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 - LRC1962

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Consequences / Re: 2018 Droughts
« on: January 20, 2018, 09:21:48 AM »
Should not be posting at this time (3AM) as I get really stupid.
A few few thoughts.
1) Up to now mankind could get away with for the the most part, land fresh water.
2)As pointed out, issues of energy costs building and upkeep costs,  amount of land needed for plant, pollution, where to place intake to minimize ecodamage and what to do with waste. All these things add to and create costs all on their own. The problems now are that things are becoming much more urgent and therefore the risks taken will be far greater to get water.
As for Cape Town. Remember you are talking about South Africa which because of penalties now being paid politically and economically for the decades of apartheid and the artificial economy it created plus the degradation of the majority  of its people it is not capable to respond quickly to disasters. Because it is in Africa and still has the illusion of being a forefront nation it has many difficulties that cause major problems when disaster strikes.
Before we get to caught up with casting blame for this problem Puerto Rico still has no power for over a million people in spite of being part of the richest nation in the world.
Note I do know that we are to keep away from politically charged statements, but as someone born in one of the poorest nations on earth, I get very tired of the holier then thou attitude that they are lazy and stupid. Most times they are living in situations they have absolutely no control over. How much change can you make earning less then $4000 a year?

Science / Importance of pollution and clouds in the Arctic
« on: January 06, 2018, 07:33:07 AM »
Clouds that are more 'sensitive' to pollution are speeding up Arctic warming
"Climate models show a difference between 2 C and 6 C," Taylor said. "The reason that difference is so large is because of cloud cover."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 15, 2017, 12:36:18 AM »
Maybe should start different post, but will ask anyway. Based on projected current path of Hurricane Ophelia:
What is the possible impact on the ESS as to wind/moisture levels on ice formation, or is it possible the dissipation and earlier freezing season will mean little?

Consequences / Re: Heated soils and their effects on CO2 levels
« on: October 08, 2017, 09:17:44 AM »
Soils emitting more carbon dioxide shows that it was happening but as yet did not know what was all involved.

Consequences / Heated soils and their effects on CO2 levels
« on: October 08, 2017, 09:10:06 AM »
Note: Apologizes if a duplicating post.
There’s a Climate Bomb Under Your Feet.
The purpose (of the study) was to measure how carbon dioxide may escape from the earth as the atmosphere warms. What they found[Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world], published yesterday in the journal Science, may mean the accelerating catastrophe of global warming has been fueled in part by warm dirt. As the Earth heats up, microbes in the soil accelerate the breakdown of organic materials and move on to others that may have once been ignored, each time releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The good news, however, is that the research community is now fully on the case. Over the past week, at least four high-profile papers largely funded by the U.S. government have contributed new evidence, observations, and insight into the role of soil and forests in the global carbon cycle—the flow of material in and out of land, air, life, and sea that’s currently broken and getting worse.
A little overly optimistic as the best places to make the study are also the best places to make money from and you do have problems with governments doing anything with it or backing up the studies as there is still too much kicking the can down the road philosophy in dealing with the real problems faced now.
Although it does show that if we really wanted to bury carbon there are fairly easy ways of doing it. Problem there will be who is going to spend the money to bury the carbon then on top of that prevent anyone for a very long time  (100's of years)  to touch it?
Edit: should have added this first time around.
Late last month, scientists from Woods Hole Research Center and Boston University published [Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world]. in Science an analysis of satellite data showing one of the most dramatic turnabouts in recent memory. Long thought of as sponges that suck in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, tropical forests may actually be a source of emissions. Deforestation is obviously an enemy of forests; what the authors found was that forest degradation—losing healthy patches here or there to human or natural causes—is more damaging to carbon-soaking capacity than previously believed.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:42:57 AM »
If I understand your position correctly you feel that Trump's greatest asset is that he's hugely incompetent. I tend to agree.

I depends upon how you define incompetent. He lives in his own world with his own objects. All he does is to fulfill those objects. Everything else is irrelevant to him and therefore does not matter and to be forgotten. The problem for us is what his objectives are. To my mind it is wrapped around one idea. Trump and making Trump the most important and talked about person in the world. It has no political thought behind it. In this he has done it in spades. He has captured in his mind the most important position in the world and he is the most talked about individual in the world today. All his speeches and twitters are all about ensuring that. All he needs to to do is do something that places in the top historically. That is why he wants to sign stuff.
The problem for him is the rest of the world truly is getting to understand that and find out that there are ways to make things work without the involvement of that position. Not only that, his fixating on getting rid of what has been done in the past, such as Paris Accord, Treaties, Health Care has focused attention on them. Not so much as what is wrong but what is right and therefore worth saving.
It is my position then that Trumps legacy will not be Trump, but what was good that came before Trump and therefore make him an unimportant footnote.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 03, 2017, 11:40:34 PM »
We in the world tend to be fixated by Trump. After six months of him I have come to the conclusion that from the global stand point it is in a far better position then I feared, but I am terribly sorry for where that has placed the US people.
In the beginning I feared a ripple copycat effect on other elections. The opposite effect seems to be happening more as voters in other nations seem for the most part to be going more moderate and punishing the extremist.
I feared the rest of the world leaders would either cater to Trump and let him lead or do something to antagonize him and cause blow back. I see that for the most part they have decided that the best way is to show him baubles and then quietly shove him aside and ignore him as much as possible.
I feared that environmentally from a global point he would be an environmental disaster. His leaving the Paris Accord has for the most part had the opposite effect from my understanding in that more of the globe has taken it as a challenge to actually make it work rather then be a nice get together to claim they tried.
I feared his isolationist moves would cause other countries to follow and end up locking up the global economy. In fact it seems that leaders have decided more needs to be done as far as trade agreements are concerned just doing it without the US at the table and they seem to be fine with that. Canada is also finding that working with each state individually without the WH involvement is also possible and you could see more countries following that path.
Trump can still do much damage globally, but I feel that world leaders see Trump for who and what he really is and work around an problems he represents. Voters around the world also see him in a similar way and are doing what they can to make sure their politicians are not the same type.
As for the GOP they have backed themselves into a very bad position. For the representatives in places where Trump supporters really matter they feel the need to still back him. For the places where he is weak and getting weaker they are seeing the pressure to challenge him otherwise they could lose in the next elections. As for the core Trump supporters their message is simple, we really do not care for policy matters that much we just want the way things are always done to be gone. In Trump they see someone who everyday is sticking his fingers into some elites eye and they love it policy? who cares. This is where the GOP has a problem. It has move from a party that was being run by Tea Party agenda to now being run by core voters whose main aim is stick it to and down the elite establishment (which includes all with more the a bachelors degree).
The is another big set of problems. You have an armed forces whose CiC has no interest in understanding what they do and are responsible for and can not stop from talking about what he is told. They still have the wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria is a problem that could spread and get far worse. North Korea is problem that could get out of hand because it is taking advantage of Trump's inattention to facts. You have Russia and China exerting more influence in more countries and a Man who does not understand that GW is real and has real consequences to the military. All the very same things can be said about foreign intelligence.
Domestically you have a "law and order" president that refuses to understand that law applies to him and the WH as well. You have a nation wide infrastructure that is crumbling, deregulating/unsupervised industries whose infrastructure is also crumbling and environmental disasters just waiting to happen or have happened and nothing being done about it, a judicial system opening being mocked, uncontrolled law enforcement (very small segment) that is bringing disrepute to the whole and president that seems to thick that is great policing a president that is not filling vacancies that need to be filled and on she goes. This is resulting a bureaucracy that is therefore doing more and more with no oversight that can either end up good or very very bad.
In the end that is forcing each state to do more and more on its own without Washington guidance. This is never good because you end up with a very uneven playing field. The end result will be a world that continues as it has but without the US involvement, and a US whose powers at the WH will be greatly diminished and federal level powers also greatly diminished because it will still be locked up beyond Jan 2021, which means over 10 years of getting nothing much done.
A very interesting read that will either make you laugh or cry depending on how it hits you at the time. This shows Trump on twitter really is Trump in life. The title I think really is very disparaging of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. World leaders were learning and figuring out how to deal with Trump well before Trump officially won the GOP leadership. Trump was a very well known commodity even in the '70's and the rest of the world was banking on the fact he would not change. The only issue would be how much room would Trump give the world to do its own thing. The answer is very much in. Show him baubles, some papers to sign that really mean nothing and he is very happy and will leave you to do whatever you want because he does not care except that he saw the baubles and signed some papers.

The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:16:01 PM »
For perhaps the dozenth time, allow me to explain: our problem isn't so much with Russia meddling in our elections. That's reprehensible, and we need to work against it, but that's not what all the investigations are about. No, our problem is Americans working with Russia to subvert our democratic processes for the mutual benefit of both parties. That's not just reprehensible; that's treason. And that simply can't be tolerated.
I agree. You have the Nixon/Watergate problem. The break in was bad, but could have been easily contained if admitted to. Foreign election interference has been going on since the invention of elections. The problems are: encouraging it, assisting it, then compounding it by lying about it then using your power to prevent discovery. Trump is doing all that plus using his base to then discredit those who are trying to get at the truth.
We have a compounding problem in that we are in the instant era. Remember, there have been big problems in the past that took sometimes decades to overcome. Even Watergate took almost two years before Nixon fled the WH. In Trumps case, I could easily see him running for a second term unless the electorate gives a solid message in 2018 which I do not see coming.
In fact I could see Russiagate being one of those things that historians will give the final verdict and not the judicial system.

"I get the impression that this is how a very large part of the population thinks and this depresses me somewhat, because I'd like to see all that fervour and energy directed towards systemic solutions, not just solving something that gets us in a frenzy."
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” – Winston Churchill

The rest / Happy 150th Birthday Canada
« on: July 01, 2017, 10:42:31 AM »
Just to tell you how confusing it is to be a Canadian.
1) Yes indeed we became a nation on July 1, 1867. British Parliament reserved right of controlling legislation until 1931 and had ultimate control over any constitutional changes until 1982. Canadians were satisfied with that as we have Quebec who likes to march to its own drum and still has not officially signed on to the Canadian constitution and Bill of Rights.
2) Until WWI Canadian military had to be lead by British officers. That ended after the disgrace of Solesmes and Passchendaele where brilliant orders such as slow marches against known German machine gun emplacements were given. Explains some of the high death tolls. Canadians told British at that point if we are to die, it will be from our own generals orders or we will leave the fighting to you. Britain capitulated and Canada got control of its army.
3) Over 90% of Canadians live within 200 miles of the longest militarily undefended border in the world.
4) We no longer have a 1 cent denomination. All cash transactions are rounded to nearest 5 cents.
Googling about Canada and have found that you have to be very careful about what is and is not true about Canada. Almost every site that claims facts has got something wrong and usually it comes down to the fact as one history teacher told me. Canada is about the only nation in the world that broke every rule as to what creates a nation a nation. I guess the main unifying forces were the Hudson Bay Company which at one time or another own all natural resources in Canada and the right to envy Americans but not be Americans.
PS Our greatest sport is not Hockey it is belittling and trivializing any Canadian or Canadian achievement.

Arctic sea ice / Re: How soon could we go ice free?
« on: May 31, 2017, 04:28:20 AM »
I very interesting read on climate change. Loss, Mourning, and Climate Change
“I sat on the makeshift step of what would be my refurbished porch and envisioned a yard with wildflowers. Anxious for some permanency, I guess I needed to be reminded how temporal permanency is.”

Extreme changes in weather and climate can augur great loss, because loss itself is socially and culturally constructed, and that loss can include both human and non-human life. The act of mourning these losses publicly is at once a responsibility that we have to engage with the bereaved and an effort to reconstruct meaning around it afterward. At the core, mourning is a recognition of impermanence and mortality – of the forms of life around us and of our own.
I think our biggest problem will not be the loss of the ice, I do not mean to minimize what that loss will mean to our environment. Our biggest problem will be that we will need to change how we do things and trying to use the BAU approach will only result in failure.

As for answering the main question, it is up to weather and that is the biggest known unknown.

I can't predict when we'll see peak global CO2.  What we do know is that Europe hit peak CO2 around 1991.  The US hit peak CO2 in 2005.  China appears to have hit peak CO2.

Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use might be peaking.  But it will take a few more years to see if that holds up.
I am not a scientist, but those statements cause me confusion. You say EU peaked CO2 emissions in 1991. This gives the impression that the EU is no longer contributing to a rise in CO2.
In my mind I see a clean lake then someone starts pumping in dirty water. Now just because the polluter no longer is increasing the amount of polluting water, just keeps on adding the same amount of pollution at the same level, does not mean that pollution levels in the lake will then level off. The levels will increase until you reach stabilisation.
Globally we may reach a point in the near future of not increasing output of CO2, but there is no way we are even close to a point of stabilisation as far as atmospheric CO2 levels are concerned. Then you have to consider all those natural feedbacks that are only now starting to get going and that will add even more to CO2 levels. Sorry but I can not see CO2 levels flattening out any time in the the foreseeable future until we reach zero CO2 emissions and can find a way to neutralise the feedbacks. But even then it will only drop very very slowly. 

I have just been catching up with this forum. Someone mentioned that anyone putting a vote for 2090+ is a denialist. I am anything but. In fact I see predominately  ice free conditions by September starting no later then 2030 and would not be surprised to see it before 2020. The point I made and I bbelieve there are others who voted for 2090+ see the same thing, is if the weather hit perfectly, you could end up with ice extent over 1M km2 in any single year. To deny that possibility means you are looking at Arctic temps by mid summer getting no lower then 5C in any particular year, which even the most extreme forecasts do not call for.

In the absence of geoengineering activities, when do you think the Arctic will experience its LAST year with a Sept minimum sea ice extent ABOVE 1 million square km? 

This is looking at human lifetime scales, not century or epoch scales so no, it won't be the absolute last unless the sun explodes.  Just global warming impacts, not nuclear winter etc.
Unless my english is really off the wording specifies LAST time ABOVE. That is NOT the same as the FIRST time ABOVE. That means to me all you need as one cold summer and you can have ice hanging around all summer. Maybe not much above 1M km2 but still above.
Therefore based on that interpretation I do see a chance of having a cold enough summer to have ice lasting all summer long.
 As for the exponential vs Gompertz argument.  Gompertz has a big problem because it only works if the melt is only as a result of sun influence. The real results are that as the  thins the it becomes much easier for the wind and waves attack and move around the thick ice. That means it will then get broken up and moved out of the Arctic. Bye bye Gompertz chart. As for exponential. It all depends on how steep you make that curve. To get below 1M you need not only high enough temperatures, but favourable wind and wave action for that first ice free summer. We are close enough to 2020 with still enough ice that we still may see ice after 2020, but based on condition of the ice right now, all it will take is a 2007 or 2012 summer and it will be all gone.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2017, 02:51:40 PM »
I'm not talking about blaming anyone, and climate risk deniers will do as they always will, but I was just wondering if they might get some traction with this. The Lord knows they need some Arctic propaganda to stall the inevitable.
Any time when scientists start talking about probabilities, even among those at odds among their peer group, unless you are deadly accurate in your predictions, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. A case in point was Einstein's theory of General Relativity.   The only way it could then be tested was to get a precise measurement of deflection of light  from a star around the sun. Took years to get that measurement for proof and finally got the proof he needed.
As for measurements today? you are relying on satellite data that is still primarily 2d and getting data only during a passover, unlike what you can get on geostationary equatorial stations. As satelittes improve and get better data then can update old data basing it on old data you will get changes. Problem is that unless you can and care to understand the math involved, you will never truely believe that the science is good.

The rest / Re: How to secure internet ?
« on: April 06, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
If I may.
It is a very important thing to protect your data from those who could use it for criminal purposes.  As for data mining, that is a different story. One there is such a thing is that having too much data can actually backfire. Case in point. Saw a story which talked about the fact the NSA has so much data, it actually can do little to find activities before they happen, but can find the trail after it had already occurred. As for targeted sales, that is old as statistics. Can not remember if it was a course I took or a documentary, but spoke of the fact door to door sales people, and ad companies could figure out the profile of people almost down to the house, just by using the available statistics that governments collect every single year, with uncanny accuracy. So ISPs selling your activities and you getting targeted accordingly is more accurate now, but basically the same as before internet era.
As someone who I talked to about this pointed out, obscuring yourself too much can have the reverse effect of making you a much more interesting person to target. As most police would tell you, the best way to be a good criminal is not to hide yourself or run, but act like everyone else around you.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 09:46:31 PM »
I don't think thickness and volume are hugely worse of than the last few years according to this below. However, all these measures are within a margin of error, and not precise, that's why I like the big thick line on this one. More realistic assessment.
The Arctic Penguin (PIOMAS) doesn't agree with DMI (at least as to the relation of 2016 ice volume to other years).

In either case one factor is missed. As we have been seen throughout the freezing, a lot of MYI thick ice has been sent through the Fram. That means no matter how thick what ice is left is young ice. That means high saline/contaminated content in that ice because it takes a few ice to 'purify' it. that means if there turns out to be a big melt off this melting season, it can not last much longer then any other of the ice that is around.
Granted that is a predicated on weather conditions in that particular region.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 02:08:08 AM »
When it comes to these temperature anomalies... which I've been watching since at least November... I really have to wonder how much they matter this time of year (over ice, in particular).

If there's a patch of the arctic where normally it is -40 C/F, but instead due to huge anomalies it is -10 C, so what? It doesn't melt, melt ponds don't happen... I feel like the thermodynamics don't change...  until it gets above freezing.

Do we expect anything to come of these high anomalies, where temperatures still stay below freezing?

More Energy = Less Ice
A simple mind example. Take 2 freezers and 2 cows. Set one freezer at -10 and one at -40. Put one cow (both same size and weight) in each freezer. The cow in the freezer set at -10 will take much longer to freeze and even when it is totally frozen, a much shorter time to thaw then the one set at -40.
Now the Arctic is a much more complex system then a freezer because you have a lot of kinetic energy involved also, but I do think that does help get the point across that you can be frozen and then you can be really frozen.

The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: March 29, 2017, 10:04:40 PM »
Late-night TV roasts Trump on climate: he 'surrendered Florida to the ocean'

Seth Myers take on Trump:
During a press conference. Sean Spicer’s response to a question about Russia was to blame the press for making links that aren’t there. He claimed that if Trump used Russian dressing on a salad, people would see it as a connection. “The most suspicious thing about that scenario is the idea that Trump would eat a salad,” he said.
Edit: Took a few tries and googling before I found the change https to http advice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:13:46 PM »
One note of caution. Even if the melt season turns out that there is not a great melt off and therefore a conclusion could be reached that the melt season was too cold or not right for melting, the ice is still in very bad shape. On top of that the winter months are getting so much warmer and stormier that what ice hangs around and actually grows is not in very good condition. In conclusion, the Arctic ice that is there is on life support and unless we humans get our act together, the rest of the earths systems are going to change so much that the normal will not be as it was even 20 years ago.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 07, 2017, 05:26:31 PM »
I do not know if the models take it into consideration, but not all ice is equal. The formula for energy needed to melt 1980 ice must be different then that needed for melting 2017 ice. Also impact of waves between 1980 and 2017 is most definitely different. In 1980 waves were hard pressed to get that far into that ice, now a wave can almost travel from one side of the Arctic to the other no matter what ice it faces. On top of that todays ice is far dirtier.
Therefore models can no longer just put sunlight in the equation, they must also put kinetic energy into the frame along with changes in the water column. That is water currents are far warmer and are having a bigger impact, plus all those storms are not only bringing warm water to the surface but adding a huge amount of kinetic energy to the mix that may put more energy into an area what the sun could do in the same amount of time. Granted those storms can go either way in the equation balance sheet.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 06, 2017, 05:16:39 AM »
Another way we are isolating ourselves. Depending upon computer technology for everything. See what happens at work when there is no power. Also in this day and age of economic efficiency and just in time deliveries, true redundancy is a fiction and as we can see by brown outs and blackouts even in the richest countries electric power is always a step away from collapse and therefore no computers. Another influencing natural factor that could rapidly change current direction of isolation can be found here.
"If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.] [url][/url]
The odds of a hit?
"In my view the July 2012 storm was in all respects at least as strong as the 1859 Carrington event," says Baker. "The only difference is, it missed."

In February 2014, physicist Pete Riley of Predictive Science Inc. published a paper in Space Weather entitled "On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events."  In it, he analyzed records of solar storms going back 50+ years.  By extrapolating the frequency of ordinary storms to the extreme, he calculated the odds that a Carrington-class storm would hit Earth in the next ten years.

The answer: 12%.
In a 2013 report, Lloyd's of London, the insurance market, put the population at risk of a massive storm at "between 20-40 million with durations up to 1-2 years," depending "largely on the availability of spare replacement transformers." The cost of such a recovery would range between $600 billion and $2.6 trillion.

Read more at:
Recovery time from a business view point?
During the Carrington event, people saw auroras as far south as Cuba. The storm also knocked out telegraph systems in much of the Northern Hemisphere. But "knocked out" doesn't quite cover it, as this anecdote from NASA makes clear:

Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.

And this was before we relied on an expansive electrical grid, radio waves, satellites, computers, and other systems that are highly susceptible to solar storms.

Today a Carrington event-like storm would be more devastating than at any other point in history. In fact, a powerful event may cause $2 trillion in damage just in the first year, according to the US government, and take 4 to 10 years for the planet to recover.
My edit: Knock outed the power in Quebec for millions for

Another acrticle:
The Canadian province of Quebec's electrical grid wasn't able to handle the load and went entirely offline. For 12 hours, in the freezing Quebec winter, almost the entire province was without power. I'm telling you, that place gets cold, so this was really bad timing.
Follow your imagination back to Thursday, September 1st, 1859. This was squarely in the middle of the Victorian age.

And not the awesome, fictional Steampunk Victorian age where spectacled gentleman and ladies of adventure plied the skies in their steam-powered brass dirigibles.

No, it was the regular crappy Victorian age of cholera and child labor. Technology was making huge leaps and bounds, however, and the first telegraph lines and electrical grids were getting laid down.

Imagine a really primitive version of today's electrical grid and internet.
I believe it could be even longer as dependence on the electron is so prevalent you have a chicken and egg problem. Cannot do one without the other. Only a 12% chance, but then in 1980 the Arctic was not supposed to able to melt out until 2100's.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 17, 2017, 12:54:34 PM »
An interesting article.
Trump and World Order


A future in which other countries hedge as the United States abandons its decades-long leadership is not preordained. Whether it comes to pass will depend on the choices Trump makes as president. If he pivots away from his campaign pledges—in response to the advice of senior advisers, pressure from Congress, or pleas from foreign leaders—his administration could revert to a more standard U.S. grand strategy. But if he makes life riskier for longtime partners—by weakening U.S. alliance commitments, adopting protectionist economic policies, and shirking obligations to combat global warming—U.S. allies and partners will seek to advance their national security, prosperity, and well-being through increased autonomy. In that case, the Trump administration will find that its attempts to expand the United States’ freedom of action and keep others guessing will be met in kind, to the benefit of U.S. rivals and to the detriment of U.S. economic interests and the health of the planet.

That would be an ironic outcome. A leitmotif of Trump’s presidential campaign was the need to reduce Americans’ vulnerability to international threats and unfair economic competition. And yet the steps Trump has endorsed risk driving away U.S. allies and partners, exposing Americans to global instability and economic retaliation, and accelerating the demise of the world the United States made.

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 15, 2017, 03:21:33 PM »
This is a colection of articles trying to get an idea of who Trump as leader is.
Trump’s leadership style likely will have negative effects, UB expert says
“An authoritarian command-and-control style is highly directive and even dictatorial. It occurs when someone is trying to change a huge system in rapid motion and there is no room for debate, dissent or conflicting ideas,” he explains. “Not only are poor decisions made in that kind of a world, but people think, ‘why should I be loyal to this agency anymore when I am not valued or appreciated, and my opinions are not respected.’ This leadership style creates a toxic climate.”
Don’t expect Trump to settle down anytime soon – chaos is the President’s preferred management style
But prior predictions that Trump will calm down or normalise have generally been proven wrong. Trump seems comfortable in chaos; like his oft-stated idea that unpredictability is a virtue in negotiations (and, by extension, in foreign policy) is connected to a general comfort with a constant level of disruption. The federal bureaucracy, by contrast, is designed to tolerate the disruption of a presidential transition, but not governance by constant crisis. Ultimately, one must accommodate the other – but at this stage, there is little indication of how that might happen.
Case Study in Chaos: How Management Experts Grade a Trump White House
The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.
“This is so basic, it’s covered in the introduction to the M.B.A. program that all our students take,” said Lindred Greer, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. By all outward indications, Mr. Trump “desperately needs to take the course,” she said.
Trump’s leadership style: Bravado and branding
Donald Trump’s leadership style was built on his father’s success in the roughand-tumble world of developing apartments in New York’s outer boroughs, and refined under the tutelage of Roy Cohn, the Manhattan lawyer who taught Trump that all publicity is good publicity and that victory comes only to those who hit back a hundred times harder.
Building such uncertainty and unpredictability into his leadership and decision-making allows Trump to float possibilities, test ideas and remain antagonistic to the powers that be — all before he puts a decision into play. Add his infamous lack of impulse control — his predawn tweets, his thinskinned reaction to criticism, his insulting comments about people he’s already defeated — and a short attention span — he said he has no patience for reading reports or briefings — and the result is something not quite like any previous occupant of the White House.
A Staff Shake-Up Won’t Save Trump’s Flailing Presidency
Trump can fire, or force to resign, almost anyone in the administration save Pence. But doing so isn’t likely to suddenly turn things around in the White House. Trump will seek new supplicants as replacements, and they, too, will fall out of favor with him—for reasons they may or may not understand. It is well-documented that Trump is a rude, mercurial, vengeful boss who is, oxymoronically, an inattentive micromanager. He is arrogant enough to believe he knows everything, and thus his staffers are expendable minions, but he’s too ignorant to govern well. The only effective staff shake-up would be one aimed at the very top. That, in the end, is the real problem with this White House: Trump can’t fire himself.
IMO what you see is what you will get. Trump has done things Trumps way all his life and from his veiw been very successful at it.It is very doubtful that he will make any changes no matter how bad things may become, because in his mind it is always someone else's fault.
In regards to scientists and the environment, He cares very little for it, because it is not his brand. So the next four years at the best will be just a stalemate with things gradually getting worse, or a plummet to disaster.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 13, 2017, 08:38:07 PM »
I feel a very good write up of what has happened in the last week or so

Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: February 12, 2017, 04:28:58 PM »
A war on science is a war he’s guaranteed to lose. Trump can deny the science, silence the scientists, censor their reports, even fire them from government agencies - but that won’t stop the Earth from heating and its climate from changing at a dangerous rate. At best he would survive a four or eight-year term, leave the planet a worse place for future generations, and be seen as a villain in the history books.

But it looks as though scientists and journalists aren’t going to let that happen without a fight, and kudos to them for standing up to the anti-science bullies on behalf of the planet and future generations. We’ll all have to do our parts to protect science and hold the administration accountable to facts and truth for the next four years.

If the Canadian experience can teach U.S. scientists anything, it’s that not only their future research but also their past work is at risk. “Watch your libraries,” May said. “Stuff was taken away in dumpsters. Raw data and archives were lost.” There is enough collective anxiety about U.S. climate data being destroyed, altered, or lost that several groups of concerned citizens spent the months before Trump’s Inauguration copying federal data and moving it to other servers. “Within weeks of Harper becoming Canada’s Prime Minster, the climate-change information was scrubbed from the Web site of Environment Canada and researchers were muzzled,” May said. “That took weeks. Trump is a lot faster.”
A couple of things the USA can look up to as positives. One: There is a far stronger wealthier private scientific establishment. Two: Suing is a routine act about everything there and Trump is quickly burning up any good that might have gone his way in that respect. Third: The media. Broadcasting, Hollywood, social media is far more active and influential on a per capita basis then Canada and therefore could help things along (granted most of that comes from immigrants who know how to use it).

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 07, 2017, 09:06:14 AM »
Are the testicles at the press getting larger?

The US press has been bad for a long time.  This last election was pitiful however....even for their low standards.  Perhaps they have started to figure out WHY.....

We'll see if anyone else steps up to the plate......
Corporate CEOs push back on Trump's policies
Kalanick abruptly quit Trump's Business Advisory Group ahead of a meeting with the president, Feb. 3. Corporate heavyweights including Ford, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, Starbucks have openly criticized the new restrictions and are expected to be at that meeting to ask the president some tough questions.
Media gets money from ads. Ads from these giants could be affected if they play their cards wrong. Trump could find that populism, running into corporate world, running into judicial world could be a  far bigger problem then he has ever thought.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 29, 2017, 12:48:46 AM »
Another big difference is how. Larsen |C started at an ocean point and is working its way across to another ocean point. much like tearing a piece of paper. The PIG is a very different story.
West Antarctic ice shelf breaking up from the inside out.
Rift in Pine Island Glacier ice shelf, West Antarctica, photographed from the air during a NASA Operation IceBridge survey flight on Nov. 4, 2016. This rift is the second to form in the center of the ice shelf in the past three years. The first resulted in an iceberg that broke off in 2015.
In the images, they saw evidence that a rift formed at the very base of the ice shelf nearly 20 miles inland in 2013. The rift propagated upward over two years, until it broke through the ice surface and set the iceberg adrift over 12 days in late July and early August 2015.
This article is telling about what happened in 2015, but based on caption of first photo which I quote, it seems to be the same process involved for this event.

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: January 29, 2017, 12:28:49 AM »
One puzzling aspect is how it managed to plow through areas of softer ice, called suture zones, that bind the ice from neighboring glaciers into one giant sheet.

"There's something different about that ice that slows it down or causes it to hang up for some period of time," says Dan McGrath, a glaciologist at Colorado State University. But, starting in 2014, that soft ice did very little to slow down this rift.

"We need to get to the bottom of understanding what changed that allowed this rift to progress as it has, and will other rifts follow suit," says McGrath, who spent four field seasons camped out on the Larsen C ice shelf.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What are you expecting to see this melt Season?
« on: January 12, 2017, 04:07:42 AM »
I was a year early forecasting the demise of the Arctic sea ice . My 'pole hole' is a likely end result of this 'freeze' season. If this summer allows either clear skies OR warmer air to enter the Arctic then we will see little ice remain . Then the question will be .. can we have a refreeze in the new era of open ocean ?

certainly yes as to the latest question, all talk about no ice in winter is not realistic, there will be winter with no sunlight and global temps that would leave a dark pole ice-free in winter would probably be close to total extinction of life and even if i'm wrong here it will take many many years, talking centuries or more to get to that point IMO.
A certain amount of refreeze will happen, but with one very important impact. The conveyor of Atlantic storms I suspect will continue and as solid ice has always in the past been the moderator of Arctic storms much like land in the south, these storms will continue deep into Arctic waters. On top of that unlike in the south where the centres of storms are warm and therefore any cold water kills storms, inn the Arctic the opposite is true. Cold centres and warm sides. As long as there is enough warm air coming in from the sides of the storm, that storm will continue and according to climate forecasters, last a very long time.
As a result, you end up with very low extent, not because of warm temps, but mechanical energy not allowing for the development of ice. One thing that is not being considered enough by some is that mechanical energy can 'melt' ice faster then heat given the right conditions.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What are you expecting to see this melt Season?
« on: January 11, 2017, 04:39:55 PM »
Some other questions that I would include are these. Based on the development of the wondering slow jet stream the last few years have seen the following. Relatively warm stormy winters and cool cloudy calm summers.
This has seen extent maximums that are low but not really out of line with what would be expected given the weather conditions and that also includes the effects on volumes. For the summer it has resulted in generally lower then expected melt off given the maximum starting point and condition of the ice including MYI.
[An aside at this point. I cannot see that MYI of today can be anywhere close the the MYI of 1980 and therefore dragging out the melt formulas to apply today's MYI can not be the same as the formula of 1980 MYI. It would be the like saying the same volume of contaminated slushy will melt at exactly the same rate as pure solid block of pure water ice of the same volume.]
The questions I think about are: Since 2012 are we seeing an establishment of a new weather regime? Will it continue for the long term thus giving us the long tail melt? Or are we just in one of those level off parts of the steps before we hit a new big melt off. If that is the case then is the Arctic is in such a bad state the we could possibly see the loss of what is still around in one season?
If we do happen to see a 2007 type summer, I could see us losing all we have there in one go. Why? I do think that the thick ice that is currently there is nothing more then contaminated salty ice that under 2007 or 2012 type summer will vanish in a flash because there is no solid structure to that ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: December 19, 2016, 02:31:58 PM »
Based on this thesis was one of the major reasons for collapse of Larsen. A similar occurrence in the Arctic could have very profound influence on the MYI and maybe even Greenland that we are not taking into enough account of. Problem with rare occurrences is that it is hard to figure out how what happened, happened.

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: November 28, 2016, 11:24:56 AM »
Found this interesting article.
Föhn winds may have escaped scientists’ notice because they don’t just blow during summer—some of their most impressive heat waves actually strike in the dead of winter, eroding glaciers at a time of year that no one thought possible.

“They seem to impart a lot more melt onto the ice shelf than we had imagined,” says Adrian Luckman, a glaciologist at Swansea University in the United Kingdom, who studies this region of Antarctica. The winds result from subtle changes in the atmospheric circulation due to climate warming; they could have major consequences.
Since short lived, unless your timing is right or are expecting you, you would never know it happened.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: November 28, 2016, 10:26:22 AM »
As a Canadian I can sadly state that we have been there seen it and it could be really bad.
The right wing under Harper by the end had almost total control over anything that any scientist that got federal money wrote or said. That included any research publication. Result. Canada lost a lot of scientist especially in the Arctic climate research area which before Harper was at the forefront, now we lag behind almost everyone. Part two 'TARSANDS'. The world is going to pay dearly for what we have done there for many generations. Part three was he was a big part in the failure of several international climate conventions.
To think that Congress and Senate will control Trump. Forget it. Too many owe their wins and/or margin of wins to his campaign and his ability to engage the GOP core. They will do whatever Trump tells them to do.
Lastly the effect that like mind politicians throughout the world knowing that it is possible to win against all odds. The general populations around the world are in the mood for big change and that means getting rid of all international agreements. As for the argument that nations still have to abide by those agreements? Easy path is just ignore them. In the end any penalties are toothless. Even the WTO penalties for the most part can be ignored without any real damage.
When the Paris agreement was signed I had my doubts as to its effectiveness, because what I saw happening in Canada when a climate denialist government gained control and what it is capable of doing. China and India will lead the pact for climate change in the short term because environmental issues demand it. As soon as that pressure is off, unless real economic benefits are shown, it will return to BAU. Real changes will only happen once the major world cities start getting flooded, by then things will be really bad.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: November 18, 2016, 11:17:04 AM »
An interesting article of a different type of melting.
A thought that crosses my mind that is not talked about is, if you get a flash thaw of 2-3 days that is enough to work water into cracks, but then you go back into deep freeze, would not that open those cracks even farther as the water expands do to water freezing? Then when in the summer as the air warms would not that be weak points for farther melting?

Nobody knows what Trump believes.
I beg to differ. We  know exactly what he believes. Force everyone else to pay his costs and take all the profits. He will run the government to line his own pockets, fix US deficit problems by declaring bankruptcy, Create a worldwide depression and in the end declare himself as the smartest man in the world.
Trump is all about Trump and absolutely NO ONE else matters to him.

The rest / Re: Europe - Collapse dynamics
« on: June 25, 2016, 01:36:36 PM »
In seeing the results this week, what the future holds concerns me.
IMO this is more a reaction of voting against the establishment. Last year Canadians voted Liberal more as a protest vote against the then current ruling party then for the present ruling party.
In the US election you are seeing similar results with the surprising runs of Sanders and Trump. Looking farther back that is the core reason for the Arab Spring, also the Occupy Wall Street movement. The problem is that when you dismantle what you have and exchange it for an alternative then you are depending upon the alternative to have a coherent thought out direction in which to go.
As history has shown, more often then not many times all the energy has been used getting a coalition to dismantle what was but there is not enough agreement among that group as to where we should go from there. This brings us to the problem of the environment. History again can show that it can be very beneficial but on the other hand it has been known to be disastrous.
The question I  have is that if the ones who voted for Brexit are among the same group who believe that going green is the reason for all our financial mess and use their same votes to dismantle any green venture then needed changes could be postponed even longer and that would be very bad news for all concerned.
Imagine if Trump wins election for similar reasons? Horrors. :o :'(

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: June 11, 2016, 11:06:09 PM »
I look forward to another of your interesting and edifying topics.
it is not surprising that the state elite assign responsibility for state of the art climate modeling like ACME to the US Department of Energy (which has a clearly biased mission to promote energy consumption), or that the POTUS has made the US military a focal point for implementing government climate mitigation efforts.
Although totally unintuitive, these are a  grand example of American politics and division of power at play.
In both of these examples it is the President that is trying to get an understanding of what reality really is and in some instances the efforts of some Presidents to hide the facts. The fact is neither of the houses want to face reality. That leaves the President with a small deck of cards to deal with. Put modelling in the hands of the DOE as the biggest changes needed to take mitigating efforts will fall to them. And it can be argued what is or is not done on the mitigating side of things globally speaking will end up in the hands of generals to fix. Historically country leaders have always fixed great internal problems by going to war and making the one you are going to war against out to be the bad guys.

The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: June 03, 2016, 01:37:17 AM »

Arctic Background / Re: Importance of waves in the Arctic
« on: June 03, 2016, 12:24:39 AM »
@JimH: for the crazies of the world

Arctic Background / Re: Importance of waves in the Arctic
« on: June 03, 2016, 12:11:51 AM »
"It seems to me" No I'm definitely talking about internal waves, though I can't say the evidence for any particular lead being formed by them is unambiguous. But if you have say a 2k wavelength wave raising the ice surface slowly by 2-3m first theres the tendency of the ice to flow to the trough then with an opening the wind gains purchase, how do you call that? Sensors in the ocean has to be the answer. May help with the needed physicsof internal waves.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 02, 2016, 08:39:50 PM »
Based on this:
Do not think possible. Highly unlikely for some time.
Edit: Based on animation:
May the 4th was last day of ice.

Policy and solutions / Re: Just who's job is it to make people aware
« on: June 02, 2016, 06:45:27 PM »
Here is an article that I feel will start being felt more and more and that a tipping point will be reached and change will be forced to happen.
Unlike Buffett, S&P Sees ‘Considerable’ Climate Change Impact for Insurers
How S&P Assesses the Risk

But insurers and other financial services firms globally still face risks to reputation—and even litigation—when activists’ voices aren’t heard, S&P suggested in its report.

While insurance company exposures to these risks and others is difficult to quantify, S&P outlines the metrics that analysts are using to sort out the financial services firms likely to be hardest hit by climate change from those positioned to benefit from opportunities in the final section of its report.

If posted elsewhere sorry. Abrupt Sea Level Rise Looms
As Increasingly Realistic Threat

For the Pliocene era 3 million years ago, for example — when seas were dozens of feet higher than today — older models estimated that a partially melting Antarctic added about 23 feet to global sea level rise. The new model increased Antarctica’s contribution to sea level rise during the Pliocene to 56 feet.
Even DeConto admits that, under the model used in his paper, the timing and pace of Antarctica’s ice loss is “really uncertain” — it could be a decade or two, or three or four, before these dramatic processes start to kick in, he says. “The paper just shows the potentials, which are really big and really scary,” says DeConto. But Scambos and other observers call DeConto’s numbers “perfectly plausible.”
Two articles referred to:
Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise
Abstract• Change history• References• Author information• Extended data figures and tables• Supplementary information
Polar temperatures over the last several million years have, at times, been slightly warmer than today, yet global mean sea level has been 6–9 metres higher as recently as the Last Interglacial (130,000 to 115,000 years ago) and possibly higher during the Pliocene epoch (about three million years ago). In both cases the Antarctic ice sheet has been implicated as the primary contributor, hinting at its future vulnerability. Here we use a model coupling ice sheet and climate dynamics—including previously underappreciated processes linking atmospheric warming with hydrofracturing of buttressing ice shelves and structural collapse of marine-terminating ice cliffs—that is calibrated against Pliocene and Last Interglacial sea-level estimates and applied to future greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Antarctica has the potential to contribute more than a metre of sea-level rise by 2100 and more than 15 metres by 2500, if emissions continue unabated. In this case atmospheric warming will soon become the dominant driver of ice loss, but prolonged ocean warming will delay its recovery for thousands of years.
Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 ◦C global warming could be dangerous
Abstract. We use numerical climate simulations, paleoclimate data, and modern observations to study the effect of growing ice melt from Antarctica and Greenland. Meltwater tends to stabilize the ocean column, inducing amplifying feedbacks that increase subsurface ocean warming and ice shelf melting. Cold meltwater and induced dynamical effects cause ocean surface cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic, thus increasing Earth's energy imbalance and heat flux into most of the global ocean's surface. Southern Ocean surface cooling, while lower latitudes are warming, increases precipitation on the Southern Ocean, increasing ocean stratification, slowing deepwater formation, and increasing ice sheet mass loss. These feedbacks make ice sheets in contact with the ocean vulnerable to accelerating disintegration. We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years. Recent ice melt doubling times are near the lower end of the 10–40-year range, but the record is too short to confirm the nature of the response. The feedbacks, including subsurface ocean warming, help explain paleoclimate data and point to a dominant Southern Ocean role in controlling atmospheric CO2, which in turn exercised tight control on global temperature and sea level. The millennial (500–2000-year) timescale of deep-ocean ventilation affects the timescale for natural CO2 change and thus the timescale for paleo-global climate, ice sheet, and sea level changes, but this paleo-millennial timescale should not be misinterpreted as the timescale for ice sheet response to a rapid, large, human-made climate forcing. These climate feedbacks aid interpretation of events late in the prior interglacial, when sea level rose to +6–9 m with evidence of extreme storms while Earth was less than 1 °C warmer than today. Ice melt cooling of the North Atlantic and Southern oceans increases atmospheric temperature gradients, eddy kinetic energy and baroclinicity, thus driving more powerful storms. The modeling, paleoclimate evidence, and ongoing observations together imply that 2 °C global warming above the preindustrial level could be dangerous. Continued high fossil fuel emissions this century are predicted to yield (1) cooling of the Southern Ocean, especially in the Western Hemisphere; (2) slowing of the Southern Ocean overturning circulation, warming of the ice shelves, and growing ice sheet mass loss; (3) slowdown and eventual shutdown of the Atlantic overturning circulation with cooling of the North Atlantic region; (4) increasingly powerful storms; and (5) nonlinearly growing sea level rise, reaching several meters over a timescale of 50–150 years. These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: June 02, 2016, 05:16:05 PM »
This shows the complexity of understanding and predicting future events. shows that physics of leaks prove a slow release. Problem is that it will happen if no other events come into play. Wildfires on the other hand introduce an entirely different unpredictable element into play. It is unpredictable in that you can not tell when or how much it will happen. One thing you can be sure of is that it will happen. Question will be how much of the stored carbon it will release when it passes by.
In other words you may still end up having a bomb go off, just not as a direct result of melt.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 01, 2016, 08:39:03 PM »
I note that for many years/decades many scientists have misinterpreted paleo-data, causing them to underestimate climate sensitivity, and we are currently forcing global warming at a rate over ten times that during the PETM; which is a clear example of human stupidity. 
We also have a great propensity to look at things myopically. In other words, we create an hypothesis, collect the data and develop the theory. We then ignore any extraneous data, because that just creates too much complexity. Problem with that is that the data not used may be vital to understanding the real truth. Another issue is that we seemed to think we have be best questions to ask.
Alexander Graham Bell is said to have never answered a childs question with Because. Reason was he never knew when he tried to actually anwser the question, he himself may have discovered something he did not know.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: June 01, 2016, 08:10:39 PM »
Granted Greenpeace for their own reasons sometimes do exaggerate things, but remember in Siberia you have the problem that a lot of these are peat fires and some of these may not be new fires, but fires that are now resurfacing again not did not die out from last year.
In Canada, you do not have as much peat, because of the scraping down to rock from the last ice age.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 01, 2016, 07:32:36 PM »
Related: Laws of unintended consequences.
We often believe that technology is always useful and that new technologies will save us from the disasters befalling on us.  I am starting to think that what we need is not more technology but less.
When there’s no immediate threat to our understanding of the world, we change our beliefs. It’s when that change contradicts something we’ve long held as important that problems occur.
An apapro song maybe:
"Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time"

We may not get back what we had, what I threw away
But you know I would do anything, anything you say
I'd cross a thousand miles of broken glass on my hands and knees
I would crawl if for a moment we could cease hostilities

But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start again

Now our dream is over, but lately I have found
That you only seem to come alive when I am not around

But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start again


But it seemed like such a good idea at the time,
such a very very good idea at the time.

I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
either way let's start again
I don't know where I am, I don't know where I went wrong
I don't know where to start... again

Point is, we need to be very careful about fixes, as fixes can sometimes be worse than the original problem.

Whether you do it by poll or just ask the question, I believe it is a valid question.
We have threads that deal with the passageways and whether or not the will open and when. We have threads dealing with when we will see ice free and how to define it. This question asks about open water over a small area with the location being the North Pole.
Think about it. That means you are having export through the Fram. There needs to be little ice on that side of the Arctic. Lastly, the Gyre needs to be in such a state that it can not get enough ice to cover the North Pole for a 24 hr time period. Not as dramatic as ice free, granted, but the implications are staggering. 20 years ago how many would you have bet that being possible before 2100?
BTW I put it for 2016 just because I do believe conditions are in place that we could see no ice on the NP this  year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 28, 2016, 11:56:31 AM »
NOAA Calls for Near-Average 2016 Atlantic Hurricane Season; Other Groups Go Bigger
Penn State predicts an exceptionally above-average Atlantic hurricane season: 19 named storms
Here's a forecast worth paying attention to: the April 25 forecast made using a statistical model by Penn State's Michael Mann and alumnus Michael Kozar called for an extremely active Atlantic hurricane season with 19 named storms (expected range: 14 to 24). Their prediction was made using statistics of how past hurricane seasons have behaved in response to sea surface temperatures (SSTs), the El Niño/La Niña oscillation, the NAO, and other factors. The statistical model assumed that in 2016 the late-April +0.88°C departure of temperature from average in the Main Development Region (MDR) for hurricanes in the tropical Atlantic would persist throughout hurricane season, a moderate La Niña would form this fall, and the NAO would be near average. If no La Niña forms, their model predicts reduced activity: 16 named storms.

The PSU team has been making Atlantic hurricane season forecasts since 2007, and these predictions have done well, except for in 2012, when an expected El Niño did not materialize:

2007 prediction: 15 named storms, Actual: 15
2009 prediction: 12 named storms, Actual: 9
2010 prediction: 23 named storms, Actual: 19
2011 prediction: 16 named storms, Actual: 19
2012 prediction: 11 named storms, Actual: 19
2013 prediction: 16 named storms, Actual: 14
2014 prediction: 9 named storms, Actual: 8
2015 prediction: 7 named storms, Actual: 11
Why could this be important? If the tendency for storms started in the Atlantic tropics continue to end up in the Arctic, and the cold blob remains strong, then we possibly could see a very active conveyor belt sending strong storms into the Arctic.
On top of that if things set up right we could also see one or more GAC set up shop.

Laws of thermodynamics may come into play as far as being able to make any headway as far as retaining ice using ice dams and ice dams historically have been known to have catastrophic collapses that may make things worse. Using concrete would be IMO a nonstarter as the amount of heat given off by the chemical reactions setting the concrete are huge and that is not taking into account the amount of CO2 produced to make it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9