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 - NeilT

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 13, 2017, 07:13:18 PM »
Arctic Basin animation

Correct me if I'm wrong but that looks like the ice pointing out towards Wrangel is being cut off and there is a huge polynia growing on the Atlantic side...

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 13, 2017, 05:12:01 PM »
Watching this years season I am reminded that the August/Sept months become a race against the dropping of both the sun and the temperatures.

This, is not looking like anything other than positioning for significantly more melt.



Whether it does nor not will be down to how the weather events unfold in the next 3 - 4 weeks.

Either way it just keeps on driving down below where it should be for the input.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 06:35:08 PM »
Looks like the NSR is finally open now.

Judging by what Neil? See also:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,854.msg122408.html#msg122408

et seq.

I was looking at Bremen AMSR2 which has been showing it congested up until today.  Bremen finally shows it clear.  Although I'll have to go and take a look at the site you linked. When I get time that is.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 03:25:06 PM »
Looks like the NSR is finally open now.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 11, 2017, 02:43:35 PM »
Looks more like the continuous battering of smaller storms – which, summing them up, could have the same effect.

Hence why I voted for near record-record low in both the polls.  Not because the melt season has produced results which make it look like it will.  More that the melt season has made it look like it should not be melting, but it still is.

Every time I started to think that this season was going to fall away, it has done something new and different and kept on falling.

So I have decided to leave my guess/prediction as it is and see what happens.  I won't be disappointed either way because we are learning a huge amount about forced changes in Arctic ice dynamics this  year.

As far as I can see, if anything saves it from an extreme low, record or not, it will be the colder Atlantic side.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 11, 2017, 11:14:46 AM »

Re: The 2017 melting season
« Reply #3692 on: August 10, 2017, 04:17:43 PM

Has the address of the Barrow webcam changed?

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_webcam

gives the following message:

503 Service Unavailable
No server is available to handle this request.

Looks like the whole site/ sub site is down..

http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 11, 2017, 07:29:37 AM »
That's very interesting Rob.  I guess what is more interesting is that the cold caused by that significant snow didn't have a bigger effect.

To me it looks like the whole pack is at risk of one significant storm sweeping in through the Beaufort, Chuchki and ESS and overwhelming anything retained by the snow anomaly.

Not that we might get a significant storm. That has not been the way of this melting season.

Talking about 80N temps, on the DMI chart the closest match I see is 2007...

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 10, 2017, 08:41:50 PM »
The "Laptev Bite" polynya is back!

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2017/08/facts-about-the-arctic-in-august-2017/#Aug-10

It looks really impressive till you stitch together the bottom corners of the 4 images which make up the Laptev destruction..



Then it looks like it's just a part of the mayhem.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 09, 2017, 05:34:38 PM »


We need direct observation results, - now and especially in about 1 week from now.

Seeing is believing.

Observing Monitoring and Recording is Science….

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 07, 2017, 02:22:13 AM »
But if you are going to make grandiose claims, challenging the fundamental reliability of rigorously tested models, then you should damn well be held to the same standards as the people you are challenging – in this instance the Polar Science Center.

I don't disagree in substance.  What I would say is if you're going to pull someone up about it, then do at least make the case a bit more strongly.  PIMOAS  is a model based on data and not verified data in and of itself.

All volume models have been criticised on these boards because the enthusiast effort we see on a daily basis can, at times, make a complete nonsense of the volume models when there is patently no ice where the model says there is 2M ice or more.  Even worse when a storm kicks up and the area showing 2M ice, in whatever concentration,  suddenly vanishes in a day or two and the whole area is clear of ice.

These are statistical anomalies and they do exist in all the models.  Even more so in challenging times of rapid and fundamentally outside current understanding, rates of change in ice dynamics.

It is correct to challenge.  That is how science gets better.  But it is also a requirement to provide the evidence of where the model is failing, so that those who work with the models can work out why it failed.

As you say most of us do this as a hobby and very few subject their comments to rigorous statistical analysis.  Most don't have the time and the rest of us wouldn't know how to anyway.

But it doesn't meant that the analysts among us can't spot inconsistencies.

I guess I'm saying educate don't berate.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 04, 2017, 01:54:31 PM »
PIOMAS is showing quite catastrophic enough loss thanks....

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 04, 2017, 12:47:26 PM »
PIOMAS is an ice volume model - whose numbers are derived from multiple sources of data, not any particular "sensor" - and the far superior one, by any scientific standard.

But hardly hard factual data recovered from tens of thousands of data points delivered by tens of thousands of monitoring systems.  It is, as you say, a model of these "available" data which are hardly complete.  Meaning that PIOMAS has to fill in the blanks.

PIOMAS is an excellent tool which is, as you say, the best of the available tools we can use.

That being said, it is a Model and is not hard data.  In a time of extreme change, where the modelling is behind reality, then it is likely to have significant challenges in terms of correctness.  The problem with the Arctic and forecasting is that it is vital that certain areas are absolutely correct in order to try and forecast the impact of any weather events.  PIOMAS can supply overall certainty to a high degree, indeed the highest degree currently available, but it cannot tell us, with a high degree of certainty, what is going on in some of those vital areas. 

This has been seen and proven over and over again and it does not do PIOMAS the credit it deserves by insisting that this is not the state of affairs.


I would strongly recommend you to adjust your personal perceptions so that they fit certifiably accurate data

Re: the statement above I would change that to

"Certifiably MODELLED data"

Besides, there is nothing particularly extreme about this melting season, and this seems perfectly reasonable to assume that volume and extent/area measures would realign again as minimum approaches.

Personally I had thought that 2007 and 2012 were outlying years of such spectacular change to make them "Extreme" in every sense of the word.

2017 extent, today, sits < 50kkm^2 above 2007 and below all other years.  At a time when 2017 is showing massive potential for ice destruction from the most moderate storms, smack in the middle of the post 2012 "storm season".

In the next 5 days, 2012 parted company with 2007 and headed for a new record.  2017 is showing signs that it could go either way, 2012 or 2007.  But it has firmly crashed through 2011 with no sign of slowing.  If anything, the opposite.

It is so comforting to know that 2007 and 2012 are now considered so unexceptional that a year which is tracking them could be considered "normal".

Whilst there is still opportunity for 2017 to stall and fail to make a new record or, even, to finish between 2007 and 2012, there is also ample opportunity for 2017 to crash through 2012 and head for the record books.

The most extreme thing about 2017 was the winter/spring warmth.  All things being equal, that extreme weather is unlikely to have no impact on the summer low.  Given the summer melting season we have had, 2017 should already be heading for a 2010/2011 track.  The fact that it is not should be warning enough of the potential to come.

Whilst none of us are experts in this field and all of us welcome being corrected in our assumptions, it is best if the correction is entirely accurate and not the aspiration of the person who is correcting.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 03, 2017, 07:31:01 PM »
If anything says the situation with the ice, for me, today, it is the mosaic image of the tip of the Laptev bite.



To the left, the rapidly shredding Pacific side.  To the right, clockwise, the disorganised and rapidly separating Atlantic side ice encroaching on the Laptev Bite.  Just out of image on the right is the large open water area which has been growing steadily over the last two weeks.

The arctic stands poised on a knife edge.  Fall off one side and all that open water within the slush and mini floes will freeze and we're heading for the impression that the ice "recovered".  Some relatively active storms (no need for GAC's with this mess) and we could be rapidly heading for a record.

As we stand at this cusp all we do know is that every storm will do more damage than the same intensity storm in years/decades past.  We do not know if the storms will appear and how strong they will be.

My bet is that all the open water there already will tend to suck the weather systems in and keep driving the loss, rather than 2017 taking a 2011 path and heading for minor loss and a #4/5 level finish.

That one image says to me that we are seeing yet another change in the way things melt and how melt seasons emerge.  This should not be a surprise.  We could hardly expect the Arctic to keep on losing volume but then carry on melting and responding to heat import events in the same way.  It is why even the very best models have issues. Because we can't finely model a system which keeps on changing its responses to the same stimulus.

It is also why a fast moving system does not lend itself to studies which explain the current position in that journey.  Studies are funded and carried out based upon existing knowledge of ice dynamics in order to study it in greater detail.  Witness Dr Barber and his voyage to study the interaction of MYI north of the CAA, only to find that the ice there only looked like MYI, it responded to force of an ice breaker with less strength than FYI.

Studies on polynya dynamics do tell us that late July/early August open water leads, within the pack, drive more moist and more stormy weather.  How that applies to ice which can't form polynia's because there is not enough solid ice to create one, not even slush but thousands/millions of small floes with open water between and the impact on weather events which damage the ice, I expect to be studied and modelled in the next decade when it has become "the norm".  Sadly that doesn't help us determine what is going to happen in the next 5 weeks.

So we are back to guessing.

My guess?  New record or very, very close.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 02, 2017, 10:44:05 AM »
Makes me rather glad that I put my poll bid in before I saw that.

I have felt for a while now that this torn up CAB and thin ice are going to have their say before the melting season is over.

Sort of open water and sub 1M ice meets minor storm. Strom wins...

The bigger question, in my mind, is how long it will take for the Atlantic side to suffer the same fate.  Not certain of course, but you just need to look at the way the graphics are trending to see that a good 1/3 of the CAB is at risk of a moderate melting event.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 01, 2017, 10:32:37 PM »
I do not believe the conditions are right for a repeat and expect that 2017 will continue to dance with the lower end of the pack. 2nd place for SIE is still a strong possibility. Would not be surprised to see 4th and 7th place is not out of the question.

Currently 2017 is in 4th for extent. That will be 3rd in 2 or three days as it drops below 2011.

This season, for me, is incredibly interesting.  Pack weakness and lack of volume is driving extremely odd results.  Meaning that if even slightly out of the ordinary weather should evolve in August, then the results are going to be magnified by the state of the pack.

Right at this moment it is all in the hands of the weather and that is being agitated by a significantly fragmented pack wrapping almost all the way around the 80N line and, in places reaching up to and above 85N.

Trying to call 2017 now is close to wishful thinking and I'm not doing any wishing at all, except a wish to be able to watch it all evolving.

I did vote on the polls but that is nothing more than a guess.  The way 2017 is swinging about it could go in any direction from catastrophic loss to large re-growth.  It is set up for either.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 01, 2017, 03:18:49 PM »
I've noticed that each of those years had warmer the DMI north of 80 temperatures in summer than 2017. This year it still below average for the entire melting season but was above average for the whole freezing season.


However, comparing it with 2012...



17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 01, 2017, 05:41:57 AM »
Call me a pessimist if you want but the Bremen concentration map for the 31st does not look like a top 5. It looks more like a contender for the record or very close.

The pattern appears to be more than expected damage for every weather event. Even if it doesn't resolve into direct stats immediately.


18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 30, 2017, 07:10:38 PM »
Meanwhile, on the Atlantic side, Extent continues to be supported by zones like this.



It can only lead to some interesting changes in the next 6 weeks.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 30, 2017, 07:07:24 PM »
Very little in the Beaufort looks safe right now.



It looks like the weather patterns are still ripping the CAB apart and shoving it out to the periphery for extermination.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 28, 2017, 12:28:10 AM »
There have been some changes recently.

Looking at Arctic Penguin's compactness graph



I note that at the time when extent for 2017 has been closing on 2012, compactness has been dropping like a stone.

Looking at the Beaufort, that ice is not spreading to safety.  More spreading to destruction.  With or without a GAC.



I assume the PAC has some part in this. What was, originally, a very compact and homogenous Beaufort is being torn to shreds and sent out to melt in warmer waters.

Whilst this, in itself, is not a single major factor, it seems that 2017 has been characterised with a head start and multiple small pushes to keep it on track.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 27, 2017, 01:14:15 PM »
I'm confused... Don't the vast majority of people on this forum consistently agree with the conservative outlook?

Apparently not last year.  Very little tolerance for views which ran against the "catastrophic" nature of the 2016 melting season or any views of anything which might be driving it.

Hence my comment.  I'm watching the ice capitulate with great interest right now.  It looks like the heavy snow layer might have been hiding an even worse situation with the ice than was originally thought.  If that is the case and Bremen AMSR2 maps are showing a rapid and continuing concentration decline, this end of July.  This decline might, just, tip the balance into a new record low if we get some storms even close to the GAC of 2012 and, given the shape, consistency of the ice and potential to release ocean heat to the atmosphere as moisture, this is by no means impossible.

Even if we have a record low, I expect it to be a difference which is proportional to the 2006/7 deviance minus the 2011/12 deviance.  If that makes sense.

Even then, after a record low, I expect a greater growth of ice in 2017/18 than we saw in 2016/17 and, possibly, 2015/16 and for this phenomena to extend to the spring of 2020.

Whilst the last bit is out of the scope of this melting season, it was also out of scope of the 2016 season when I was talking about it then.

You say that people on the forum at conservative.  I haven't noticed that.  I have noticed a strong resistance to any event which exceeds the probable melt given the heat budget available to melt it.  Said in that way, if you want to present a scenario where there is exceptional loss of ice beyond the viable heat budget, you do need to present the mechanism which introduces the extra melting, i.e. upwelling of deep ocean heat via extensive Ekman pumping.

I understand that "I expect" and "it seems", are just my opinion but there has to be some opinion  or we're just watching the cricket scores here.

The reason "I expect" things are because I happen to follow a theory which has been, partially, studied by at least 3 different scientific studies with varied results.  So far and in broad, for the last 3 years, the melting and freezing seasons have followed that theory. 

I don't believe I have been guilty of

'something is about to happen that is invisible, but only a select few great minds have been predicting all along'

I have explained why I believe what I do and have presented links to studies which aim to prove, or disprove, what I see, with varying results.

I can't exactly help it if the Arctic keeps on doing what I said it would.  We are below 2016 right now and everything points to the fact that we will continue on that path and down the path of 2012 to the end of the season.  There is not a lot of chance that 2017 will stop and follow the track of 2016.  But there is at least some chance it will and it cannot be discounted.

When we contrast the latest Bremen concentration image with 2012 of the same day





The potential for a GAC to wreak havoc in 2017 cannot be denied.

As for

Nevermind, I'm not going to respond to this kind of provocation again. Carry on...

When I chose to explain my thinking last year, as to why I believed that 2016 would stall and 2017 would not and would be a bigger melt year than 2016, the following happened.

I was called a denialist.  The theory, to which I posted recent research was called "debunked" and several questions were asked as to why I should even be able to post here.  If you believe that one sardonic comment of mine, followed by a zipped mouth emoticon, is baiting, then I guess I can't say any more.


22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 27, 2017, 02:19:51 AM »
Wanted to thank seaicesailor for "going out on a limb" in suggesting that we could see a normal refreeze season and a kind of recovery to the ice.

Dangerous thing that.. :-X

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 25, 2017, 11:26:45 AM »
And then it started to change



I did notice a trend in the 75% concentration to spread in the direction of a clockwise gyre.  I was wondering what that effect might be over the next 6-7 weeks of melting.

It does look, to me, like the snow cover is now essentially gone and that the FYI is not providing such a strong resistance to the melting weather.  Even mediocre melting weather.  Although all the moisture is not insignificant.

On the Atlantic side that unstructured ice, north of Svalbard/FJI/Kara, has been growing for at least a month now and shows little sign of stopping.

The shallow NW passage is now showing ~50% concentration on a track that will open it and the NSR is almost open, if you don't mind doing a lot of wandering round the peripheral ice which is taking it's time to get there.

Right now re-growth is not exactly what I'd call this.  Although there is potential for this to halt as in all melting seasons.

Three more weeks and a strong storm and we'll be looking at a totally different ice pack.  Or, three more weeks and cloudy/colder weather and we'll be looking at a fizzle.

I don't expect a fizzle though.  We're under 2016 on extent now, the ice is very thin, volume is record low and there is all that bottom melt still to come, regardless of the topside weather.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 24, 2017, 09:44:15 AM »
Thanks Rob,  I noticed 2007 was a very big deviation, it's variance from 2006 was very large.  2012 was not so much of a deviation and it's variance from 2011 was only really about half as much.

I was wondering whether the loss of ice volume would lead to each new record low being a smaller deviation than the last, until we suddenly reach blue ocean.

Which would increase the accuracy of modelling until it just suddenly went away.  It does make 2007 look much more like a step change, rather than just a record low, though.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 23, 2017, 11:55:39 AM »
We'll see what the next weeks bring us.

I have a question Rob.

If you take 1992 to 2006 figures, does your model predict 2007?
If you take 1992 to 2011 figures does your model predict 2012?

I believe these years were such a surprise because you can't model these events with our current level of understanding and, certainly, with our current level of monitoring and measurement.

From what I can see from the overheads the CAB is starting to destabilise, in many places right up to 85N, from Svalbard, swinging east all the way round to the Beaufort.

It may be that this does not, in the end, impact melt and the CAB may retain integrity and slow down both extent and area losses.

However, as we saw in 2012, when the ice is so weak and so unstructured, the weather has a knack of messing all the predictions up.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 22, 2017, 06:16:53 PM »
A view of the waves currently breaking on the shore at Utqiaġvik (Barrow as was):

JavaScript Jim.


27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 16, 2017, 04:33:25 PM »
At this rate the Northern Sea Route could be open before the month is out.

My guess, on the blog, was NSR and NW passage, potentially open, in the next 3 weeks.  That was on Friday.

I think the NW passage is also looking vulnerable but is suffering the same coolness the rest of the Atlantic side is.

Little to do but wait, the heat is now gobbling up the periphery, especially where it's just a thin layer on top.

On Chartic, it looks like 2017 will drop away from 2016, solidly, in two to three days.  It should crash through 2011 around the beginning of August.

Then, I'd say, the Arctic ice balance is in the lap of the weather.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 16, 2017, 12:47:12 AM »
In that Case, prepare for a Blue Ocean Event.

It's unlikely that this rate will continue.  It is only in extent and this is the 15% - 30% melting out or compacting into the CAB.

More interesting will be what happens come the start of August when the easy peripheral ice is gone and the CAB is under fire.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 14, 2017, 04:34:34 PM »
Talking about extent stalling, I do wonder whether it will continue for a while longer.  Given the state of some of the area covered in >15% ice.









These are all places where extent will continue to decline.  Area?  Not so much as the open water is already included.

Whilst this continues, the CAB itself will continue to change.  Whether it compacts and firms up or whether it is torn further apart, remains to be seen.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 12, 2017, 02:08:46 PM »
...
The bit about "it will just melt away quite suddenly" is getting closer, but it's not going to be this year.
You can't know this for sure, Bill. Nobody expected the GAC in 2012 to clear as much sea ice as it did, but it happened.

True, but, in the end, to get blue ocean you need a massive drop in volume, area AND, critically, extent; In order to get there.

We know what the average melt from this time to the end of the melting season is and we know what the maximum ever has been.  I'm not going to delve into the figures but I'm pretty sure that even if we doubled the max melt, from now to September, we'd still be outside the blue ocean event that is anticipated.

I think Bill is quite right that we're pretty sure we're not going to see a blue ocean event this year.  Even with the shocking state of the ice right up to 85N in some places, the rubble nature of the Atlantic side, the deep penetration of open water areas on the Pacific side and the fact that it is very likely that all the peripheral ice will melt out.

That's not to say that I am not expecting more than average melt.  I am.  I just don't expect it to drop off the cliff just yet.

[Edit].  Let me correct that.  Yes if melt doubled we'd see a blue ocean. But below 150% and we'd still be above that.

It certainly doesn't look like it now although the ice north of the ESS and Chuchki is getting that "smoke on the water" look it had in 2012.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 06, 2017, 10:27:40 AM »
Arbitrary date of Sept. 8th for 2002, 2007, 2012, and 2016. I don't of a point that I am trying to make with this, other than to give some of us an idea of what September sea ice looked like over the years. Many of us were involved in other pursuits at the time. 2002 is on here mainly as a benchmark to compare to.

2000 to 2007 was a pretty dramatic time, all considered. Stuff was really happening.  However I recall some of the more dramatic events, prior to 2005, happened in the October/November timeframe (re-freeze), where normal re-freezing events simply weren't happening.

2005 was shock global news, they even found a new island that was not on the maps.

Old history and, looking at the extent maps, doesn't seem so newsworthy compared to current events.  But it was the first decade of the 21st century that signalled the demise of the ice in the Arctic and it was quite a journey.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 06, 2017, 10:23:31 AM »
Wasn't 2010 was the lowest for this date?

Busy month July, on extent, in the last decade.

The first week sees 2006 and 2010 walk out of the records and head for normality.  The second week sees 2011 drop to lowest and 2016 walk away from record making.

The end of July into the first week of August sees 2011 stall and 2012 depart from all other years and head for the record books.

The next 4 weeks will be telling but, even then, a GAC would be a game changer for the end of year.

For me the most notable thing about 2017, in summer melt, is that it is sitting right at the bottom of the results and there is nothing dramatic about the weather patterns which should be putting it there.  All it needs is one sustained weather event at a critical stage and all bets are off.


33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 31, 2017, 02:51:05 PM »
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are confused rather than a troll.  Do you realize how irrelevant the radio frequency is?  Here's a plot of energy from the sun in different wavelengths:
 

OK I logged in for one hour and I’ll bite as this does need an answer.

I’ll accept that if:

A:  You can show me a chart which _proves_ that solar flux can be higher and TSI is lower at the same time.  Thus making a nonsense of my tracking.
B: You can find me an archive which logs TSI and gives me the SI values for the wavelengths which heat the planet, not just the radio flux values.  Then I can update my values with those figures and re-draw the charts.

As the solar flux is generally driven higher by sunspot activity, it is, I assume, a reasonable approach to assume that the TSI is higher during higher solar flux events.  Otherwise why would Hansen have spent so much time calculating out that the solar minimum, measured in _both_ sunspots and flux (almost 1:1 correlation) and the CO2 levels that would overwhelm a 100 year minimum cooling from a drop in solar irradiance?

There is enough anecdotal evidence out there to prove that point without having to waste my life searching for data which just parallels what I have posted.

As far as I’m concerned SFI=Sunspot activity=TSI as a very rough correlation.  As I’m working on annual figures, not even trying to find out where TSI is higher in the melt seasons, not trying to map SFI to storms or to any other weather event, so then a rough correlation is all I need.

Another comment said about the Antarctic.

To bring the Antarctic into this is valid, I guess, given I’m talking about global impact, but then the whole argument about Antarctic is apples V oranges because you can’t talk about the Austral sea ice in the Antarctic. That would be nonsense.  You have to talk about the under shelf melting from the exceptionally warm sea currents which are destroying and destabilising the ice shelves. 

_That_ is a really BIG deal right now, if you watch these kinds of things (I do) and, potentially, a much bigger impact than what we are seeing in the Arctic in terms of climate disasters.

Anyway, as far as I’m concerned, now, this is done.  I think I’ve said all that I want to say and have nothing further to add.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 31, 2017, 04:23:30 AM »
Good comment, lifeblack. NeilT is totally off-topic. Again. Solar input after late August, preposterous. This cycle rubbish, recycled from his WUWT days, rebutted decades ago. Next up, ban him from the 2016/2017 season forum for distraction trolling.

Really?  Distraction trolling?  What a very interesting concept.

MY WUWT days?  Clearly, gone are the days when I get a cordial mention for taking down WUWT intransigence.  But, hey, that's life.

Solar input after late August,

Really?  That's going to hurt?  And just exactly where do these storms get their heat energy they are bringing  into the Arctic?  The tooth fairy?  Because it is not just the oceans.  Those weather events are born in the oceans which are in the light.

If that answer seems a bit harsh, then a review of the comment above might explain it.

And to answer a very reasonable question, no I was not looking for total solar irradiance because I was looking at the total solar activity.  Total solar irradiance factors in local phenomena affected by many factors such as local gasses and, as mentioned, albedo  Clearly total solar irradiance, in the Arctic, in winter, is a misnomer.  But total planetary impact by total solar activity is not.

Neven, you can ban me as requested, but, personally, this is the last time I accept the kind of comment I got above.  As the person who has put that comment in is a very prolific poster who provides very good graphics and data, I would expect that person to be valued far above my contributions.

It's been fun at times.  But it is no more.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 31, 2017, 12:53:48 AM »
The Gory Details, but in short

A measure known as the solar flux is
used as the basic indicator of solar activity,
and to determine the level or radiation
being received from the Sun. The
solar flux is measured in solar flux units
(SFU) and is the amount of radio noise
or flux that is emitted at a frequency of
2800 MHz (10.7 cm)

As I understand it this is an absolute value.  I don't believe it's an anomaly or a departure from a baseline.  It is never reported as such.

The averaging I did was the following.

I took the monthly smoothed values for the entire 12 months of the year and averaged them.

I took the SolarHam values for 2011 to 2016.

I took the rest from here.

It always seemed to me that there was a correlation between the flux at the end of a cycle and the beginning of the cycle and the extreme events we are now seeing in the melt seasons.

Note 2007, 2012 and 2016/17.



So I thought I'd take the values and graph them, yearly, against PIOMAS volume and see if there was some correlation.  Given that the sun is the single largest contributor of energy to the Arctic.

If you recall I was talking about 10 year and 5 year cycles.  To me it seems that the impact of the end of the solar cycle with the energy momentum of the solar high, has a different impact to the energy of the beginning of the cycle (2011/12), after the low.

Personally I think that whilst the ice cap was contiguous, strong and resilient to small changes in solar output, that it did not make that much difference.  However now it's weak and vulnerable, I think the small changes in solar output are being felt to a larger degree.

It's just a theory, but there is something there.  It just hasn't been going long enough to make an impression.

Well it was a thought.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 31, 2017, 12:04:23 AM »
Given that I'm always talking at a tangent to the main part of this thread I thought I'd finally buckle down to it and put out two graphs which you have never seen before because there is little interest in doing them.  Probably because, as far as I'm aware, there is not a lot of science in this area right now.

Given that we're saying that Volume is the key figure here and that Extent is simply no longer worth looking at and that area is better but thickness is key, I thought I'd base this on volume.

What I did was download the PIOMAS daily volume sheet and use Excel to calculate the maximum volume in winter and the minimum volume in summer/autumn, to give me the start figures.

I then trawled the solar sites to get the solar flux data and averaged that out to a single annual figure.

I then calculated one more figure.  Which was the volume loss for each year.  All of this for the last 11 years, 2006 to 2016.

The first chart is a comparison between the "volume loss" and the annual average solar flux.

The second chart shows the Annual max, the annual min and the annual average solar flux.

To align the values and make it a possible to compare I converted the PIMAS data from millions to hundreds of thousands (*10)

Attached below are the two graphs I made with Excel.


37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:02:11 PM »

38
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 30, 2017, 01:06:55 AM »
In the short term (a few months), maybe, but in the longer term no.

If you were going to a dealer and the car was 20% more expensive you would?

Pony up the cash and abuse Trump?
Buy the next most attractive vehicle at 20% less?

Is this a trick question?  Not really.  Vehicle manufacturers build to demand.  If the Mexican vehicles can't be sold in the US because they are too expensive to import, then the cars will be manufactured and sold from US factories.

Remember Trump is neither an idiot nor a politician.  He's a businessman and a billionaire to boot.  You would expect him to know how companies work.

The Mexican factories would be scaled back and their models re-directed to other markets which do not have trade barriers.

In short because consumers are price conscious, the approach will work.

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:59:15 AM »
"Isn't this megauberhypersuperduper-charging a bit dangerous?"

About as dangerous as fuelling with diesel or gasoline. The energy tranferred to the vehicle and power flux are actually larger in petroleum fuelling because of the superior efficiency of electric drivetrains.

Not quite.

If you have a look at the how stuff works on Lithium Ion batteries, you get a base level view of the mechanisms.  Lithium Polymer is essentially the same but lighter and more easily formed into different shapes.

Two key points from that article.

A lithium-ion battery pack must have an on-board computer to manage the battery. This makes them even more expensive than they already are.

There is a small chance that, if a lithium-ion battery pack fails, it will burst into flame.

Lithium batteries are composed of hundreds of smaller cells, each cell linked by the onboard computer for charging and discharging.  It is the job of the microprocessor to check the heat of each of the cells and direct charge power away from overheating cells.

Later in the article it shows the separating layers in the cells.  This is what failed, mainly, in the Samsung Galaxy Note7, allowing the anode and cathode to short and go on fire.

So when you are shoving massive amounts of power into these batteries, you are, essentially, pushing more small chunks of power, in parallel, to more small cells.

Of course as your battery degrades and the cells start to heat more when charging, your supercharger is going to take longer to charge them.

Also, of course, with so many cells charging in parallel, the chance that your battery will have a critical failure goes up a bit.  In the end it's all down to the computer and build quality.

The fun part.  All those note7's which burst into flames?  12wh.  Tesla batteries?  85kwh.  Sounds like quite a bonfire.  Would you charge up in the garage, attached to your house?  Well it is safe.  Sort of.  That's never happened before has it??  Well not actually charging anyway.

But, yes, the technology is volatile, especially in an accident which may puncture the battery pack.

The article does go on to say that 17 cars, in the US, catch fire every hour.  But then there are circa 300m cars in the us.  If you scaled that up to all Tesla cars sold so far it would be 62.  So I guess they're not doing so bad right now.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:30:37 AM »
I don't mind the gloating so much (I do it myself too, on those sparse occasions I turn out to be right), but rather the gloating in combination with the 'nobody listened to me and laughed at me'.

I'm not saying you do exactly that, and I realize this was your first exposure to Feeltheburn's concern trolling.

Actually Neven it wasn't even to do with "nobody listened to me and laughed at me". I've been laughed at, on and off, for 20 years because I followed Global Warming then Climate Change.  I've been laughed at by professionals.

No, it was the "If you have an opinion like that you shouldn't be allowed to be commenting here" responses which really irked and that was balanced a lot by the kind people who supported the right to "have an opinion".  That attitude is something I never heard on here a while back; but it is something which is cropping up more.

As for FTB, thanks I will be more careful.  But, I have on at least one occasion been accused of potential concern trolling.  Me; who thinks that were totally screwed and that at least 2 Billion people, up to 7 Billion people, are going to be killed by AGW.

Go figure.... ;D ;D

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:15:40 AM »
We have got to remember, we have already lost much of the Arctic's ability to cool the Earth. Whatever the reasons, extra moisture, cloud cover, GHG's, the heat is mostly staying there. Before, when it was carried by currents and so forth to the Arctic, it was shed during the long night. Not so much, now. So, when we consider what will happen when there is no sea ice, and the albedo loss and insolation gain, those numbers have to be combined with the change in retention numbers to get the real effect.

Let me put that another way.  If we have another melting season the same as 2007, in 2017, it will be in the context of an arctic which is post the 2007 and 2012 step changes in ice mass balance and albedo effect.

Something like this.


42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 30, 2017, 12:08:19 AM »
And viddaloo was banned because he was an asshole, creating conflicts everywhere, not because he had a simplistic statistical extrapolation without any physical basis. So please, don't use him as an example or call him friv. Friv made great contributions with a sense of humour, and had no problems whatsoever with being wrong about something. I hope to see him back again.

My very sincere apologies for mixing Friv up with viddallo.  It was a mistake of time and focus.  Nothing else.

No more concern trolling, no more gloating. Thanks.

It was absolutely _not_ gloating, I've made a mess of predictions more times than I care to think about in the last 20 years, so there is absolutely nothing to gloat about.

I would consider a post on my reasons for mentioning it but not on this thread as it's now totally OT and, honestly, I doubt it's worth the effort and I have a lot of pressing things I need to get done over the next month.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 27, 2017, 01:32:51 PM »
I'm with SH here, NeilT.  Most of us (including me) thought we'd cozy up to 14M KM2 +/- a few.  Don't know where you got the idea (the collective) We thought it wouldn't get past 12...

Sorry jdallen, wasn't saying that.  I was talking about tolerance and approach to ideas which were running against the observed trend.

Granted Friv was eventually blocked and faced a lot of criticism because his claims were totally unlikely given the known heat balance and forcings.

I was, more, talking about the general tolerance (if not acceptance), of more extreme predictions in the direction of the (very), short term trend.  Whereas there is quite significant resistance to any prediction which flies in the face of the short term trend.

I'm talking days or, at most one or two weeks.  If you look at the chartic zoom's which I've posted, the short term trend for January is up for ice coverage (extent and, even, area).

It's just an observation which I am talking about, a general trend.  I know this subject is emotive.  I have a niece who is doing her PHD in a climate related field and she's completely bowed out of the whole discussion because it is so emotive.  She just focuses on the science and leaves us to talk about it.

Anyway I don't want to take this any more off topic and I'm happy to drop it.

44
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 26, 2017, 07:19:17 PM »
Neven with 16/17 ECUs in the Prius, as opposed to 1 in most normal cars, I'd suspect that it might have more than just a few battery cell problems.

Once cars like the Prius start throwing issues it's usually a good idea to get rid of them.  So probably a good move going for the Opel


45
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: January 26, 2017, 06:48:31 PM »
Did anyone clue into the statement by Trump that he didn’t need “more legislation”; that the US already had enough legislation; that it just needed to be used.

This, essentially, removes Congress and the Senate from the decision process for much of what Trump is trying to do.

Predictable but still not very good news.  Obama was using this for years.  Now the boot is on the other foot.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 26, 2017, 06:42:00 PM »
I think that we are getting hung up about the word recovery.  It is a problem because the denialists use it all the time.

So we need two words.  Re-Growth and Recovery. 

Re-Growth is the extending of the ice over the ocean surface, no matter the thickness, thus blocking off a significant proportion of heat transfer between the ocean and the atmosphere and allowing the ice to thicken to whatever level it can.  It also cuts off moisture transfer from the ocean which is a huge game changer.

Recovery is something else.  It is the strengthening of surviving ice into 2yi or myi and the full creation of FYI to the maximum thickness.  Meaning an increase in volume which can then resist the next years melting season.

For me, recovery has nothing to do with the summer low the year before.  It has to do with the comparison between the previous winter max volume and the current max volume (or the comparison for the same day of the year).

As for extent, I would never use extent, but with cryosphere today down this year I’m left with Chartic which allows me to select years and compare them.  I have always used area to make comparisons up to this year and I’ve used CT because I was able to select the years I wanted to compare, not play with a graph of years someone else wanted me to see.

But, even then, to suggest that extent plays no role in the dynamics of the freezing season is disingenuous.  Just because it doesn’t tell you how thick the ice is, or how thick it is becoming, does not mean that it is not having an impact on the energy transfer between ocean and atmosphere nor having an impact on the weather which is causing such havoc.

Yes there are storms tearing the ice up, waves and swell mashing everything together, but every 100kkm^2 covered by ice, that’s another change in the dynamics of the ice/ocean/atmosphere balance.  Ignore that and you won’t be right when you try to see into the coming freezing season, spring or summer melt.

I’ve never claimed that this forum was an echo chamber but I can say that I’ve been pretty frustrated time and time again.  Back last spring I posted a link to a study which showed that extensive opening of the ice to allow the ocean to interact with the atmosphere causes more moisture than expected leading to more storms, but also more clouds.  Nobody commented.  Not a person. Did anyone even read it?  Why was I right about the stall?  Weeks/months before anyone else.  Why was I right about the August rush to melt?  Why was I right in claiming that not only would the ice loss would not go blue ocean, but that it would also not exceed 2012.  Constant and close focus on the numbers in the spring of 2016 could easily have led to the strong belief that we were going to experience a 2012 style event.  However a little broader viewpoint would have revealed that this was unlikely.  Not impossible, just unlikely.

Why was I talking about an extended melt/freeze/melt in September/October back in July?  Same reason.

Now I’m told that because I’m focusing on something else, I’m wrong, that I’m trolling, that I’m denying something.

Really?  Go figure.  I’m saying 2017 is going to be a shocker for melt but it is still unlikely to be blue ocean.  As has been proven time and time again, even with the MYI transport and the ice trashing with storms, there is still too much ice to go blue ocean in one season unless it is truly exceptional.  2007 was truly exceptional but there was just too much ice to melt.

If that’s trolling, then I’m in the wrong place.  If this thread is only for those who want to either obsess on the day by day figures, the storms, the specific temperatures in specific places, whilst ignoring the larger impacts of the greater areas which are slowly covering over with inexorable growth of ice cover.  If this thread is the place where people can make wild and unsubstantiated guesses as to how bad things will be, quite happily tolerated; but someone who says that things are slowly descending into the chaos we are all know is coming is constantly denigrated or told to shut up, then I’m in the wrong place.

If this thread is simply a place for the production of and crunching of, images and numbers, then pleas say so and I’ll come back from time to time to catch up on where you are “today” and ignore all the bits I don’t want to know about.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 26, 2017, 04:58:23 PM »
I went back and re-read that post.

FTB was talking about something I have also been talking about.  The microscopic focus on the damage caused by the storms, whilst ignoring the reality that the ice is returning at a rate similar to other years, whilst having started from a lower level after a protracted turn over from melt to freeze.

How it feels like far fetched statements on freeze lows are OK but any focus on the rate of re-growth of extent is not.

FTB used the word "appear" before denialist echo chamber.  That was not a direct accusation, more a warning of the impression being given.  I know that this is a subtlety of the English language and I would not expect a ESL speaker or an EAL speaker to always recognise the subtlety.

I have also spoken out about this approach.  I nearly responded to A-Team's appeal to "keep focusing on the small details" so we could compare them with next year.  I decided that to try and make my point about differing seasons and no two years being even close to the same was simply not worth it.

FTB is trying to make a point.  Only a few are listening.

That doesn't make FTB a troll any more than it makes me a troll and I'm saying the same thing, essentially.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 26, 2017, 02:46:42 PM »
dftt

Well now, there’s a thing.  I never thought that I’d see this on this forum.  Called a troll because s/he has the cojones to make some challenging statements to try and rebalance the conversation.

Personally I’ve noticed the same kind of inflammatory statements as we were having with Vid last year in the melting season.  You know, when he said that the winter would not freeze up again this year because “something” was going to override the entire system.

Simply put, as was clearly outlined here, there is not enough spare energy going free, yet and possibly for a long time, to allow that to happen.

But, here I have to also stand up and make a statement to this trend.  There have been winter predictions, on this thread, anticipating that the extent won’t go over 12m.  Then dire predictions of loss and reversal and just about every other kind of prediction; that the incoming heat from a few storms could overcome the general trend of an Arctic winter with no sun to warm the ocean.

Reality?  The real question is how far over 14m will it go and will it really go over 14.5m or will it say ~400k below 2007, as it started the year, throughout the entire winter, or will it do as 2012 did and have a late pseudo recovery, just in time for the denialists to trumpet it and then a long and sustained fall?

It was asked on the freezing basics whether there is such a thing as “freezing momentum”.  It was rapidly compared to the melting season and then dismissed.  But one quick look at the graph below lends its support to the theory that winter IS “freezing momentum” and that any major change in the state of the ice in winter will have to overcome that momentum first, before making a step change.

None of this is talking about volume, nothing to do with export or any of the other mechanisms which will all play their part in the coming ice loss of 2017.  Likely to be another step change in the ice balance of the arctic.  So I’m not even addressing it.  I’m talking about the fact that the ice extent is growing despite the storms, despite the heat in the ocean or imported by the storms and despite the, somewhat, feverish, rhetoric that now seems a la mode on these melting and freezing threads.

Like Jim and one or two others I have spent far more time on WUWT than the vast majority of people on this site.  I find it exceptionally unwelcome to experience the same sort of “group think” and “ganging up” purely because the commenter does not agree with the general consensus.

So could we please stop calling a poster, who has been here for a while, a troll, just because s/he happens to challenge the accepted consensus on the thread.


49
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 25, 2017, 06:40:23 PM »
I’m always pleased to see progress in thinking and actions.  But every truly new departure from the norm requires a period of adjustment and tuning before it meets the goals and targets which have been set.

The problem is that Tesla have set themselves a goal on a timeline which can only be achieved by using the known, today, whilst introducing the unknown in parallel to facilitate future expansion.

I have seen this many times in the computing world.  The person who was the leading advocate of downsizing and rightsizing and distributed computing used to go to the annual computing challenge competition where they used their computer systems to solve the business needs set in the challenge.

He won it every year.  Using the oldest and most inflexible technology because it was the best known and most quantifiable solution.  Finally, 20 years later, his challengers would win with their distributed computing and rightsized systems.  But they wouldn’t win because they are the “old” tech of today and he’d use that to its fullest potential.

I see SpaceX and Tesla and what they have achieved and laud Musk for his vision and drive.  But EV as a significant proportion of the car market is orders of magnitude larger than SpaceX as a significant proportion of the space launch business.  They are two different beasts even if the approach is the same.

I will continue to look for good news.  But I will continue to expect slow and organic change, rather than rapid and revolutionary change.  I hope to be surprised as every good pessimist should.  But I expect not to be as every good pessimist does.

50
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: January 25, 2017, 06:27:37 PM »
Maybe having extreme narcissistic personality disorder is what makes them dangerous :P

No, no, it makes them predictable when given an order... ::) ::)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7