

Again, I am not sure what you need to know? That fresh water is less dense than salt water?

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 02:02:59 AM »

Quote
seaicesailor
Did you notice also the very long, very faint, dark mark made of polynia that goes from Laptev toward the North Pole.

I think I can see it, I can't tell if it's a crack or thickening due to pressure?

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 01:02:25 AM »
Quote
Tommy, your logic escapes me.
-- oren

That's correct.

Quote
When asked why, you give a bunch of loose generic arguments which are not related at all to that gap.
-- oren

In the UK, you 'indicate' when turning in a car. The indication is not the turning of the car. It is just an indication. He asked me why I thought it was an indicator of the bigger action ... future melt. Wether that's what he meant, is not for me to say, I just answered his question, which referred to my sentence about the gap being an indicator of something bigger ... future melt.

Quote
Instead of going one by one over your arguments and finding the holes in them
-- oren

I understand. Not easy I know :)

Quote
I'd rather suggest a mechanism that you could provide as an explanation of your claim.
The MYI is thickest along the north coast of the CAA. Typically that thick ice is safe and secure there even on bad years for the ice, as your GIFs nicely show. This year that ice moved quite away from the coast, very away and very early compared to all previous years, thus exposing it to risk. If this ice were to drift en masse further away to the Beaufort sea, the arctic might lose its last big solid anchor next year, giving rise to further deterioration of the pack. The very fact that the gap exists, shows that the "anchor" is already not anchored very well.
--oren

Which is what I (and others, maybe you), have said in previous posts. Seems obvious, I didn't bother mentioning any of that.

The gap (christened today, as you know), is a gap that did not exist anywhere near that big before, and that decreases Albedo, warming ocean, increasing gap, decreasing albedo, warming ocean, on and on for weeks to come. 

I said it was an indicator of huge changes in coming years, not the sole cause.
It is wider and longer than it has ever been. Period and Full-Stop. It will get bigger. All those other 9 factors I mentioned as one whole, will make it worse. 

It's called "Tommy's Gap" :)

Tommy.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 11:10:53 PM »
Just a dog-gone minute here ! ?

Is that "Tommy's Gap" opening up (on yesterday's satellite) on the northeast tip of Greenland ?
As I follow the gap west in the top GIF, it cracks out to sea a bit, but I hope what looks like a continuation is just the edge of a cloud. Looks like it. But it is definitely opening up at the top of Greenland, more than before.
That part of Greenland cannot be seen today, but...

In the second video I zoom in on the image for today (July 29), on northeastern Canada, and it is there as well, more than before.

I can't get these to work, so I am posting them in separate posts below.

Tommy

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_greenland_small.gif

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/tommys_gap_at_west-greenland_small.gif

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 09:30:37 PM »
Quote
: Tommy  Today at 04:27:16 PM
I also think it is a dramatic indicator of huge Arctic summer-ice shrink over the next 2-3 years.

Quote
Why?  What's your reasoning/model?
-- cesium62

1. The newly named gap, as I demonstrated in the post, using ice thickness maps, and recording June->end of July for 2015, and early July->end of August for 3 other years, that people can see in those GIF animations I posted on the previous page, if they missed it -- is bigger and longer at end of July, than it ever gets, even by end of August in other years, and will likely get bigger. (the model for thickness is posted at the bottom on that post. But, other models may have a different width and length to the gap, but show a very similar dramatic change compared to other years. And  in satellite photos, this year the gap is much wider, and much longer than seen from 2012-14. Below is the rest of my reasoning/model :) ).

2. Arctic melt seasons are longer every year.
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/arctic-sea-ice-melt-season-getting-longer-140215.htm

3. The ice is already thinner than ever before.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/arctic-sea-ice-is-getting-thinner-faster/

4. We will have the biggest, or close to biggest Albedo reduction on record, due to the fires in N. America.

5. The first 6 months of this year are the hottest month by month on record globally (the other months will likely follow suit), and although there will be a lag time, it will cause a further lengthening and/or warming in the latter part of this melt season. The poles warm faster than the rest of the planet, because they absorb the heat from the rest of the planet. over the year.

6. The Pacific Blob has helped increase melt, by pushing in on the surface (despite what deeper currents might do, which are weaker than in the past anyway, due to less differential between 3 oceans than there used to be - Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic.)

7. Increased heat absorption in surface of Arctic ocean, due to less ice than normal ( I think the 'extent' models are optical illusions, because they take into account a lot broken up ice and try to average that, and that ice will melt faster due to all these other factors I am mentioning.)

8. Water from one of the biggest Greenland melts on record, stays on surface because it is fresh water (less dense) warms quickly, seeps in to that part of the Arctic.

9. Ocean surface temperatures (those 3 oceans) already warmer than in the past.

10. Future years will start from all these factors above, including more methane release from permafrost and Arctic sea bed, being even worse.

None of these may be significant enough in themselves, but, taken together, this year may be unprecedented. Next year at latest.

I don’t need to do any detailed math, it is obvious now, from the evidence on the ground (or ice … or water :) )

I would say, to destroy this model I just made, 5 out of the first 9 points would have to be proven wrong, because any 5 of those is bad enough.

But I’m just a wee newbie. :)

I HOPE I am wrong !
We need to slow down this melt by at least 15 years to give governments time to wake up and actually do something about it.

We are in a world-wide emergency. The collective action needed to mitigate and manage the changes, makes landing a man on the moon, or the collective acton in WW II, look like child’s play.

I hope I am wrong about this melt pattern.

I don't like to alarm people, I still think there is hope, if the governments wake up in time. They are not doing enough at all.

Tommy.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 04:27:16 PM »
The Newbie strikes again !

Ok Folks, I think I am the first to officially say this :-)

This gap is the biggest on record for sea ice thickness in the Arctic, on this model.
You can quote me on that.  :)

So it's  “Tommy’s Gap”, unless someone else said it is the biggest gap.
That’s its official name as of now. :-)

I also think it is a dramatic indicator of huge Arctic summer-ice shrink over the next 2-3 years.
Other models may have a different size gap, but they show the same dramatic change.
And the Satellite images, back to 2012, show the gap clearly bigger this year, and longer, eastwards, way along that Canadian coast.

Sorry for a bunch of gifs below.
I have looked back to 2004 on this, and recorded all of them from 2007-2015.
For brevity of imagery here, I will post only 4 of the worst years for the gap, that I could see.

This year, that gap (for ice thickness) is the biggest on record, and remember, they all go from JUL 9-10 -> AUG 29 ... EXCEPT 2015, which only goes from June 8 to JULY 28, and it is bigger than any of the others ever get, or even become in a month from now.

I am only showing:
2015 on top (up to JULY 28)
2014 below that (up to AUG 29)
2011 below that (up to AUG 29)
2008 at the bottom (up to AUG 29)

I would put in 2012, because it is so famous, but the post only takes 4 attachments, and 2012 was not as big a gap as any of these.

They all pause for 4 seconds a the end.

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/2015_8_jun_jul-28.gif

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/2014_10_jul_aug-29.gif

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/2011_10_jul_aug-29.gif

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/2008_10_jul_aug-29.gif

Remember, the first one (2015) only goes to yesterday, JULY 28.
The rest of them end at AUG 29.

Maps from: http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent/

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 01:12:46 AM »
What do people think about this?
Does this gap have a name?
I think it is going to appear more and more each year.
Might as well christen it.

Sea ice  thickness.
July 22-27 below.
http://polarportal.dk/en/havisen-i-arktis/nbsp/sea-ice-extent/

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 12:59:42 AM »
Quote
seaicesailor
Don't worry be happy?

I dunno, There's a lot of broken up fragments making up the outer edges of the 'extent'. It's kindof an optical illusion when one looks at 'extent' I think. If it's broken up any more than usual, then extent won't show that. But I could be wrong.
But that's why volume is more significant I think, and it's plummeting.
Tommy

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 29, 2015, 12:29:55 AM »

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 09:49:41 PM »
Quote
It never fails to astound me that so many people recognize expertise, skills, and knowledge in other areas yet easily dismiss science and scientists if they find that the information contradicts their beliefs. --
helorime


I was protesting pollution and fighting the precursors to climate change denial when you was likely a baby. But, I can show you hundreds of studies published in respected peer-reviewed journals, decade after decade (nothing to do with climate or environment though) conducted in a myriad of respected universities and academic institutions around the world, on one specific subject alone, and still repeating the same fascinating results today, in journal after journal, that, judging by the tone of your first post, I suspect you will probably instantly deny and disparage, in the exact same way the climate-change deniers deny climate change science, using the exact same arguments climate-change deniers use. You personally might not, but it is very common among scientists to deny very well replicated science, using the same language, because, to use your language "it does not fit with their beliefs". I am talking about a large body of published research in respected journals here, not some conspiracy theory in case anyone thinks that. I've seen it all before. The majority of scientists are closed-minded, if masses of published hard science does not fit their worldview. Let's face it. A huge number of scientists denied global warming in the 1980s and attacked scientists who were saying it. It is STILL happening today. Look a the recent barrage of attacks, many from scientists, on Dr. James Hansen, who is just trying to wake people up.
(It should be obvious from my posts that I am for science . I studied the concept of greenhouse effects, in-depth, before that term even remotely entered the general lexicon applied to this planet, and was then hardly even used in the scientific community about Earth, except by a tiny number of scientists, if at all).

The Arctic is melting, the droughts are increasing worldwide as we speak.
But this is not the forum, thanks.
Tommy


24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 06:34:05 PM »
Quote
Fascinating stuff Tommy, although I fear I've dragged both of us off topic.
I had similar experiences as a Green Party activist in the UK in the 90s
-Groucho

Yes, sorry for taking it off-topic. I'll stop there.
(and it is great that you were trying as well, way back when, Groucho.)

The only reason I mention any of this is because we are in an international emergency in my opinion, and I try to tell it like it is, but it can be scary to some folks, so I don;t want people to think it is completely hopeless.

Sorry for going off topic folks, I'll get back to making cartoons about the Arctic !

:)

Tommy.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 06:18:48 PM »
Quote
cesium62
Technologies are passive.  Business has repeatedly exploited technologies in ways that are detrimental to health and the environment.  Business likes to exploit a shared commons for its personal gain.

Yes, but you must be aware that scientists have repeatedly, time and time again, defended those technologies, and in many cases aggressively promoted them, and repeatedly ridiculed people who question those technologies. Even today.

But yes, the 3 headed monster, of scientists with limited understanding of the whole, along with politicians, and businessmen have created the mess we are in today, with the Arctic for example.
Many scientists, including some here, are not in that camp, and I admire them greatly, but you can't deny the overall pattern of arrogance amongst many scientists over the decades, shutting down other voices, by acting like they are the only ones who understand the world. Not all of them, but the most vociferous and influential have done it for decades. It's not just industry scientists. Scientists cannot possibly understand the world, (unless they go deeper than science) because the nature of science is one-sided, completely piecemeal, and poorly connected partial knowledge. That state of mind (which we all have, by the way), that is disconnected from the whole - overly objective oriented - is what has brought us to the brink today.
Anyway, it's all good. It's just change.  I hope you have the solutions.

--- from an Artist.
(PS. An artist founded the political Green Party in the 1960s, which helped start the whole green movement worldwide, not a scientist.  ;) )



26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 02:41:43 PM »
Quote
Groucho
The time for waking up was perhaps twenty years ago.

Yes.
This is from a long article I wrote for the group 'Students for Alternatives to Genetic Engineering' in about 1996, for the Home page of the website we created back then. The article was about GMOs but also had a section called "More Pollution" and touched on the dangers.

"Scientific advancement is a powerful tool with many benefits, however, science shows us that the more powerful a technology is, the more caution needs to be exercised in its usage...
The 20th century provides ample evidence worldwide that the current education system is seriously lacking something fundamental and universal. The serious problems facing humanity today are the result of partial knowledge, and fragmented development in education. Thus, scientists have repeatedly created technologies which are detrimental to health and the environment, and society has administered their destructive force indiscriminately. Genetic engineering is another in the list of dangerous technologies that result from the ongoing tradition of partial knowledge in our educational institutions."
-- S.A.G.E. website 1996.
(SAGE website was followed by journalists and others, because we updated with most recent scientific research very effectively every week or so, some of those journalists got the US National Award for Ethical Journalism, and e-mailed me at one point to praise our site, but SAGE is now defunct because no-one listened and we ran out of steam.)

I had letters read out on national UK BBC radio in the 1980s, in which I talked about alternative technology and dangers of nuclear power (that was before Chernobyl and Fukushima.)

I designed kinetic sculptures in the early 1980s that would have used wind and solar power, and some would have followed the sun, moon around the sky, and close up at night etc., and other ways to indicate the symbiotic nature of man and environment. It was too expensive, and I went off on a different artistic track anyway, which from then, until now, has been more like a homage to the nature we are loosing, and a sort of prayer of gratitude in a way, to Earth and the Universe, rather than some of the political/activist messages that may have creeped into my art when I was younger. You can see some of that later art here. I still have tons more to upload yet ----> http://www.satwagraphics.com/painting1.html

I also stood as a candidate for UK MP in the 1990s, for a political party that promoted sustainable living and alternative technology.

I worked on sustainable buildings many times, in fact helped to build aspects of this eco-village in the early 2000s when it was still mostly just a field (started by a good friend of mine.)
Abundance EcoVillage (it is now more advanced than the pictures here, which are old, and the village is bigger now.)
---> http://www.abundance-ecovillage.com/
My friend, Lonnie Gamble, who started the eco-village, then helped with the development of the largest completely off-the-grid building on any university campus in the world, about a mile from Abundance EcoVillage. The building has classrooms, offices, bathrooms, everything, and has zero emissions, with all waste water, etc. re-cycled, purified for plants, washing, and other usages, permaculture and food growing all around it, all construction materials and wood from sustainable sources, and even generates extra electricity for the campus. (The campus has the largest Sustainable Living degree, student body in the world.)
It is the most advanced building in the world --->

Many have moved ahead, to what we call deep ecology now, because nobody listened to us back in the 80s and 90s, in fact we were widely ridiculed, and I doubt they will listen now.

Yes, it is probably too late for the Arctic, and, according to scientists, that will affect the whole world.

The only solutions now are a form of 'deep ecology' that we have been proposing for decades now.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 02:19:41 PM »
Quote
Jim Hunt
The floe and which O-Buoy 11 and it's friends are sat now looks as though it's adrift in open water:

Thanks for posting this and the link with the map. I had hard time figuring out where these things are earlier from their webpage (silly scientists. worst communicators in the world :) )

(My cartoon for today below. I knocked it together in Photoshop over morning coffee this morning, from that latest buoy image above. )

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 05:01:59 AM »
I don't know if you folks saw this, but this is all about the Arctic
(Ignore the first minute or so, that's just dramatic intro.)
Probably more for the laymen among us, as a good overview of the state, and importance of the Arctic. The interviews may be a few years old, I can't tell from the info. provided.

Scientists these days are displaying thinly disguised alarm.
We can avoid the worst of the coming changes if people wake up.

30 minutes video.

"Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak on Global Warming "

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 01:08:18 AM »
I should probably post this in Greenland thread, but there doesn't seem to be much activity over there, or I don't know which one to post it in, but it is maybe interesting here anyway (plus it's cloudy in the Arctic today :) )

This gif shows 2013, 14, and 15, a position of NE Greenland, (easy to find on WorldView) late July melt ponds.
I didn't know the ponds and fissures remelt in the exact same place every year, I though they would freeze, then some other spot melt later. So, 2013 is a bit cloud covered, but you can still see some of them.

At first I thought 2015 had a little less than 2014, but once you look longer, the ponds look bigger, and join up more, but right now they just have a 'burg' floating in them, so look like circles.

It's easier to see when just clicking though them at your own pace (not in animation so much), but they look bigger, more joined up, and wet wet wet.

5 second intervals - 3 frames
http://satwagraphics.com/testing/melt_ponds_ne_gl-late_july_multi_yr.gif



30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 11:19:11 PM »
Quote
Frivolousz21
gis has permanent dark particles embedded on the glacier in the bare ice.
The arctic wouldn't have that.
Once snow melts on gis and that darkness is shown albedo Plummets way below what just bare ice would do.

Ah, that makes sense.
Thanks.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 09:15:56 PM »
Quote
Quote
greatdying2
Don't know if it's the best, but I use DMI: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/satellite/index.uk.php .
Thanks for that. That's great !

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 08:21:01 PM »
 
This Ice burg off Greenland, below, looks a lot like 'Arthurs Seat' in EdinBurgh, Scotland, above  :)

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 08:20:09 PM »
Ha ha ha, this semantics stuff is right up my street.

(if you read this post through, you will see that it is very much on topic, by the way :) )

The word is spoken as 'burg', or a variant, by most of the Indo-European world.
For example, that picture you see me in my kilt on the left here, was taken in Edinburgh, which is named that way because the old city was built next to a huge 'burg' that sticks up there (old volcanic plug - see image at bottom) and upon which, the more ancient dwellers from the bronze age lived (who themselves, were all descendants, both in DNA and in language of Indo-European ancestors.) The same word is in many Norse, and Germanic languages and even cognate in Indian Sanskrit. It is an ancient Indo-European word, that was applied to giant mounds, and later,  mountains of ice floating around, and is mis-pronounced these days as 'berg'.

In Scotland, it was called a 'burg', even within this era, by some older folks.

And then, to show that this is all on topic see the last pic. of an iceberg off Greenland, and compare it to "Arthurs Seat', the Burg, in Edinburgh.

You boys just got schooled. :)

See images below.

(also, 'forts' called 'burgs', after 'hill fort'.)
(also, interesting side-note, the Sanskrit cognate word, is the root of 'Brahma', the Hindu God...but Brahma really just means 'totality', or 'elevated (high power)', a bit like our word 'universe', and the way people still (until very recently) use the archaic phrase, 'the Heavens', to mean the whole sky above.)

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 04:57:06 PM »
 ... and here is some of that melt and meltponds in NE Greenland -- July 24.
It's a big blue patch of ice up there on WorldView,

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 04:22:22 PM »
I know I should post this in the Greenland thread, but not sure I can handle two discussions :-)

I think this shows a big difference at this time of year, although I am not sure, because they seem to indicate that it shows relative change from previous average or something.

So if it's like this in Greenland, it's likely something similar in Arctic ( Is there a place that shows albedo for the Arctic daily? )
Plus if there is more melt in Greenland (because increased heat absorption on the surface), the melt water could affect Arctic, plus cause more attrition in the icepack at that NE  corner of Greenland, especially since I heard a scientist say that the North of Greenland is melting much faster than previously expected.

It looks like they will need new colors for the low albedo ( I think someone pointed that out earlier)

I guess I didn't get the exact same days, but this below is from around this date 2014 compared to 2015 on the right.

( from : http://polarportal.dk/en/groenlands-indlandsis/nbsp/isens-overflade/ )

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 04:08:48 PM »

Quote
It's an artifact of the clouds. In reality, it didn't happen.
If you examine an even longer series of these Bremen concentration maps, you'll see dark purple waves (clouds --  the position of which you can verify with Worldview) sweep quickly over the underlying colour pattern (the reality).
greatdying2

Aha, that makes sense. Thanks.

Does anyone know where is the best place to see daily updates of sea surface temps in the Arctic?
I can't find it.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 04:03:11 PM »
Quote
Is the little ice-burg (nice word correct or not),
seaicesailor

It's my Scottish accent ( I now live within the wonderful Polar Vortex in America, perfect summers, great skiing in winter, thanks to global warming.)

Quote
its greater brother below and the guys around finally showing signs of disintegration? Its been stormy last three days.
No visual.

That little guy with the flag was toast by yesterday. Not sure about the others. Cloudy  :(
I know it looks like it's still there at the end, but that's because I had to chop out cloudy days at the end there, and that other one at the end, is a different ice-block. The final flag is what happened to the first one
It's is amazing how many of those little icebergs have the same shape.

I hope we get some clear views soon.
( I originally said, "I hope the sun comes out soon up there.", but changed it because with the low Albedo effect this year, we probably should wish for clouds not sun, if we don't want the Arctic to melt too much this year)




38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 06:22:35 AM »
Quote
Better look up the word iceberg! There are very few icebergs in the Arctic Ocean these days.
- Tor Bejnar

There are no icecubes either, but I still used it in my post above, and I am very proud of that.  :)

I'm just going to call it 'The Big Bear' from now on. 

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 06:13:17 AM »
Quote
slow wing
Another day of losses in the peripheral Arctic seas in front of Alaska and Siberia.

That's a big change in the west there. A good way to look at it with that gif.
I am surprised that the 100% concentration could jump so far so much. The measuring systems are far from perfect, so that's probably it. Is there any other reason the biggest concentration (dark purple) could jump so far in one day?


40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 27, 2015, 05:57:11 AM »
I always say 'ice-pack", I had a slip of the tongue yesterday, never even thought about it.
When I talk about this stuff on my Facebook page I am much more careful about using the right terminology on there, than I am here for some reason, maybe because I expect people here to understand without perfect terminology all the time. On my Facebook page I am more careful, with tons of posts there from the past (and here) using the term "ice-pack"

Ice-pack is the most descriptive, because, especially now, it is a big pack of ice cubes all smooshed together floating around in the Arctic Ocean. This year, or in some year soon, it will be floating free and wandering around ... just a big pack of iceburgs packed in together from time to time.

An Icepack.

Tommy


41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 10:01:54 PM »
Quote
Neven
Nice, Tommy. What happened to the flag?  ;)

Whale ate it.

Quote
And nice website too.  :)

Thanks !
(still working on it, slowly,)

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 09:51:22 PM »
I like how the northeast off Greenland is like a big eddy, swirling around in circles, I planted a flag on my iceberg friend there ... and slowly watched his sad demise :-(
(this is from the last couple of weeks, with cloudy days taken out)

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/eddy_flag.gif

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 06:06:44 PM »
Quote
This may seem a quibble but it helps to use specific words for specific things. Ice caps are ice accumulations which cover the summit of a high point on land or form such a high point themselves (Greenland), since the north pole is not actually "the top of the world" the ice covering it is not an ice cap.
--Andreas T

Thanks.
Yes, just a newbie to the arctic.
I almost always say 'ice-pack' so it was just a slip of the tongue.

Quote
The ice in those dark bands north of Greenland most likely was initially formed along the coast of Siberia and then made its way across on the transpolar drift.  I think this is algae which froze into the ice at a time of particularly strong growth or found suitable conditions later when sunlight and nutrients gave it better growth than in surrounding ice.

That makes total sense.
I wonder why they seem indented (zooming in on Worldview shows slight highlights, like shallow craters. Maybe not.)

Tommy.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 26, 2015, 05:05:50 PM »
Algae bloom in Barents Sea.
July 25

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 04:40:50 PM »
Quote
there has been a stain on the surface north of Greenland extending to the West since this last clear view on the 16th, probably darkening and moving to the West a little since then.
-- Nick_Naylor

Hi Nick, yes, I have noticed that.
There is another one south west of that big one that comes off the Atlantic.
I thought it might be just where the churning ice-cap and thinner ice from the NE, meets it's better half at the top of Greenland, and creates a fault line?
Or, just where the Atlantic meets the ice, thinner ice is created due to warming waters, and slowly is tansported in a line, but seems wrong direction?

But it is a bit thinner than surroundings I think, due to highlights on 'craters.'
Algae embedded?

Anyone know what that is?

(and thanks for answer on Global Temps above Nick)


46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 03:38:13 PM »
Quote
It's close to the surface. Blue-green algae can't live as far below the surface as red algae.
-- Night Vid.

Thanks. It looks so 3D, like it goes deep, but just an optical illusion I guess.
It's so huge!


47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 03:30:23 PM »
One of the 5 or 6 factors I think make 2015 different than previous years (as others here have said).
And the Arctic warms faster than rest of world (maybe there is a lag time, but still, this must make a difference maybe towards end of season.)

Jan-June - red bar on right - hottest on record, globally.

Report for June global temps just released this week:
NOAA
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201506

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 03:55:54 AM »
Is this algae deep on the surface or is that crystal clear Arctic ocean with algae deeper down?
From todays satellite. Towards  NE Russia, near those islands out in that part of ocean

http://satwagraphics.com/testing/algae.jpg

.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 03:52:48 AM »

Quote
So after this year we may not see multiyear 5 meter thick ice again Until the next ice age..
-- 12Patrick

I'm not sure, because ice can pile up and grow in 10 years I think.
But, I have no doubt that all the ice will be thinner in the coming years, and very little 5m ice left soon after. It seems the pressures of movement naturally pile the ice up at the northern tip of Greenland and along the Canadian islands, so maybe it will be the last to go, when all the rest has melted, which at the rate humans are going, and the exponential heating that scientists keep coming out with every few months in new studies on air temps, sea temps, etc. that they keep saying are worse than they're previous predictions ... I am afraid the medium and thin Arctic ice is toast in the next few years (not decades).
Tommy


50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 26, 2015, 02:27:00 AM »
Quote
Tommy, just do it with just the 5 meter ice not the 1 meter ice or greater and see what you get???
12Patrick

Hi Patrick, thanks for suggestion. 
I tried it on the 13 Aug. 2008 version above, and it just leaves those little pink and red spots you see on the Thickness maps, because 5m ice is seldom heavily broken up into pieces, with a lot of open water, so it's pretty easy to see those pink and reds on the thickness maps which is all that would be left, even with taking out everything below an ever higher 90% concentration, instead of my usual 60%
I'll keep trying different things, and make a map for this season once or twice a week, just for fun.
Thanks
Tommy

Pages: [1] 2