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 - D-Penguin

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 20, 2020, 01:45:50 AM »
Animation of the annual max and min, from 1979 to present (click to play).
This type of synchronized animation that compares a particular metric with an outcome is visually powerful and instructive.

+1 Brilliant and instructive animation.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 02, 2020, 07:23:05 PM »
JAXA September 1st reading:  3,894,998.  A loss of approximately 48k in extent.   Given the current High pressure, it seems like it will keep compacting the ice and reduce extent for the next 4 - 5 days  at least.

Historically, the average extent reduction from September 1st to the minimum is about 200k.  If I remember correctly, the maximum September extent reduction was approximately 450k back in 2010. 

I think that this year will have a greater than average extent reduction in September given the current weather conditions and the accumulation of heat content in the arctic from solar insolation during strong GAAC in July.  My guess that that we will see a 350k - 400k September extent reduction.  That would put the minimum at 3.55 - 3.6 million km2.

We will all find out together in the next few weeks whether this is a good prediction.

A very reasonable prediction.

However, if the date of the minimum is extended by 10 days say, then who knows?

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 01, 2020, 01:41:33 AM »
Quote from: The Walrus
Peter Wadhams again?  When does he predict the Arctic will be ice-free this time?
Aha The Walrus, I suspect that you forgot for a moment that you're on the ASIF and that you have let us (again) see into your cards.
Your cards don't belong here.


Funny, I thought this was a scientific forum, and one should use scientific "cards."  Apparently, you think that the only "cards" that belong here are those espousing rhetoric, instead of science.

The science no longer represents the actuality of events; it has failed to 'connect the dots' and is too far behind the curve. Informed opinions are now more relevant than the science in the context of policy formulation in preparation for a BOE, the pre-cursor of an ice free Arctic ocean and the global implications that will follow.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 01, 2020, 01:11:07 AM »
...

More worrying is near Blue Ocean event next year and its forecast effect on the jet stream-driven rain belts moving in GCMs from a line north of the British Isles to the median around the Strait of Gibraltar, with the winter rain belts shifted to Morocco, Spain, Portugal, and Southern France, with the Beasts of the East, easterlies originating from Siberia brining very crispy air over Northern and Central Europe. The median occurrence in the models point to post-2021-melt circulatory change peaking by year end.
...

IMO a very realistic assessment of a near BOE based on the actuality of the current status of the Arctic ice created by known metrics and implications regarding the Jet Stream.

+1 For the insight to 'connect the dots'

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 30, 2020, 02:16:33 AM »
NSIDC Daily Area: August 28
I really like the Comparative Sea Ice Area graphic; you can see at a glance where the ice is holding on and what sort of area might still melt out through to the minimum.

+1 I just like the ease of comparison from the visual representation

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 30, 2020, 01:28:41 AM »
Indeed please stay on topic. D-penguin I can move said post(s) to another thread, just not sure where it fits.
Nor do I - Perhaps The Forum?

Whatever you decide is fine with me.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 10:53:32 PM »
Debate is very welcome on this thread but please keep the mosaic project as the subject.

the axib buoy (..97190) is the most westerly.
apologies for the different orientation. I prefer greenland down but am still unable to rotate the land map
I wondered how I came to be posting on this thread then realized it was in response to a point made in a  posting from FOoW.

I do not know how to re-post my postings to a more appropriate thread but the point that you make is clear and fully respected.

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 07:58:48 PM »
If an attempt is made to open a debate on the 2020 Melting Thread and its significance to future events, it is immediately swamped by postings commenting about weather forecasts, images from space and reference to the events of previous years.

Whilst I broadly agree with the points you raise I must also plead guilty to posting "images from space" in the 2020 Melting Season that reference "the events of previous years", not to mention "the ice between Greenland and the pole".
oooooooooooo   0000
What's not to like?
Absolutely nothing wrong. I find most of the comments, graphics and references interesting and informative. I just lament the lack of extended debate about the relativity and connectivity of current event postings to future events.

Perhaps, as an example, more comments about the picture you posted; why, how it relates to the present situation and what next?

I remember the 'old days' on the ASI Blog when a debate (exchange of ideas) on a particular topic might extend over a period of days or even weeks with a number of different contributors. The debate ended with either a consensus view having developed, an agreement to disagree or if the debate became acrimonious Neven would diplomatically end it with a few well chosen words.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 05:37:38 AM »

Quote
Jet stream important influence?


Your detailed reply to my question is very much appreciated. Thank you for the link to the paper on Atlantification.

IMO if we have to rely on the science in preparation for the future catastrophe...we are knackered!

+1 just for the insight and honesty you bring to the Forum

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 05:27:39 AM »
The pace and style of old academia, as done by the Polarstern scientists is failing us. By the time they get their results published those results will be out of date. Yes, the basic science has not changed, but the ice conditions have deteriorated over the past 3 years.

We are mostly flying blind on this forum, speculating or measuring insignificant changes to infinitesimally diminishing significance.

I plead guilty to speculating about what's happening below the ice between Greenland and the pole. The key factor was probably the unprecedented clear weather and direct sunlight, but we need buoys down there recording what's happening and we need real time analysis by knowledgeable scientists like A-Team. I agree with him about the deployment of surface and below surface instruments. Satellite measurements have limited capabilities as we can see with our own eyes from the photos at the pole.

The Arctic is melting rapidly while the traditional scientists play their old academic games. And the atmospheric circulation is shifting all the way up to the upper stratosphere while they dither over which ice floe to moor on. (The rapid jump in the QBO this summer is very unsettling.)
https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/en/met/ag/strat/produkte/qbo/index.html

Thanks A-Team for your analysis.

"By the time they get their results published those results will be out of date"

So very, very true!!!

In my more recent postings I have directly stated or inferred that the quantitative analysis of the science is inadequate; that scientists and policy makers are failing to relate to the reality and provide the required leadership.

"We are mostly flying blind on this forum"

Again, so very, very true!!!

There is much 'belly button gazing' going on. There is not much by way of idea exchanges. If an attempt is made to open a debate on the 2020 Melting Thread and its significance to future events, it is immediately swamped by postings commenting about weather forecasts, images from space and reference to the events of previous years; the comments are of interest but limited 'use'. Are we just posting to move up to the next grade of membership or gain 'I like' points?

Surely, the purpose of this forum and indeed the science is to 'inform' but this now requires a new perspective based on qualitative assessment of the reality but relative to the basic science. We now have to believe what we can literally SEE is happening, not blindly rely on imprecise satellite information and projections based on historical data.

We need to present reasoned opinions about when the Arctic ocean will become ice free and think creatively to stimulate new avenues of exploring events. Or do we passively report and comment on current events? Do we agree with the latest science indicating that we could see an Arctic ocean free of summer ice by 2035? Is it possible for the Arctic ocean to be ice free in summer and winter by 2035? Will the progress to ice free events be transitional or abrupt? Will Atlantification prevent ice from reforming after a consecutive summer/winter BOE? Are we not now at the time when informed opinion is of greater value than the science to inform policy makers?

IMO we have run out of time for the science; science is still trying to catch up explaining the history of events.

As I have said before, the science will still be projecting  that the Arctic will be free of ice 10 years after the event at worse or confirming the Arctic is ice free on the date of the event at best. We do not need the science for either of these two 'scientific' outcomes.

Not sure to which thread this rant should be posted.

+1 just for telling it as it is

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 29, 2020, 12:23:14 AM »

As a reminder, the bottom line is friction between local surface winds and ice roughness (respectively water) is what moves today's ice (makes waves). What the MSLP might be doing in the Azores over the next ten days, how the jet stream pattern could change far above as a consequence of fractional BOE, and whether ENSO will be trending in the eastern Pacific don't move ice. They might ultimately drive big-picture wind but predicting it below 2m isn't even an aspirational goal.

A question - Are you saying that the condition of the Jet Stream, at a point in time, plays no significant part influencing and is unrelated to the Arctic weather system forecasts?

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 28, 2020, 11:10:15 PM »
The US energy storage capacity could grow to 100 GW by 2030.  There is currently only 500 MW installed with projects underway to increase that to just over 1 GW.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/The-US-Energy-Storage-Boom-Is-About-To-Begin.html

Quote
The U.S. Energy Storage Boom Is About To Begin
By Tsvetana Paraskova - Aug 27, 2020


The rise of renewable energy sources and the decarbonization of the grid will need new energy storage installations in the coming years to provide flexible energy and capacity. Alongside rising shares of solar and wind power in the electricity mix, the U.S. is set to see increased energy storage installation as storage is critical to ensuring more solar and wind power generation.

America has the potential to see 100 gigawatts (GW) of new energy storage deployed by 2030, the U.S. Energy Storage Association (ESA) said in a new white paper this month.

That is an ambitious target, considering that in its previous estimate from 2017, ESA projected 35 GW of energy storage – including batteries, thermal, mechanical, and pumped storage hydro – installed by 2025.

Quote
The most recent U.S. Energy Storage Monitor from Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables and the ESA shows that a total of 523 MW of energy storage was deployed in the United States. This year, the storage deployment is set to double to nearly 1.2 GW, despite the coronavirus crisis that has changed and challenged energy markets and company plans. In 2025, energy storage deployment is set to reach 7 GW, representing six-fold growth compared to the new storage installations in 2020.

Renewable energy policy should take a holistic view to energy supply.

Just one example:-

Regeneration and landscape enhancement of disused coal mines incorporating a pumped-hydro energy storage and electricity supply system.

At ground level
- Construct a reservoir water resource for recreation, domestic water supply and feed to pumped-hydro electricity generating station.
- High quality soft landscaping to complete the project at ground level
Below ground level
- Utilize existing vertical access shafts for conduits to carry charging and disharging water supply
- Utilize existing tunnels to locate reversible pumps and turbines
- Utilize existing tunnels and chambers for water storage
- Utilise existing tunnels for cable distribution to local, regional or nation network location

At least if there is a leak that leads to the water-table level the contaminant is only water and not radioactive nuclear waste!

13
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 28, 2020, 04:42:34 PM »
You might like to read about Dinorwig pumped storage in North Wales.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

Impressive

Yes - But not quite so impressive as China with 22 Sites in operation and an additional 32 sites at completion or near completion stage.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 28, 2020, 02:26:44 AM »
I attended an annual US hydro conference a few years back. 4 years ago? ........One thing they all agreed on was building new dams in the US was a nonstarter. ........
 

Just in case we need an example of new large hydro that is not needed, not viable, not affordable, and, it appears, not even possible, we have Site C on the Peace River in British Columbia, Canada. Yet nonetheless, it proceeds. At least for now.
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2020/08/24/Horgan-Folly-We-All-Pay/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=082520-2&utm_campaign=editorial

Just a thought - A pumped-storage hydro generator need not necessarily require the construction of a new dam.

An existing natural or constructed reservoir at a higher level, connected to a natural or constructed water storage basin at a lower level, with the reverse pump station and turbine housing located at the base of the escarpment (valley floor level) could satisfy the engineering requirements. Such a project configuration would avoid the problems so vividly described in your link to the report about Site C on the Peace River in British Columbia, Canada. What a fiasco!

Lesson to learn - Ban politicians from making decisions that should rightfully be made by independent Civil Engineers!

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 27, 2020, 08:01:57 PM »
Is hydro in the "Other" section in the second graf ?

sidd
Yes.
I admit to concentrating on solar + wind as the renewable energy that is the future.  Cheapest & easiest to implement especially with big batteries as a plus.
I exclude...
Hydro  - means dams. Building dams is a hugely contentious issue.
BioMass - in the USA means mostly monoculture plantations- loblolly?
Nuclear - and some call it green energy. Crap.
"Hydro  - means dams. Building dams is a hugely contentious issue."
Could it not be said that the siting of turbines and solar panel arrays are also contentious?

Pumped-storage hydro also addresses the problems of storage (battery) and very fast response at peak demand.
Interesting link and surprise-surprise, who is miles ahead of the field, China!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations

I suspect that many geological and political factors will determine the future of renewable energy strategy both locally and nationally.

"Nuclear - and some call it green energy. Crap."
Agreed.
However, 'nuclear' fusion...well that could be a different ball game and make the word 'nuclear' acceptable. There is a lot of money being spent on this project at the moment.

16
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: August 25, 2020, 02:43:18 AM »
Tom, best read the original discussion on the AMSR2 Home Brew thread (or was that the Mosaic thread?), this is off-topic here.

Gandul, I agree invoking a user as support for some claim is not sufficient in and of itself. But as many of us don't know enough about most subjects, in fact probably no one knows enough about every related subject, it will often be someone else's opinion or analysis one might use or lean on. The more respected a user's opinion is, the better. But anyone can be wrong, so one is always free to debate and consider other possibilities.
If a member is referenced as authoritative, not to support a claim in this case but as justification for the use of a single word and then the status of that member is queried, a quick profile reference of the posting history should be sufficient to reach an informed opinion and respond in an appropriate manner.

The point is made simply to highlight 'good practice' that might help to reduce 'firing from the hip' responses that could lead to quarrelsome exchanges.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 24, 2020, 06:43:44 PM »

20th. That's some fairly specific prognostication. Stats are great, but they are not the only thing to consider. Patterns matter.

With respect, I challenge the idea, at this stage in the 2020 melt season, that stats are great and that patterns matter.

The stats are not representing an accurate picture and patterns only matter up to the point of a paradigm change in a sequence of events. I suggest that 2020 represents that paradigm change.

Thanks for repeating what I said.

;-)

(That post was pithy. I have made greater explanations previously. The idea is more general: Trends and patterns matter, too.)
Thanks for your response.

The point of my posting was that the progressive event and the singularity event of a change of state, in this case of the Arctic ice in 2020, would not relate to the same metrics; that the singularity event could not be predicted by any known parameters currently within our knowledge base. Of course, it could be argued that 2020 does not represent 'a change of state'; IMO this would be a constructive and informative debate.

I suggest that the direction of the argument in my posting was somewhat different to the points you raised and therefore not a  repetition. However, perhaps we might have to agree to disagree on that matter. :)

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 06:21:52 PM »
Updated version (improved colour scheme) of the comparison between the extent and concentration changes for the first 3 weeks of August.
Yep - I think you have got it spot on this time! A great comparative tool.

+1 for persistence and hard work to improve what was already a useful visual presentation of the data

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 23, 2020, 04:45:25 AM »

I just think the use of terms like paradigm shift are injudicious as they can be turned into meaningless arguments to discredit or obfuscate the undeniable science.
I just think the use of terms like paradigm shift are injudicious as they can be turned into meaningless arguments to discredit or obfuscate the undeniable science.
I fully understand the concerns that you express concerning the terminology.

However, the current quality of the ice is now of a different order albeit that the quantity metrics may not be so; herein is the problem related to the science. The science in the observation of events that provides the data for the different metrics by way of the available technology and the interpretation of that data is not sufficiently sensitive to represent the actuality of events. Hence, we see the scientific modelling based on the historical data constantly being revised in the peer reviewed papers towards a closer match to the qualitative reality that we observe.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no scientific data that quantifies and explains the heat energy gain in the Arctic system and dispersion of ice 'observed' in 2020, hence the use of the term 'paradigm shift'. Is the qualitative evidence less valid than the quantitative evidence (the science)?

IMO there will be no rebound from 2020 as was the case with previously recorded minima, hence again the use of the term 'paradigm shift'.

To me a change in the state of a system is a 'paradigm shift'.

Do we simply wait for the science to tell us that the Arctic ocean is now ice free?

What happens if the BOE is a singular event and not part of a progression of events? In such a scenario, waiting for the science to confirm the event, would bring relevance of the science in to question and 'too late was the cry' would be entirely justified.

We have to get beyond the data of 2020 IF we are to adequately prepare for the future
PS With apologizes to oren for linking the 2020 melt season to the future.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 10:39:13 PM »
First 3 weeks of August.

I agree with grixm regarding the contrast between cyan and green. I am happy with WHITE Land Mass, GREY Sea and RED Ice Loss.

Never-the-less, side by side synchronized graph and visual - it just keeps getting better! What a technique this would be for a comparative of all of the metrics.
+1

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 03:11:15 PM »
Latest Five Day Forecast
Wind @ Surface
Wind + Temp @ 850hPa
Large GiFS!

Instead of the ice, it was the storm that went poof...
This looks like very active weather with considerable potential for ice export through the Fram and Nares Straits. If this transpires will the satellites pick up the full extent losses of the very low compaction of the CAA and central ice pack?

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 02:45:42 PM »
But a new record in the extent may actually shake a few more people.

Don't count on it.

2020 is a 'step change' for ASI. The terminology being used for this new state of ASI is fractional ice. The existing metrics can no longer provide a system of comparative analysis with the minimum extent of previous years. It is likely that there will be a 'time lag' between an actual BOE and a recognized BOE minimum based on some newly agreed or observed metric. Until this happens the policy recommendations of the IPCC will continue to be posted as 'fake news'.

IMHO 2020 is a 'game changer' and the sooner we start considering the transition stages to an Arctic free of sea ice the better.
Are you making things up? What is this “fractional ice” concept? I don’t see it. I see warmer years and less ice every year, with its worse years and its rebounds.
2016 was pretty ”fractional”, what are you talking about?
Grandiloquent unscientific statements as “fractional ice step year” has a lot in common with fake news.
Fractional ice related to a BOE was a term used by A-Team see:-
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: August 19, 2020, 09:40:25 PM »
Who am I to argue with the expertise and terminology of A-Team?

How do you reconcile your statement:-
"I see warmer years and less ice every year, with its worse years and its rebounds."
If you have warmer years and less ice every year there is no rebound, it is a contradiction of terms.

We fundamentally disagree on the transition stages from an Arctic ocean with sea ice to an Arctic ocean free of ice. You consider the transition as a progression. I consider the transition as singular events and without the 'rebounds. So, we must agree to disagree on this matter.

I am expressing an opinion and this should not be described as 'False News'.

23
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: August 22, 2020, 01:24:53 PM »
Here's the title:
Massive Ice Control on Permafrost Coast Erosion and Sensitivity.

It will be in GRL. A lot of it is from my PhD research,though I'm further down the author list as more senior people take the main authorship positions:(. This one is primarily based on our use of passive seismics to detect and map out variations in subsurface layers of ice. This was used with DEMs and historical shoreline analysis to describe how these ice layers alter the variations in shoreline retreat rates and vertical mass loss at our field site. Being able to detect where and how thick these ice layers are is important for determining how much carbon is in the soil too. Lots of ice = less carbon. Little ice = more carbon.
I would like to add my congratulations to your Published Work, regardless of your relative position in the 'pecking order' of authorship  ;D and look forward to reading the publication.

Also please continue with the refinement of your excellent graphics. A picture is worth a thousand words (or stastistics).

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 01:11:44 PM »
But a new record in the extent may actually shake a few more people.

Don't count on it.

2020 is a 'step change' for ASI. The terminology being used for this new state of ASI is fractional ice. The existing metrics can no longer provide a system of comparative analysis with the minimum extent of previous years. It is likely that there will be a 'time lag' between an actual BOE and a recognized BOE minimum based on some newly agreed or observed metric. Until this happens the policy recommendations of the IPCC will continue to be posted as 'fake news'.

However, quoting from the IPCC Newsroom Report 'IPCC opens meeting in Paris to consider 2022 climate change report outline':-
"The Synthesis Report, due to be released in the first part of 2022, will present the latest state of climate knowledge by drawing on information from these other IPCC reports. It will serve as the basis for international negotiations and will be ready in time for the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement in 2023."
and
"They agreed to review progress towards the goal in a global stocktake every five years starting in 2023."

If the IPCC is not prepared to recognize the paradigm shift of 2020 in the status of the ASI and the implications for AGW by 2023, by 2028 the first quinquennial stocktake year the international negotiators will not be able to ignore the actual manifestation of events in the Arctic; they will no longer be able to 'hide' behind a 'political interpretation' of  the 'science'.

So, my guess is that by 2028 at the latest, the 'truth will be out' about the significance of ASI loss and its impact on AGW'. If at this stage the global policy makers do not 'respond appropriately', then there will be a global popular response from everybody who can read a newspaper, view a television set or access the internet.

IMHO 2020 is a 'game changer' and the sooner we start considering the transition stages to an Arctic free of sea ice the better.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 22, 2020, 04:01:24 AM »
A very important observation!
IMHO
The major metrics that are currently referenced during this stage of the 2020 melt season VOLUME. AREA and EXTENT may serve little useful purpose; the exceptions are compaction, weather and observations.

In particular, wrt the posting by Bremer, the presumption that the BOE will be a September minima must be challenged. Indeed, October or even November must now be given serious consideration and should this prove to be the actuality the implications for both summer and winter sea ice will be very significant.

+1 for thinking outside of the box
I would challenge this notion in the current arctic, given that darkness sets in above 80N and the smallness of the area of the arctic sea ice, especially outside 80N, in late September, it seems very unlikely that even strong SSTs could delay area gains more than a week at most, let alone continue the thaw. It would be interesting with column mixing, but given the low winter temperatures it would still not amount to much, especially if we are talking about continued thaw, although it could have effects on reduced thickness increase and delayed freezing. Now the Laptev and the ESS are where it’s at, heated at depth, mostly below 80N, but they don’t play a role in a boe or the cutoff between the freezing and thawing season anymore

I think that your response is entirely reasonable.

However, your caveat 'in the current Arctic' is perhaps the nub of the issue. The 'current Arctic' (2020) is not the Arctic of previous years nor is the current weather and abnormal heat energy in the Arctic system.

Therefore, I suggest we cannot discount the possibility that the continuing movement and export of large areas of fragmented ice North and South of 80N might not only delay the formation of new ice but also the date of the minimum. With this scenario the continuing loss of ice would be driven by temperature, wind and currents, not by loss of daylight.

It is the 'perbutration' from the 'trend' in the system that now requires answers to the questions:

'HOW will the Arctic transition to the BOE?'
A progressive OR singular event

'HOW will a fractional BOE be determined with the use of existing metrics?'
A measured OR observed event

AND IMPORTANTLY (IMHO)

'HOW will a fractional 2020 sea ice minimum be accurately assessed, using existing metrics, in comparative terms with the minimum of previous years?'
Possible OR impossible

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 21, 2020, 08:38:42 PM »
It will be interesting to see how significant the “more in trend” result ends up being with the carryover effects into next season. Without such a massive energy release of the 2012 GAC and with a potentially even warmer set of years in the pipeline once the light La Niña/low ENSO neutral recedes and trends back towards an eventual El Niño, I would expect more compounding upon the 2020 melt season developments through the mid 2020s as opposed to the regression/temporary recovery of the mid 2010s following the 2012 minimum.

I think this is yet another way that a more middling in strength storm this season could be a sleeper nasty scenario if it manages to provide enough of a stir to push plenty of weak, thin ice over the edge, but not consume/vent enough heat energy from the depths to trigger a 2013-esque follow up year. Basin retention of a decent chunk of that insolation energy can’t be good for the future.

Another point of consideration might be if the fragile ice is pushed into a lower latitude and  migrates into areas that are still open to insolation and bottom melt and thereby not depleting the heat energy of the ice forming areas.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 21, 2020, 08:32:02 PM »

Usually I am read only here. However, this one rises a question. Looking at the avg. thickness, would it be possible to see a stall or even drop in extend/area in early November with increased bottom melt?

No. The pattern is that after September, ice in the center starts to thicken (that's why the chart goes up in Sept-Oct). Then after October, new , very thin ice starts to form on the edges. This pulls down average thickness. It's not that ice starts to thin in October, or November. So, first, just as an example, you have 1 m thick ice in the middle, which thickens to 2 m, then a lots of new, say 50 cm ice forms, so average thickness falls to 1,25 m.

You won't get a BOE in November.

But what happens if 'the pattern' shifts from September to October or later? Are you implying that  the date of the minima must occur in September and a later date for the minima is impossible?

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 21, 2020, 08:19:56 PM »

20th. That's some fairly specific prognostication. Stats are great, but they are not the only thing to consider. Patterns matter.

With respect, I challenge the idea, at this stage in the 2020 melt season, that stats are great and that patterns matter.

The stats are not representing an accurate picture and patterns only matter up to the point of a paradigm change in a sequence of events. I suggest that 2020 represents that paradigm change.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 21, 2020, 07:30:27 PM »

Interesting Thickness normally goes up at this time of season it was rising then took a large drop down.
Usually I am read only here. However, this one rises a question. Looking at the avg. thickness, would it be possible to see a stall or even drop in extend/area in early November with increased bottom melt?
A very important observation!
IMHO
The major metrics that are currently referenced during this stage of the 2020 melt season VOLUME. AREA and EXTENT may serve little useful purpose; the exceptions are compaction, weather and observations.

In particular, wrt the posting by Bremer, the presumption that the BOE will be a September minima must be challenged. Indeed, October or even November must now be given serious consideration and should this prove to be the actuality the implications for both summer and winter sea ice will be very significant.

+1 for thinking outside of the box

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 15, 2020, 04:21:19 AM »
New record?

Some folks have been wondering about the extent numbers slowdown, and scratching their heads over it.
<snip>
From the NASA age of ice map recently posted here, I would infer a recovery, if anything, of surviving 4+ year old ice. But nothing dramatic to observe an ice regime back to pre 2007, or unknown chart territory of any sort, anyway. A really warm season, that is. The CAB ice, compacted and uniform, will do a nice basis of two year ice and beyond in the coming years.
gandul, your choice of supporting evidence for this assertion looks perilously close to being cherry picked.

Compared to other data sources, it also looks counter-factual.

Consider:

https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/smos/png/20200813_hvnorth_rfi_l1c.png

And:

https://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/GLBhycomcice1-12/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif

(note: - the HYCOM link is transient, and in the future, to reference the specific date you'd need to go through their archive)

Any talk of recovery sounds to me like whistling in the dark.  You need to marshal a lot more concrete evidence.
My point is that I don’t see any abrupt transition to a different regime this season, all that I see is increasingly warmer seasons, period. The ice age map does not really reveal a drastic deterioration of ice in terms of years alive wrt 2012.
With respect, I suggest that you are seeing the wrong metrics to conclude that there is not "any abrupt transition to a different regime this season" (Quote - Gandul).

The available quantitative systems that we reference to determine the status of the ice is now beyond the ability of such systems to represent a reasonably accurate overview. Comparison of the usual metrics for Arctic ice in 2020 with previous years is not comparing like-with-like.

It is the degree of 'fragmentation' of the ice in 2020 and metrics this produces that degrades the quality of the quantitative comparisons and this includes the comparison with 2012. We now have to rely on the qualitative 'analysis' of the available photographic evidence. The Arctic ice has entered a new phase and it has been abrupt.

What is now happening in the Arctic is a phase of "increasingly warmer seasons" (Quote - Gandul). However, the Heat Balance in the Arctic system is now at a 'tipping point' and 2020 exemplifies a new phase in the context of the combination of degraded ice and extended insolation.

Furthermore, what is happening to the Arctic sea ice is mirrored by what is happening to the Arctic land ice, in particular, the Greenland ice cap.

None of the above response can be proven; science cannot 'prove' a future event, it can only provide projections based on historical facts and the existing projections are far behind the curve of the reality. The science will record the 'tipping point' as a singular event in a 'trend' and only retrospectively as a change of regime. Too late was the cry!

The complete loss of the Arctic sea ice will not be part of a trend or changing regime it will be an abrupt event.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 13, 2020, 04:09:43 PM »
Juan C & Gerontocrat: seems like good odds that melting rate this month could be record low unless it doesn't speed up soon.

2020 has so far lost 0.53 M km². A little more than a third of the month has passed, and the slope of decrease decreases towards the end of the month. A place in the lower part of the ranking list seems possible.

IMHO we have now entered the phase when Heat Energy balance becomes increasingly critical and we can no longer reference previous years as predictors of even the short-term or medium term condition of the Arctic ice. The 'Puff' event will be sudden and happen at any time from 'now' and is likely to surprise many, particularly those who rely on the past trend of events to predict the future demise of the Arctic ice.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: August 13, 2020, 03:12:59 PM »
Wdmn, the phase change itself needs energy.
Link >> http://hydrogen.physik.uni-wuppertal.de/hyperphysics/hyperphysics/hbase/thermo/phase.html

    Sorry, no facts to add to the question, but here some perspectives for those of us who don't work with ice physics every day. 

   The signal is the qualitative decline in ASI overall and the increasingly dire setup for a knockout punch.
This 'analysis' by Glen https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2274.msg280814.html#msg280814 should be compulsory reading for all of us Arctic Ice pundits; logical and importantly, very well written.

IMHO it is the reference to the 'energy budget' that is the critical factor; it runs contrary to the Laws of Physics for heat to be accumulating and increasing within a 'closed' system (the Arctic Environment), without the change of state from frozen ice in that system to melted ice.

QUOTE from Glen... "What happens in the real world depends on the chaotic vagaries of the weather."

I have stated in previous postings that, "what happens outside of the Arctic does not stay outside of the Arctic" and highlighted the importance of the 'degrading' Jet Stream in this context. I suggest that more attention to the status of the Jet Stream could be a useful and important metric for 'predicting' the 'chaotic vagaries of the weather'. I think that a reasonable interpretation of the Jet Stream projections, over the short term (say, + 5 days), could be informative where the North pointing tails of the Jet Stream equate to Heat Gain and South pointing tails equate to Heat Loss.

Links to graphics for today and today +5 Jet Stream:-
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/08/13/1800Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=1.69,90.94,304
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/08/18/0300Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=1.69,90.94,304

Unfortunately there is very little science related to the influence of the Jet Stream and its impact on Energy Balance within the Polar Region.

+1
A concise overview and very well constructed posting

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 13, 2020, 12:54:52 PM »
Here's another for ye.
A very good graphic showing the current state of progression of the condition of the ice. A side-by -side comparison with 2012 would be interesting.
+1

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 02:15:02 PM »
That's not a jet stream. Looks more like someone dropped a plate of spaghetti.

Again I'm reminded of a metaphor, regarding the effects of AGW on climate systems. It's like a spinning top, and as it slows down, it begins to wobble...

May we live in interesting times.

Sorry but I need to add balance to that and remind you the obvious that it's summer in the northern hemisphere so yes, you will have a slower and more wavey type of jet stream, that is NATURAL.

Paul, I would not describe the graphic of the Jet stream that I posted
« Reply #4353 on: Today at 07:21:12 AM »
...'more wavey'.

Haphard's description is more accurate
...'like someone dropped a plate of spaghetti'

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 07:21:12 AM »
Here's the video (gif was waaaay too big) of the concentration and MODIS data side by side for July. Let me know if there's any suggestions on improving it.

IF you think that this is a good suggestion please use the live Jet Stream feature at:-
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/08/02/0000Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-6.72,57.59,847

This is what the graphic of the Jet Stream looks like today on the above link:-

Crazy!

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 06:50:59 AM »
Here's the video (gif was waaaay too big) of the concentration and MODIS data side by side for July. Let me know if there's any suggestions on improving it.

YES. A whole month of weather and its effect on compaction; clear to see the actuality and compare.

Suggestion 1 (if I may be so bold)
- In the posting a side by side graphic would give an immediate visual that the posting is a 'comparative' video
- Would it be possible to just have a side-by-side static image for the posting with a click to open in a seperate window and then click to play? It might save some bandwith for the Forum (I think)
- Could a 'running date' be added to the video sequence?
- Perhaps a weekly posting and a final posting running a full months sequence?

Suggestion 2 (If you tell me to 'get on my bike'...no offence :) )
Could you do a second set of side-by-side comparative videos for the Jet Stream and the weather over the arctic? I just have a gut feeling that the correlation is very strong - then one has the full set of data. How the weather in the Arctic is being formed and how the weather is impacting on the ice. Why not go the full hog and add the ice compaction run for a full-house? It would be a fantastic predictive tool if there is a strong correlation

IF you think that this is a good suggestion please use the live Jet Stream feature at:-
https://www.netweather.tv/charts-and-data/global-jetstream#2020/08/02/0000Z/jetstream/surface/level/overlay=jetstream/orthographic=-6.72,57.59,847
I think the video graphics are great on this website, it really gives a sense of what is happening. The key is side-by-side. 2020 would be a great year to record in this manner because of its unique features.

It's a BIG ask but I THINK it could very interesting, instructive and visually exciting to see it all together.

Again +1 for the latest original contribution (whether or not you tell me to 'get on my bike)

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 02, 2020, 05:47:29 AM »
A lot changes in a week. A week ago a record year looked very possible but now the slowdown and dispersion have made a top 3 place seem likely. Even the thin ice takes a while to melt and as nights get darker peak melting has passed now.

Still a lot of things happened in the Arctic in 2020 that never happened before so 2030 free of sea ice in Summer is very possible.

Every year the Arctic makes us think it is all going to melt out only to surprise us in another way. Slowdown is well under way now but there will be further big drops bringing final Jaxa extent to just under 4m like 2019 but let's wait and see.


Let me tell you, the spring is loading and soon you'll see around century drops again. Don't jump on every cliff or slow down but try to keep the bigger picture in view.

Absolutely correct. Particularly your reference to the 'bigger picture'.

+1 Not just because I agree with your opinion but because it is so important to see the 'bigger picture'.

Personally I would like to see a better balance in the postings between 'data' and 'opinions' on 'how'  the evolving situations are creating the data. I feel that such an approach would lead to a better understanding of the 'bigger picture'. More debate and a tad less graphs and tables that could form the basis of the debate.

For example, 2020 is exceptional because of the very heightened heat balance in the arctic this year and what has been the primary mechanism for this extraordinary event?

'How' was the 'heat dome' over the Pole created and why did it prevail for such an extended period?

'How' was the latest destructive LP system over the Beaufort created?

Is it conceivable that the final 'melt down' leading to a BOE could be the CAB ice melting away from the inside to the outside rather than a gradually diminishing central ice core?

Until we start finding answers to such questions we will still be making comparisons with previous years' melting seasons after all the ice has gone.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 06:08:16 PM »
Well, you did decide to live in Italy :)

Ethiopia actually, at the very sources of the Blue Nile - Italy was just a phase, now I've finally reached my final destination!

Just for clarification - the middle of the fourth million comes in at c.a. 3.5. So I'm expecting second place.

 :)...Perhaps then I should be even less surprised about the loss of connection.

I have always been fascinated by Ethiopia but decided to park my boat in Spain, currently 'warmish' at 42 deg C in the shade.

Point taken on your correction defining 'the middle of the fourth million'; so, I was in the 'bin' (no abbreviated pun intended) 2.75-3.5 (if I remember correctly). My memory dims at 75 years of age or should I say, in my 76 th year? :-\

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 05:29:15 PM »
Overview of buoy drift in the Beaufort/Chukchi, then zooming in on that cluster of JAMSTEC/ICEX buoys currently in the Chukchi
Quote
About Warm Buoy & SideKick

JAMSTEC WARM (Warming and Irradiance Measurements) Buoy project has started to comprehend temporal changings of oceanic enviornment from ice-covered season toward open-water season. Thr WARM Buoy and Side Kick system (see below) was deployed at ICEX 2020 camp station in Beaufort Sea. These systems measure vertical structure of water mass (temperature and salinity) and chlorophyll-a fluorensence from surface to 60-m depth for every 1-hour and send via iridium satellite communication system (see real-time data page). SideKick monitors daily time series of upper-ice views (see gallery pages).
We kindly acknowledge US Navy Arctic Submarine Laboratory and Pacific Gyre Inc. for their kind support for this project. For your information, please also see UpTemp0 web site by University of Washington and WARM Buoy project of Old Dominion University.

Sidekick takes pictures :)

Interesting, fascinating, informative...and I apologize in advance for my response to your posting but looking at the 'picture' brings me to think of what it must have been like to watch Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

...Reaction triggered by the cross-reference posting below:-

Re: What's new in Greenland?
« Reply #516 on: Today at 04:52:48 PM »

Quote from: Reginald on Today at 03:37:25 AM

40
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: August 01, 2020, 04:52:48 PM »
There's a (paywalled) July 29 paper in Nature Climate Change: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0860-7 that might be of interest:

Past perspectives on the present era of abrupt Arctic climate change

Abstract

Abrupt climate change is a striking feature of many climate records, particularly the warming events in Greenland ice cores. These abrupt and high-amplitude events were tightly coupled to rapid sea-ice retreat in the North Atlantic and Nordic Seas, and observational evidence shows they had global repercussions. In the present-day Arctic, sea-ice loss is also key to ongoing warming. This Perspective uses observations and climate models to place contemporary Arctic change into the context of past abrupt Greenland warmings. We find that warming rates similar to or higher than modern trends have only occurred during past abrupt glacial episodes. We argue that the Arctic is currently experiencing an abrupt climate change event, and that climate models underestimate this ongoing warming.

So, the question must be WHY do the climate models underestimate this ongoing warming? This failure of the science is significant and critical because the models inform the 'decision makers' regarding strategic decision making and policy formulation. Policy makers WAKE UP!!! IPCC WAKE UP!!! Although the IPCC is probably a lost cause. Scientists, start shouting (loudly).

+1 for bringing this publication to our attention but it is WRONG that it is behind a 'pay wall', it should be being quoted on prime-time newscasts. This is an example of 'science' NOT playing its part IMHO.

41
A 'guess'...between 2.75 and 3.25 million km^2...but it all depends on the weather (how often has this caveat been used?). So, the 'critical' question is 'how' is the weather being created?

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 02:49:27 PM »
Here's the final version of the comparison between the MODIS imagery and the concentration data. As usual, there's a higher-res version on the twitter page too: https://twitter.com/Icy_Samuel/status/1289510103733817344

I'll try put together a version, from a broader perspective, for the whole of July later on.

That extensive area of lower compaction is showing itself again, wider and extending over the Pole.

I look forward to seeing the new version of the grahics for the whole of July.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 02:44:06 PM »
In physical reality, what matters most is thickness distribution (and volume), then area, then extent. If the ice is driven in a compacting transport, extent will plummet with not much physical impact, while the reverse is also true under a divergence regime. What we can see unfortunately with the satellites and models is the opposite, extent in high accuracy, area in medium accuracy, thickness distribution and volume with low accuracy and delays.
This allows both parties to have numbers and data on their side, which is fine, just has to be interpreted according to physics and not just visible numbers on a chart.
The sunny July did huge damage to the CAB in terms of volume, and the open Siberian seas are a disaster waiting for imports, while the Atlantic front has huge amounts of open water as in 2012 and 2016, very unlike 2019. OTOH the Beaufort is full of ice and the CAA and Greenland Sea are still holding up. The question we do not know is how much of the remaining ice is in marginal conditions - still whole for now but will melt out by mid-Sept. This is what will dictate the area numbers, and partially the volume numbers as well, as volume calculation is tied to measured area changes. The extent numbers will be dictated by area numbers, but very highly affected by compaction or divergence - very visible, much less important IMHO. 2016 was almost as low as 2012 in terms of area, but very high up in terms of extent.
My take on things is that the ice is thinner than appears, due to the impact of July insolation and due to very high movements in the last few weeks, which induced faster bottom melt. I have never seen so many days where the CAB was entirely visible, and this while the ice was doing a crazy dance around the basin. Then came the cyclone with movements induced in the other direction. The CAA has been sweltering in heat and the ice is all broken up. So I expect a some point a lot of the ice which originated with a standard FYI thickness will melt out, and so will some of the thinner MYI. This will probably leave us with a total area record or near-record, even though the Beaufort may not be in record territory at all. Oh yeah, I also expect a volume record. I can't say the same for extent, which might be far away from 2012's record, though surely below 2019. This depends on random September factors so can beat the seasoned forecasters easily.
August is upon us, the answers will be clear in a few weeks time, not much longer to wait.

An excellent summary of the issues that 'matter' and guide to all those who post, particularly to those taking 'a position' based on the many excellent postings of 'daily data'.

I also agree totally with the assessment as to how the remaining melt could progress towards the minimum.

A really well balanced qualitative assessment 'based on extensive knowledge of the data and the science'.

+1 - More if it were possible :)

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 02:27:20 PM »
I AM VERY CONFIDENT THAT this summer we are going to see unprecedented open water in the CAB.

Friv - You seem to have lost some confidence in your earlier conviction...any specific reason?
Just watch the area numbers.

They haven't slowed yet.

Mark me.

Until/unless they do, sharply, Friv's scenario is still in play.

You have incorrectly edited my posting and thereby missed the point in your response.

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 02:21:41 PM »

I was just thinking, "there are still 6 or 7 weeks left of melting, wonder how excited people can get based on one week of anticyclonic dispersion". Then I read the beginning of your comment, and thought, "here we go!" - but then I read the rest and was majorally mollified.

I always enjoy the 'style' of your postings and 'turn of phrase'; for example, "majorally mollified" (priceless). +1 for this expression alone.

One week ago I escaped from a three-week Internet blackout Well, you did decide to live in Italy :)only to see that I'd completely missed out on the July hammering. A new minimin seemed to be the generally accepted version of the future, anybody predicting anything else was quickly hammered down. Then a few days of blow from a short-lived cyclone and the previously repressed prognasticators rise to the surface, while even Friv seems to have lost steam.



I guess it is all part of the rich tapestry that is life. My two cents worth is that we will land in the middle of the fourth million, I do not agree with you on this one, I think that just one decent storm in August and we go under 4M and possibly challenge the 2012 recordwith a slim but real change of a new minimin. But what do I know? Indeed, what do any of us know :o

My comments in Italics.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 01:58:59 PM »
CAA is melting out completely where I would not expect in July and just looks terrible.  Seems like the NW passage might be open for traffic in a week or so?

This is the problem with 'expectation'...based on historical data; the same problem with the science, only this is referred to as 'modelling'.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: August 01, 2020, 05:58:31 AM »
Swiss cheese is made with two strains of cheese bacteria so the parable is excellent, swiss cheese bacteria act as plumes of hotter water... --> tries to go on to parable other types of cheeses to other types of ice. White mould cheese with the crust - multiyear ice, blue cheese- leads and pressure ridges. Gorgonzola - stacking ice slabs, peppered cheese, soft cheese...

Thanks. :)

 :) :) :) Great imagination.

It would be interesting if more postings showed this sort of creative thinking and applied it to 2020 and how it might be viewed retrospectively as a significant year for the future evolution of ASI.

+1 for imagination and creative thinking

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 05:38:58 AM »
The warmth currently INVADING the CAB and CAA is nuts.

I AM VERY CONFIDENT THAT this summer we are going to see unprecedented open water in the CAB.

Record  low volume, extent, and area...

The only question I have is how low will it go?????

Posted by: Frivolousz21
« on: Today at 04:59:42 AM »Insert Quote

Without a "slowdown" 2020 would have crushed even 2012 by a ton.

Friv - You seem to have lost some confidence in your earlier conviction...any specific reason?

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 01, 2020, 05:17:59 AM »
Agree. We should not read too much into a few days of slowdown in apparent melt.

Just a thought... Is it not more about compaction than slowdown in melt (apparent or actual)?

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 31, 2020, 03:48:03 PM »
An update on the side by side comparison. Those apparent concentration drops are looking more real than not.
Slightly higher res version on twitter, for those without data limits: https://twitter.com/Icy_Samuel/status/1289080922617372672

(Large file, click to play)

Wow. The breakdown in the Beaufort is so clear.

The Crescent of low concentration right across the CAB, showing on the 27th and 28th in the sequence, has now disappeared but I await with interest to see if it re-appears as a significant factor as melting progresses and new weather systems impact the behavior of the CAB.

I just have a feeling that something 'different/significant' will happen to the ice of the CAB this season.

There are many quality and informed postings in this thread but for me this 'comparative graphic' and format combines the 'actuality' of what is happening to the Arctic ice and for that reason I am again  going with a +1

Pages: [1] 2 3