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 - Carex

Pages: [1]
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 01:53:15 PM »
A-Team, that first graphic in #1038 is excellent.  You'd get an A in graphics art class with that one.  A lot of information presented very clearly.  You earn a golden spyglass for peering through the fog.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 11, 2020, 01:32:55 PM »
Meanwhile, in sub-arctic melt progress, as of yesterday, the Great Lakes are now ice free, despite four consecutive mornings of fresh snow.  Black and Nipigon Bays, Lake Superior gave up the ghost to strong winds while temperatures hovered between -5 and +2.

3
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: June 15, 2019, 04:13:36 AM »
RE#342:   

The Lakes are quite dynamic. L. Superior was within 0.1 foot of record low in 2004 and L. Michigan was low enough to restrict shipping as recent as 2006.  Still people build as close as they can and light to moderate damage is happening during storms now.

4
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:59:13 AM »
This is an all time high for Lake Erie.


And Lake Ontario


The big lakes upsteam usually don't reach full pool until later in the year.

5
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:45:10 AM »
Flood? Maybe not, but the Great Lakes are rather high too.

https://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/wlevels/data/superiorLevelsFeet.png


6
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: May 25, 2019, 06:15:54 PM »
If I remember correctly, Kate has a soft spot for melting river deltas. 8)

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: May 25, 2019, 05:44:47 PM »
Trebuchet:  It Looks like it is time to be caught by "The Lore of the Labrador Wild" and begin "The Long Labrador Trail" as Mina Hubbard finds "A Woman's Way Through Unknown Labrador"

8
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: May 19, 2019, 12:03:50 AM »
Another little twist is that the air temp is measured and modeled at 1.5m or 2m above the surface.  Much of the energy from solar radiation will pass through the air but be absorbed by the surface, especially where dirt and soot are present.  Light isn't converted to heat until it is absorbed.  So the surface can warm and start to melt while the air 2m above it is still below freezing.  On slopes facing the sun the effect will be greater as the solar angle to the surface increases.  I'm sure this can be said much more scientifically. 

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 17, 2019, 08:40:22 PM »
Just a quick note on peripheral ice.  The Great Lakes Coastal Watch (NOAA) as of yesterday show no ice on the Great Lakes.  The last holdouts in Thunder, Black, and Nipigon Bays on the north shore of Lake Superior have faded away. (I couldn't see anything on MODIS on the 13th but it was partly cloudy).

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 13, 2019, 01:24:55 PM »
Will those six or seven lows, forecast for Wednesday, surrounding a polar high be enough to rotate the entire cap now that it seems unattached to shore?  They look like little sprockets surrounding a large central gear.

11
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: February 13, 2017, 01:24:02 PM »
Since the OMG study is mapping glacier mouths and according to press reports finding more deep channels underlying more west coast glaciers, I was wondering if they had produced/or are planing to produce an updated coastal topography/bathymetric map.  It seems like it would be a first step on which to present the rest of their work.   

12
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: February 12, 2017, 01:50:33 PM »
Is their coastal topography available as a map, or has it been incorporated into any other bedrock/till models??

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northern Sea Route thread
« on: February 03, 2017, 12:31:34 PM »
Russia, earlier this year sent a convoy, east to west, from Archangel to Pevek.  Technically not a passage through but close enough.  This route was also used in Soviet times.  They seem to have become stuck on the return trip, just about the time the early January storm was moving most of the ice mass west.  Referance: Atlas Obscura. I also read something in a translated Russian article but do not remember what it was from.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:07:39 PM »
Budmantis:

US Snow and ice center show Winnipeg and Great Slave to be ice covered.  Which I would believe as they have been frequently -20  to -30C for extended periods. Warmth has reached to James Bay but has stayed east of the Canadian Great Lakes.  Superior, however, has ice only in it's quiet bays, and not all of them.  The northern embayments of Lake Huron, North Channel and Georgian Bay have open water, especially Georgian Bay.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 14, 2017, 08:24:21 PM »
Do I eyeball that volume deficit correctly at ~ 4,000km3?  Or about the volume of fresh water that humans use per year. (volume source https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-dont-we-get-our-drinking-water-from-the-ocean/)

16
Antarctica / Re: Melt water in Antarctica
« on: January 09, 2017, 04:06:10 PM »
After seeing this post my quick perusal of World View showed the areas effected to be much greater than shown in these few images.  Although I find time to read, I don't seem to be able to find the time to research, especially the time to climb the steep learning curve required.  So I was wondering if anyone knows of anyone who is, or has, searched the satellite record to tease out the extent and location of Antarctic melt ponding over the satellite period.

17
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2016, 06:18:13 PM »


The value for December 7 is 10,166  Dec 10 is 9,398 Mn km2.

If we want to keep the first place when 2017 begins we need to see another drop of about 4,2  3.4 Mn km2. The lowest value on record at New Year is 5,967 Mn km2 which was reached by January 1 in 1980. That means that we need to lose about 175K 163k every day. Should be a tough mission to fulfill despite that we are lowest on record today, but certainly not impossible.

Getting easier every day (so far).



18
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: May 13, 2016, 01:33:47 PM »

It looks much like a ‘Jokullhlaup’.


Now there is a term that could use some more background.  What is the etymology (translated).  How frequently do these sub-glacial water flows occur?  Are they common, uncommon, rare!  Are they known with particular conditions or causes?  It is definitely a noteworthy sight!

19
I will throw my penny in the just under 2.0 pot.  I am going low because for the last two years the ice has been in poor condition and vulnerable to an Arctic storm.  I don't think we will dodge the bullet again, I'm betting on two significant storms.  Now it the chicken will just poop on my square.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 30, 2016, 02:45:40 PM »

Or probably Arctic Red River?

As for the Red from Winnipeg to Lake Winnipeg, it has been wide open for weeks.  Possibly, you are thinking about the Nelson that runs into Hudson Bay.
[/quote]

Yes, the Arctic Red River.  It has always stuck in my head as the Red River of the North. Maybe London, or Marsh, or Curwood or White referred to it as such in one of their northern romances.  Or more likely that I totally forget about that southern stream that drains the southern high plains.  To those with a more southern mind that great slough through Dakota territory is probably thought of as north.

And yes the main tributaries feeding L. Winnipeg are flowing free, but not flooding this spring, The Red and Winnipeg, even the great western Assiniboine and Saskatchewan are open (although I can't really tell if the channels around Cumberland house are open).

Apologies for confusion caused.

And the Nelson now has good stretches of open water, both at the outlet and down stream of Stephen's Lake

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 29, 2016, 01:22:09 PM »
Been searching around, google "HYCOM river"; apparently the model already includes historical mean discharge rates of +1000 rivers around the world by default, but it allows the user enter monthly data and possibly, if available, daily data (for instance U.S. rivers). This inflow is modeled, into the ocean boundary, at the river mouth location, and can be simulated as very heavy rain too. Since the Mackenzie river has very small but non-zero discharge rate, both in historical and current data (and even for winter), hence the tiny fresh water signal shown at the mouth location. Whether this is accurate or even relevant, I know not. Surely in less than a month it will be.



Rivers Ob and Yenis now have long reaches of open water that should soon be reaching the Kara.  The Lena is open just below L. Baikal but has a long cold slide to the delta.  The Mackenzie is still tight from Lake Athabaska north but should begin to open this coming week if the forecast is at all accurate.  The Red River of the North is also still solid and running through a snow covered landscape.

22
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2016 Melt Season
« on: April 26, 2016, 03:44:59 PM »
I think a large part of the problem is that the very concept of climate implies a certain level of stability.  We are currently in a situation where the planetary energy levels are in a state of change.  If you run a model 100 times in a changing system you are going to find 100 different results.  It is highly unlikely to be able to predict how all of this new energy is going to effect a million different variables.  In a complex system in a state of flux chaos rules, in my limited understanding, this is where the butterfly effect is important, this is where the diversity of possible futures is highest.

Conventional wisdom is that weather is chaotic but climate is not being a boundary condition problem rather than a chaotic problem.

"In a complex system in a state of flux chaos rules" If there is a stable underlying system with chaotic noise on top, how are you ruling out small stable changes in the underlying system in order to jump to the chaos conclusion?



All models are wrong; some models are useful.
In this case, models are better at some things than others. Probably important to try to use them where they are reasonable? If you want to use them where they are bad, maybe a few bad models is better than no model, but take care.

1.  Bad models are useful.  Perhaps we learn most and fastest from bad models as we learn to improve them.  I strongly believe in the use of a wide variety of models in any undertaking that involves thinking.

2. I do not consider my jump to the chaos conclusion as a given but as a higher probability.  The primary reasons being that as total energy in the system increases the likelihood that each physical feature on the planet will react to or alter the energy in the system in an unforeseen manner increases.  These unforeseen details have an increased chance of accumulating in unseen ways to produce unseen results.  Each stable underlying system is increasingly likely to be altered, to become less stable.  Although stable systems are likely to resist change, changing the systems around them increases the likelihood of changing them as well.

3. We are now in a system with energies for which we do not have solid historical data to check and calibrate our models with.  The energies in the system are continuing to increase, decreasing our ability to check the model.  The rate of increase of energy in the system is continuing to increase.  Chaos, I believe, increases the probability of un-predicted (unpredictable?) conditions occurring, particularly during the periods of most rapid change.  Once  energy levels become more stable model predictability will increase but the next steady state may not reflect the conditions that occur during the periods of rapid change.  The period of rapid change will be, at a minimum, 100 years.

4.  This is the babbling of a lowly field botanist who is better suited to roaming around the woods and looking for things.  I am happy to be schooled in matters physical and mathematical.  I consider it a complement that my comment drew criticism from you Mr. Crandles as I have had my opinions changed more than once by your commentary.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 26, 2016, 02:31:17 PM »
OldLeatherneck: "Among some most prominent variables, that are no longer in equilibrium, that can have an impact on Arctic  ice loss are GHG levels (elevated),SSTs (elevated globally and more so in the Arctic), Surface Temperatures (record high globally and well above normal in the Arctic), NH snow cover very low and that pesky Jet Stream that hasn't learned how to respond to Arctic  Amplification."

What worries me is that these levels are elevated, continue to elevate, and are elevating at an increasing rate.  And, have the GHG levels reached that point that natural (or secondary anthropogenic) GHG sources are becoming available at levels that can maintain or increase the GHG levels even if primary anthropogenic sources are curbed or eliminated. 

Lakes Baikal and Winnipeg are beginning to break up and there are open stretches on the Irtysh and Nelson Rivers.  The warm water cometh.

24
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2016 Melt Season
« on: April 20, 2016, 02:33:33 PM »
I think a large part of the problem is that the very concept of climate implies a certain level of stability.  We are currently in a situation where the planetary energy levels are in a state of change.  If you run a model 100 times in a changing system you are going to find 100 different results.  It is highly unlikely to be able to predict how all of this new energy is going to effect a million different variables.  In a complex system in a state of flux chaos rules, in my limited understanding, this is where the butterfly effect is important, this is where the diversity of possible futures is highest.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 21, 2015, 01:10:13 PM »
Since it seems another minimum has been passed I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you Wipneus on all the work you've done in providing these 'home brew' figures. Getting a break down of the figures to the regional level is invaluable in assessing the impact on the ice of various types of weather.

SECOND

26
All this excitement and no one is lamenting that Espen's proposed camp-out on the rocks, to watch the calving, never materialized!

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northwest Passage thread
« on: August 14, 2015, 03:16:56 PM »
Looking at that chart the Northwest passage is officially open with no more that 60% ice for both the Prince Regent - Bellot Straight route or the Peel Sound route then south of King William Island.  Routes could be navigated with a maximum 50% ice concentration.  Routes north of King William Island would require passage through at least 20 miles of 70% to 80% ice concentration. 
I wouldn't do it but I'm sure there are many who would.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: June 20, 2015, 01:05:23 PM »
JIM H.

 "I don't suppose you happen to know the period of the "10 foot waves" you observed on Lake Michigan do you?"

I can say from experience that the wave period on The Great Lakes tends to be very short compared to ocean waters (unfortunately I don't have any suitable reference at hand).  The basins, especially near shore, are very shallow for long distances with lots of bottom drag allowing the waves to pile up.  When you look at the shallow draft of the tall ships that plied these waters you have to seriously wonder how they stayed upright.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 16, 2015, 01:53:21 PM »
At least locally fog is a huge snow eating monster (need another emoticon with huge gnashing teeth)

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: June 12, 2015, 03:09:39 PM »
This feature is crystal clear on today's MODIS image.  The analysis here also seems spot on except that post cracking snow accumulation seems more likely than pressure ridging.  The feature should also make tracking the fate of this raft of ice through the melt quite easy.  It may remain as clear the infamous goat's head.

31
Arctic background / Re: Arctic Drilling and Shipping
« on: May 30, 2015, 12:49:26 AM »
As a northern American, living life long near the boarder in NH, Maine and Michigan, I'd always had a deep respect and admiration for Canada.  Always seemingly slightly more moral than the United States.  Than Harper happened and Canada's worst natural resource policies twisted with the fibers of the tea party and the torries making a strange new coarse and abrasive fiber. 

32
Three years ago I put my money down for 2020.  So, I'm stuck with that.  I think MH's final paragraph is critical.  A weather driven ice free September is now possible in any given year.  A climate driven ice free September is not likely until 2030 to 2050, and I would trend toward the later part of that period.  As climate warms weather should become less predictable, a somewhat balanced system becomes disturbed and more chaotic until a new equilibrium is reached, which will be a long time coming.   Nice to have a topic that we inexpert readers can contribute to, even if our ideas turn out to be BS.  Ahh, the wonders of prognostication.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: April 23, 2015, 12:40:32 PM »
The area along 15degE fits well with fractured ice north of Svalbard.  But the ice around the pole is  about the least fractured in the entire Arctic Ocean (except maybe a bit along 60degW towards Lincoln).  Anyone have a good buddy working with AMSR2 who might offer insight?

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: April 21, 2015, 01:54:26 PM »
MODIS shows a large amount of cracking, and leads opening from a shattered Lincoln to Kara. Is this enough show a decrease in concentration?  The pole has also been sitting under a small storm cell for a few days, will this influence the satellite read?

35
Details,  Beginning withing a few kilometers of the outlet of Jakobshavn there is a near linear features running very close to SE for 75% to 80% of the distance across the island.  The feature is somewhat irregular in the lower, faster moving sections, from there it becomes quite liner and narrow for a considerable distance. When the feature reaches the upper elevations of the ice cap it becomes less liner and more variable in width.  As it approaches an area of apparent irregular topography influenced by bedrock (or an area of clouds?) it appears to widen slightly into a fan shape, opening toward the high ground. Just east of this, assumed, high ground the feature may be seen again, slightly offset but still bearing SE. The feature fades before bedrock influenced topography is apparent, nearing the east coast. 
Conditions appear to be quite clear as surface details are discernible both SE and NW of the feature.  A vapor trail perhaps?  This should be checkable.  Conditions on the 29th are much cloudier, especially to the east.  I saw this and headed to the forum to ask about it and was greated by those two old maps, very apropo.  The feature is obvious at all pixel sizes from 4K to 250m.  It looks like a giant slump.

36
Let me see if I can actually attach the picture.

37
Actually, can anyone educate me about the nature of this nearly linear feature that shows up on the 3/28 MODIS image from the mouth of Jakobshavn nearly to the height of land?? And corresponds quite well with the old straight??

38
That straight is almost completely visible on yesterdays MODIS.    I'm a bit illiterate when it comes to posts but I imagine most of you view MODIS regularly.

39
If you go and look at the flight plan they spent the day over the cracks along the Lincoln Sea.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: What will the Arctic resemble in 2050?
« on: March 21, 2013, 03:44:59 AM »
Andrew, Csnavy and Chris, beautiful.  This is the reason we lurkers are here.  Some red meat, some disagreement.  A little education from those who know the work much better than I do or ever will.  So some questions from the ignorant to further our education.  Andrew, why in your minimal effects of albedo argument do you distribute the albedo effect globally?  It seems to me that the effects would be almost entirely local and seasonal.  Local albedo increases local near surface water temperatures which increases ice melt.  Most of the heating would be radiated out in fall before the water is transported out of the arctic.  The global temperature change seems insignificant to the question.  This problem is mediated some what by using, probably, the maximum albedo difference between water and snow. 

In a melting situation much of energy is going into phase change.  If you put a candle next to a pot full of snow the snow close the candle is going to melt long before the snow on the far side of the pot.

Also, the comparison to the global effect of doubling CO2 does not seem relevant to what is being observed on the ground.  CO2 is globally emitted throughout much of the globe and is circulated and active as a Greenhouse gas relatively quickly.  And while doubling CO2will result in an increase radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 or about 1.0C warming, there has only been a 17% increase in CO2 during the period of comparison or about 0.2C.  Your figure of 0.1C from increased albedo 1980 to 2007 seems quite significant.  Although you obviously understand the physics of weather and climate much better than I, you seem to be comparing apples and oranges.

This also cuts to the core of distrust and perhaps misunderstanding of models by wee lay folk.  Because models must work on a global scale many of the local details must be eliminated.  Because effective models should work backwards and forwards, the fit to geologic changes does not seem to be easy to reconcile with the rapid rates of change we are living in. Over the long term I trust the models and modelers and I trust that the will balance out. But over the next ten or 20 years it seems more likely that regional forcing that is calculated over global areas can have stronger regional effects than the models may detect.  Mr. Zang's results sound encouraging.  Were the parameterized models run out beyond current conditions?  If so, how do the parameterized and non-parameterized runs compare.

I, lowly citizen, lay my discussion on your table to be  flayed.

41
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Early 2013 Melt in SE Greenland?
« on: March 19, 2013, 01:20:42 AM »
From NSIDC

"The Greenland Today melt detection program is being corrected. Conditions in the snow in southeastern Greenland are unusually warm below the surface, but the surface has in general not been melting. Adjustments to the melt mapping software are being implemented, and we will post a discussion on the correction either later today or by the end of tomorrow at the latest at
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/.

Please see the discussion once it is posted for further details.

Best regards,
Lisa
NSIDC User Services"

42
We now have cracks throughout the Arctic Basin, the Beaufort looks like confetti, the Chukchi has been pumping ice in and out of the Bering Straight (we know that's mobile), the Kara looks like a dropped egg, there are vast areas of open water (or very young ice) in the lee of Wrangle Island in the East Siberian Sea.  But what effect will it have?  That depends on the melt season's weather.  A calm season will see little effect but any storms, especially large storms will be able to pound the ice into nothing or push it into warmer water.  It's fate isn't sealed but it is much more vulnerable.

43
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Early 2013 Melt in SE Greenland?
« on: March 18, 2013, 05:26:45 PM »
Thule, Greenland +4C,  Alert, Ellsmere -32 C. :o

44
Arctic ice blog fame continues to grow.  The Climate Central article on the arctic cracking was picked up and re-posted by The Weather Underground.  Their graphics are a bit old and of limited area (not A-Team quality) but awareness is slowly slipping out.

45
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Early 2013 Melt in SE Greenland?
« on: March 07, 2013, 02:27:41 AM »
I agree, this does not look like melt.  What are other possible explanations? What could either add water to the surface or create a false "wet" data analysis consistently in the same spot?  An outlet of water from the ice cap interior, a glacial seep?  A normal ground water seep on a slope?  The local fish gut dump?  Yes, I'm reaching and hoping to flush out better ideas.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic sea ice free (extent)
« on: March 03, 2013, 03:07:46 AM »
I try, mainly for discussion with those with questions, to phrase my opinions in terms of climate, not weather.  So I like to say in the warmest year of the next ten or thirty.  Given that, I'll pick 2017-2020.  That would be within 10 years after the 2010 volume drop.  I'd say the chance is 90% to 95%.  And the chance of pre-2040 as 99.999%.  My reasoning is based completely on a visual review of photos and graphs.  A gut feeling that ocean warming could overwhelm this but do not have enough background in ocean currents or physics to assess my own opinions.

47
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Early 2013 Melt in SE Greenland?
« on: February 27, 2013, 02:46:24 AM »
Air temperature is typically not recorded in direct sunshine so surface temperatures are typically higher than the air temperatures as officially measured.  (This dose not mean that the laws of physics are altered, only that standardized measurements can not measure everything). 

I'm not saying it was melting in Tasiilaq today, only that the satellite data seems reasonable and is not inconsistent with mass gain.  Weather Underground has Kulusuk reaching 0 C 10 times this month.  Rain and fog were each recorded twice. In Prins Christian Sund the forcast is near or above freezing through the weekend (couldn't get the months history). Warmer than here.

48
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Early 2013 Melt in SE Greenland?
« on: February 27, 2013, 12:56:15 AM »
I, also not a qualified scientist, will throw out my view hoping that any errors will flush out real knowledge.  Melt does not require a change in mass balance.  It is a change of state.  It is not necessary for the liquid to run-off into a basin for melt to have occurred.  So, it is perfectly normal, in a cool light rain to have melt and an increase in mass. In most situations snow that has been melted and re-frozen is easier to melt again because of a lowered albedo of the new, altered form of the snow or ice.  Here, at 46 12' N latitude 85 45' west long., we are getting frequent melting but have had limited if any runoff of water to lakes and streams. 

Once the we get daylight for about 10 hours/day open south facing areas start melting, on sunny days, at about -5C air temp.  The surface temp in the sun is obviously higher.

Pages: [1]