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 - OldLeatherneck

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12
The rest / Re: NVM
« on: January 15, 2017, 09:21:05 PM »
Not Very Much

Arctic sea ice / Re: What are you expecting to see this melt Season?
« on: January 13, 2017, 12:07:12 AM »
All these charts that zero out at some point are missing an important element. I would call it a stall line. In this case it would apply only on the lower limit, which I do not claim to know, but I guarantee it is not zero on the vertical axis.  Anyway, once it is reached, the curve no longer applies.

I have been thinking similar thoughts.  In human disease models there is often an early exponential decay (death rate) followed by a reverse slower decline.  The path to zero survivors usually has an S shape, better described by a Weibull distribution than exponential. 

The underlying reason for this is that there are usually two or more underlying populations in our disease group.  Call them the weak and the strong.  The strong survive, sometimes a long time and eventually cause the curve to kink.  The proportion of weak and strong drives the location of the kink.  Even in something as dire as recurrent pancreas cancer there is a kink.

So, I've been wondering if the distinction between weak and strong may be influenced by land based ice.  Will it protect some sea ice, produce a kink and delay the ultimate date of an ice free summer day in the arctic?


Welcome to the Forum.  I appreciate that you used the analogy of how the ratio of weak to strong can and will impact the final shape of the curve.  While I haven't had the time recently to post very often, I do check the various charts Neven has provided us on a daily basis.

When it comes to defining the ratio of "sick" ice to "healthy" ice you need to clearly define which metric you are using.  The ratios of "sick" to healthy for Extent will differ greatly than the ratios for Volume.

In the 5 years I've following the demise of the Arctic ice, I can quite certainly state that when using the  metric of Extent, as an example, there are significant visual differences in the ratios between "sick" and "healthy" ice.  For the sake of this discussion I'm using only thickness as the measurement and I'm calling"sick" ice less than 2 meters thick and "healthy" ice greater than 5 meters thick.  I fully realize that other factors such as the cohesiveness of the individual floes is an important assessment of the true health, in terms of survivability.  5 years ago the northern shores of the Canadian Archipelago and Greenland provided a safe haven for thick multi-year ice.  In the last few years, we have seen a great deal of damage to these formerly invulnerable floes of ice.

Now for my thoughts as to what may happen during 2017's melt season. While everything will depend on when each of the three metrics reaches their maximum, how long the plateaus last, when the serious declines begin and what the weather patterns provide during the following six months.

However, using IJIS Extent as one example, if the maximum is between 13.5 Km2 and 13.8 Km2, the maximum is reached before the end of February, the plateau is short-lived and serious declines start by the Equinox, we are in for an interesting ride this year.  An average melt year will end with the a new record low, although not by much. An ideal melt year will result in shattering the old records and most probably will flirt with meeting the requirements for being declared "ICE FREE", if only for a few days in September.

The forum / Re: Neven's "TIP JAR"
« on: November 21, 2016, 11:33:20 PM »
I know many readers here are aware that Neven has announced the he is taking a sabbatical from his daily participation in active blogging and moderation of this Forum.  I want to remind everyone that Neven has sacrificed a great deal, personally and financially to establish and maintain this Forum.  This place has become one of the internet's most valuable resources for information and knowledge sharing.

I strongly urge other members, new and old, as well as visitors to make a contribution to help keep the work going.  We still have a lot to learn about the Cryosphere as the earth's climate heads into uncharted waters!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: November 20, 2016, 12:03:22 AM »
Record MIN gains, from Nov. 18th would result in annual MAX of 13,574,804 Km2
Record MAX gains, from Nov. 18th, would result in annual MAX of 12,413,844 Km2

I think these are reversed ??  Top would be MAX gains, bottom - MIN gains.


Thank You for noticing that.  Somehow the aging process kicks in and I make silly mistakes like that!

I've corrected the original post.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: November 19, 2016, 11:02:48 PM »
It's been a few months since I've posted anything on the Forum.  Now that the US election is over, I've decided to jump back into the conversation.

With IJIS Extent so far below other years, I thought I'd start looking at what we may be looking at for the eventual maximum next February or March. although, it  is far too early to make any  firm projections or predictions at this time.  The table below shows the total gain from November 18th (2003 - 2015) until the following year's annual maximum. 

The AVG gain was 4,679,516 Km2
The MAX gain, in 2012, was 5,254,090 Km2
The MIN gain, in 2014, was 4,093,130 Km2

If the remainder of the 2016/2016 refreeze season were to follow the average gains,from Nov. 18th, the annual maximum would be  13,000,230 Km2 8th,

Record MIN gains, from Nov. 18th would result in annual MAX of 12,413,844 Km2
Record MAX gains, from Nov. 18th, would result in annual MAX of 13,574,804 Km2

By the way......that country that Trump wants to "make great again".....ended up with 121 medals at the Olympics (46 gold).  The US also ended up with the largest margin between its 121 medals....and the second place country China's 70 medals......since the 1932 Olympics.

I'm happy the U.S. did so well at the Olympics, but is our supposed athletic superiority a true measure of our country being great?

Any greatness that was achieved by the US athletes in the competition was erased by the juvenile and offensive behavior of Ryan Lochte and the other member of the swimming team that behaved so poorly.  Since Lochte is 32 years old and well funded, there is no earthly excuse for his behavior. I will not accept "boys will be boys" as an excuse.

Admittedly, I was a bit carefree in my late teens and early twenties, however, there came a time when I had matured enough to behave myself, particularly when I've represented my country in foreign lands.

Policy and solutions / Re: Computer Modeling Solutions
« on: August 22, 2016, 02:09:18 AM »
The vast majority of members here on this forum are amateurs, albeit there are many members with a passion to understand the many aspects of AGW/CC who are also highly educated and very knowledgeable in any number of scientific disciplines.  However, no one on this forum has the financial resources to procure the computers with appropriate operating systems, let alone hire the required number of scientists and software engineers to develop robust models for potential solutions.  You must remember that every potential solution will require a unique suite of modelling algorithms tailored to that specific solution.

This may sound counter-intuitive, however, I believe that the less Hillary and her campaign talk about Climate Change during the 2016 election, the better off her campaign will be.

My rationale for this is that a significant number of Republicans and independents are indicating that they either will, or might, vote for Hillary because they view Trump as being totally unfit to be President.  Sadly, a good number of those same voters may believe that Climate Change is a hoax. Too much conversation about Climate Change may cause them to switch back to voting for Trump.

Between now and the election, the Republicans are going to continue to hammer away at Hillary over her past decisions and actions.  This will include any number of blatant lies and unfounded conspiracy theories. The only thing that could cause Hillary to lose the election would be the release of damning evidence that can not be refuted.

As it stands now, Hillary will probably win the election and the Democrats will gain control of the Senate.  This means that the Republican controlled House of  Representatives will not be able to completely defund Climate Change research.

In my humble opinion, this is  the best we can hope for in 2016.

I am so appreciative of this forum for providing an “Off Topic” category.  In light of what I am about to post, in the next few paragraphs, I think that everyone will understand why my state and locale of residence, in the U.S., have been removed from my profile on this Forum.  I live in a community that has many residents that believe socialists, many Hispanics, many African-Americans and almost all Muslims should be killed, many of whom are immediate neighbors.  Were I to post the below statements on most major media platforms, my real name and location would be too easy to identify, which would not only risk my life but that of my wife.  It’s not that I have great fear of being shot at.  It’s happened twice before: once of the streets of Chicago and only once while serving in Vietnam.  However, since I’m approaching the age of 70, I’d prefer dying of natural causes.
I am posting this here, on this forum, with the sincere hope that someone can take what I am about to say and get it disseminated in one or more of the major social media forums.  If you choose to share what I am about to write, please don’t use that it came from “OldLeatherneck”.  You may refer to my being a former Marine and Vietnam Vet.  I’m willing to take some risks, but not be stupid about it.  I would request that any quotes be verbatim, although correcting spelling or grammatical errors such as too many/few comas are welcome.  You can editorialize before and after anything I wrote.  With any good fortune, within the next 12 months my wife and I will be moving to a different state, in the U.S.,or a certain undisclosed country in Europe.

Here Goes:

Late yesterday, 7-14-2016, a French resident of Tunisian descent wreaked havoc upon the city of Nice, France.  This horrific incident resulted in more than 80 deaths and multiple life threatening injuries.  Certainly, incidents like this must be decried as barbaric and every step should be taken to prevent future incidents like this in every country on earth.  Yet, it would be equally reprehensible to blame or punish every practitioner of one of the world’s major religions.

Within hours of the slaughter in Nice, Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was on FOX News recommending that every resident of America, who is of Muslim descent should be deported if they believe in Sharia law.  Rather than getting into the constitutional issues ,what are some of the hurdles in determining what constitutes a firm belief in Sharia law?
By Newt Gringrich’s new proclamation, the daughters of President Barack Obama must be evaluated for “Religious Purity” because their paternal grandfather was a Muslim born in Kenya, although their mother and father were born in the United States and are practicing Christians.   Conversely, there are many professional athletes in the U.S. who have converted to Islam. Since they are of Christian descent, will they be exempt from Newt Gingrich’s “Religious Purity” test.  However, their offspring may or may not be subject to the test depending which religions their birth parents practiced at the time of their birth. Of course time of conception may be more important than time of birth.  Does the “Gingrich Standard” identify whether to be classified as of Muslim descent requires only one birth parent or two?  What about adoptive parents?

Can or will the GOP leadership ever stop pandering to the least educated, informed, intelligent and rational thinking members of their base??

The rest / Re: Europe - Collapse dynamics
« on: June 26, 2016, 05:39:17 PM »
Here is a great blog post.  It address's many of my viewpoints about whether the EU or the US are democratic institutions.

Thanks for sharing that link.  There's a lot of food for thought in that, and much of it is not easy to digest.

Other than that, I've been thinking about how Brexit will impact any efforts to curb AGW/CC.  In the short term, the governments of Europe are going to be forced to focus on managing Britain's exit from the EU rather than focus on Climate Change.  In the long term, a weakened EU with growing social unrest and the rise of right wing nationalist movements will not be cohesive enough to take the necessary and painful steps to address the looming threat of Climate Change.

Policy and solutions / Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« on: June 22, 2016, 12:25:12 AM »
Changing the name of a bad idea does not make if a good idea.  It's kind of like wrapping a dog turd in gold foil and calling it a candy bar!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 21, 2016, 10:44:46 PM »
I'm finally back home after nearly a month  in Croatia and Italy.  While gone, I was able to periodically check the charts but never had the time to follow the discussions.It will take me some time to go back and read all of the comments for the past months.

I have updated the charts I regularly maintain.  The  first chart shows 2016 Extent vs 2007, 2012 & 2015 as well as historical averages and record max/min losses.  To stay below 2012 will require losses well above average.  The average (2003-2015)daily lossfor the last 10 days of June is 86,480 Km2.

The second chart shows 2016 Extent losses vs the historical losses. From late march  until nearly the end of May losses were consistently tracking around 25% above average.  The recent slowdown in extent losses has been significant enough to leave 2016 less than 10% above the historical average.

As I stated above,  I haven't followed current events in the Arctic enough to make any prognostications as to whether 2016 still has a reasonable chance of remaining the lowest on record for the remainder of this melting season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 20, 2016, 03:50:17 PM »
The first chart indicates that 2016 should still be well below 2016 by the 15th of June.  However, for it to stay near 1M below 2016

You mean...."still be well below 2012"

And...."stay near 1M below 2012"

Corrected!!...thanks for noticing!!

PS...have a GREAT trip and thanks for all your charts...much appreciated.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 20, 2016, 03:26:28 PM »
This will be my last posting of charts until I return from Europe in the middle of June.  However, I may be jumping in with comments from time to time.

The first chart indicates that 2016 should still be well below 2016 by the 15th of June.  However, for it to stay near 1M below 2012 will need  to maintain daily losses between 60-70K.

The second chart shows that 2016 has consistently had losses about 25% below the long term averages. If 2016 continues losses at this rate, it will be flirting with 2012's record low.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 20, 2016, 12:14:25 AM »
Thanks to everyone for their valuable insights into the multiple reasons that the rate of SIE  can and will quite often reach a stable level this time  of year.  Everyone was polite, stayed on topic and didn't ruffle any feathers!!

We can all learn so much more when the atmosphere of communication is collegial.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 19, 2016, 06:07:55 PM »

Is There Really a "May Pause" in the Rate of Ice Loss??

I don't know if others have noticed this phenomena before, but it appears to me the rate of extent loss seems to peak in late April and remains on a plateau through early June. Below are a series of charts that I put together trying to prove or disprove whether or not there is a plateau.  I will briefly describe each chart.

Chart 1:
It was when I was calculating the the average daily losses for the 10 day period I use for future loss projections. 

Chart 2:
It appears that average daily losses are ~50K Km2 for the period  spanning late April through early June.

Chart 3:
Here is where things started getting more complicated.  I knew if I was going to compare the daily losses for each year from 2003 through 2015, I would need to do some smoothing since using using day-by-day values would be too noisy.  I did 3-day, 5-day and 7-day rolling averages.  The first plot below is the 7-day rolling average of daily extent losses from March 15 through September for each 15th for years 2003-2015.  A plateau is clearly discernible even in this noisy plot.  The second plot is nothing more than the averages of the data in the first graph, where the plateau is very evident.

Having spent much of my life analyzing performance data from shipboard radars, I'm  comfortable in stating that there is a pause in the daily rate of extent loss during May.  However, I've never been a gifted statistician or computer programmer.  Therefore I welcome any comments that may contradict or validate my assumptions.

Has this pause been noted before? If not, should we determine why??

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 18, 2016, 01:46:53 PM »

11,144,719 km2(May 17, 2016)

If IJIS extent were to flatline for the next two weeks and not drop by so much as another single square kilometer, 2016 would *still* be in second place (behind 2015) at the end of the May. Or stated another way, 2016 is now running *more* than two weeks ahead of the normal.


What is even more scary to me is the rate we have been losing ice so far this year.  The IJIS loss from March 20th until now is slightly more than 25% above the 2003-2015 average.  If 2016 were to have continuous 25% above average losses from March 20th through September 10th, the IJIS Extent would be 2,146,554 Km2.

Given that we have had just a dramatic head start this year, we don't need to maintain that rate of loss to still have a chance for a new record.  If losses were to be 10% above average from today  through September 10th, the IJIS Extent would be 3,170,533 Km2. Average losses from today through September 10th would result would be 3,900,311 Km2.

I beginning feel that 2016 will end the year at least in second place and fearing that it could be much lower than that.


Dr. Ricky Rood just posted this on the Wunderground this morning.  Below is a brief quote from his description of the book:

“Climate model users are practitioners in many fields who desire to incorporate information about climate and climate change into planning and management decisions. Users may be scientists and engineers in fields such as ecosystems or water resources. These scientists are familiar with models and the roles of models in natural science. In other cases, the practitioners are engineers, urban planners, epidemiologists, or architects. Though not necessarily familiar with models of natural science, experts in these fields use quantitative information for decision-making. These experts are potential users of climate models. We hope in the end that by understanding climate models and their uncertainties, the reader will understand how climate models are constructed to represent the earth’ s climate system. The book is intended to help the reader become a more competent interpreter or translator of climate model output.”

Dr. Rood is looking for comments and reviews of this book.  I'm looking forward to reading it and quite sure that many members of this forum will find it informative.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 17, 2016, 01:00:22 PM »
The attached graph  shows the IJIS daily values for each fortnight over the next two months.

There are three things I find interesting.

1. The expected increasing decline in the trend lines.
2. The fact that the years that start above the trend line tend to stay there and vice versa
3. The further you are from the trend line early the further you get.

2012 and 2015 were the only years that significantly varied from the pattern.  I  suspect the cause of the 2015 variation is evident in the DMI temperature graph  for May.

If  I  add 2016 to this graph it drags the May 16th trend line down to  be parallel with June 1st and sits on the trend line for June 1st.

GOOD work on that chart!  Everyone has a different way of plotting and showing data.  Each method provides additional pieces to a complex puzzle.  Which then leads to more questions.

Certainly a novel concept, and not impossible to design and implement.  Don't know  about the costs and of course, the unintended consequences.

Shouldn't this thread be moved to Policy and Solutions??

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 16, 2016, 03:46:21 PM »
Don't worry geo- engineering is coming- though in not that form as Wadhams & others are suggesting:

after the US & Russia China also elevated its Nuclear Triad's readyness to LOW (Launch on Warning).
Naah. People who play with those won't start the exchange. False warnings repeatedly happened in the past - 1 false ICBM warning from USSR early detection system (iirc 1983), 1 more from Russia's same system (iirc 1995), and at least two more from similar system in USA. At least 4 times big boys had incoming nuclear attack indicated by their systems, but actual launches in _preemptive_ response (which in fact are very expected to be made) - were never made (at least, not _completed_ in terms of hitting their targets live and hot, that is).

Perhaps read this to understand why. I have no doubt our american partners have similar system. Nope, readiness and active state of Perimeter and its american counter-part - is merely showing off. Both sides know very well that _automated_ response to any actual large-scale attack will evaporate the agressor. Granted, lots of politicians and much of the public on all sides are not aware about this; but people "with the button" certainly are.

So nope, it's either (rather expensive) cloud brightening / Welsbach seeding / whatever else fancy to increase albedo temporarily, or pretty much nothing. And, of course, "our resources are limited" and "given the longer-term perspective it's a waste of resources anyway"...

In 1975, I was working on the radar processing equipment at the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS), in Thule, Greenland.  It was a routine practice to periodically simulate a Mass Raid Attack.  Being that the early 60s technology had no means to generate simulation via software, it required the insertion of two very large circuit cards in to one of the many bays of processing equipment.  Unfortunately, one of the techs forgot to remove the circuit cards before going off duty, at shift change.  Sometime between 3 and 4 o'clock in the morning the alarm bells started clanging and red lights were flashing everywhere. While the pandemonium only lasted a little over 90 seconds until we recognized and rectified the situation, in that brief interim NORAD was placed on full alert, jets at SAC bases were scrambled and President Gerald Ford was awakened from his sleep.

While these "close calls" were few and far between, how close  did the world come to self-annihilation??
Even though this is continuing to take this thread off-topic, I felt I needed to share that experience.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 15, 2016, 09:47:20 PM »
For A-Team's List:

"Anyone who predicts that the 2016 Chicago Cubs will win the World Series for the first time since 1907 can NOT be trusted to reliably predict future ice losses in the Arctic Ocean".

UH-OH!  I Might as well stop making charts, table and projections!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 15, 2016, 08:07:40 PM »
Some additional notables.  The average daily rate of loss for the last 7 days was over 88K, which is a rate typically not seen until late June or into July.  We've had a few posts about what rate of losses are required to achieve certain milestones, so I thought I'd put them all in one table with the average daily losses required from today forwards to achieve them.

If the current rate of losses doesn't soon regress towards the mean, we are truly sailing into uncharted waters!!

De-lurking again, and for the same reason. I'll show my work this time.  :)

May 14 IJIS: 11,293,726
Days to June 1 (inclusive): 18
1,293,726/18 = 71,874

So, we just have to average losses of 71,874 to reach 10 million on June 1.

You are correct, the numbers I provided would have taken us to May 31st.  Thanks for having stopped lurking.  We all need some adult supervision from time to time!!

Donald Trump is a well renowned "Climate Change Denier" and I fear that if he were to be elected, there would be no  chance that the US would take any actions to mitigate AGW/CC.

As an American, I'm embarrassed that one of our major political parties has stooped so low as to nominate him to be their candidate!!

If you really want to know what I think about "The Donald", here it is:

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 15, 2016, 02:33:49 PM »
This is the time of year where all years 2003-2015 are packed into a range of just 820k but this year is nearly 600k below that range and with only a drop of 24k in the lower bound of the range tomorrow 650k below the range looks quite easily reachable.

The range gets down to 691k on 19th May, the lowest range in the melt season. To be more than that full range below the lowest year requires losses of 373k over next 5 days.

No particular significance to this, just seems notable / appealed to me as 'looking large' rather than "looks small".

Some additional notables.  The average daily rate of loss for the last 7 days was over 88K, which is a rate typically not seen until late June or into July.  We've had a few posts about what rate of losses are required to achieve certain milestones, so I thought I'd put them all in one table with the average daily losses required from today forwards to achieve them.

If the current rate of losses doesn't soon regress towards the mean, we are truly sailing into uncharted waters!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 15, 2016, 02:10:28 PM »
My addition to A-Team's List

"I keep googling and have yet to find the product specifications or unit pricing data for an Ekman Pump"

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 14, 2016, 05:20:33 PM »
A Couple of Big IFs

The below are possibilities based on my simplistic projections:


If SIE losses are consistently 10% above average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 90K Km2 below 2012.


If SIE losses are consistently average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 440K Km2 below 2015 and almost 225K Km2 below 2007.

OL, for consistent 10% losses should that be 900k below 2012?


For my projections, I'm using 2003 -2015 data.  I then take the average of 3 discrete periods each month (early month - 10 days, mid month- 10 days, late month - 10 or 11 days).  From there it is just a series of incremental linear regressions using 10% below average, average and 10% above average losses.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 14, 2016, 04:26:52 PM »
A Couple of Big IFs

The below are possibilities based on my simplistic projections:


If SIE losses are consistently 10% above average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 90K Km2 below 2012.


If SIE losses are consistently average from today through the 10th of September, 2016 will be almost 440K Km2 below 2015 and almost 225K Km2 below 2007.

While this is still the Arctic and strange things happen from time to time, I'm guessing (NOT projecting) that 2015 and 2007 will be seriously threatened this year and 2012 will be vulnerable.  The next month  or two will certainly increase or decrease the likelihood of seeing a new record low this year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 14, 2016, 02:05:31 PM »
To further  respond to Okono's question about what it would take to slow down melting this year. For one, we would need May to be followed by dramatically reduced melting in June like it did in 2015.  How likely is this to happen this year??  If my memory serves me correctly, part of the slow down last year was due to the  lack of melt ponding in May.  Since that is  already occurring this year, we can rule that out as a reason for June to slow down.  I will let others comment as to what other weather patterns could significantly slow down losses in June and beyond.

I decided to compare historical IJIS Extent loss profiles for  the months of May and June.  I sorted each month from the highest loss to the lowest loss.  Highlighted in yellow are May 2013 and June 2015 as the  only post-2009 years to have some of the lowest losses on record for the respective month.  The other  thing that stands out to me is that the highest losses for each month are in recent years. 

Since May losses to date are averaging 70.9 Km2 per day we are on track to meet or exceed the record high  losses of 2010.  Almost certainly 2016 losses will be at least the 2nd highest on record.

While it is far too early to speculate as to whether June 2016 will match or exceed 2012's loss of over 2.4M Km2, I will be surprised it is much less than 2.0M Km2.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 14, 2016, 12:07:03 AM »
It's fun to watch the veterans clap each other on the back with grim faces.  People are treating this melt season like a wake.  Not a shock, not the trail that ships leave, although you could be forgiven for asking.  The funereal flavor.

Let me ask a different off-color question: given the melt ponding and albedo momentum that have been acquired, which looks very likely to continue for at least the next 10 days, what would it take to slow down the season after that point?

The simple answer to your question is......Divine Intervention!!

Since that is not likely, it is quite probable that will be multiple near-century losses in area and extent in the next 10 days, leaving a great deal of open water as we approach the summer solstice.  Given that, it will take seriously bad weather conditions  for the remaining broken, fragile ice to stop melting at average or above average rates. I'll let others, more knowledgeable than I, define the meteorological conditions necessary to slow down this fast moving train-wreck!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 13, 2016, 10:06:50 PM »
If the latest EURO is correct (and I suspect it may be given GFS agreement) then I think 10M KM2 by 6/1 is likely on IJIS. From there we pull away from the pack completely and if we follow a 2012-esque decline we should be at ~6.5KM2 come 7/1.

But, more firmly, I think 10KM2 by 6/1 is now seeming likely. The Pacific ice has been demolished but not destroyed which yields very easy continual losses on that side. The Beaufort will be attacked and begin to lose significant area/extent. And Fram export is going to continue, but with the NATL now rapidly warming, that is going to draw salty (and fairly warm/warming) Atlantic waters abnormally north extremely early, and the implications could be quite dire.

It is really looking like we may see a Blue Arctic event this yr IMO.

You might be right about being down close to 10,000,000 by the first of June given the current forecasts.  It will, however, require average daily losses of just over 78K/day for the rest of May. What  is even more scary is the thought that 2016 may continue to expand its 1,000,000 lead over 2012. This will start June with a lot of open water to begin the peak season for solar insolation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 13, 2016, 02:26:47 PM »
2016 is shaping up to be a disastrous year for the Arctic.  I, for one, appreciate the many knowledgeable  people on this forum who contribute such valuable insight and knowledge to the discussion.  Since my aging grey matter continues to think that meteorological charts are nothing more than Rorschach tests, I really appreciate Frivolous and others for providing regular forecasts.  As the table below shows, IJIS Extent losses are tracking well above average this year, and I expect that this will continue, since average daily loss through early June is only about 50K.  I've posted this table as well as a graph of 2016 IJIS Extent against averages from March  20th through today on the IJIS thread.,230.2200.html

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 13, 2016, 02:04:55 PM »

As the above table shows, 2016 losses have been racking well above average, with the exception of one 10 day period, so far this year.  I would expect that for the next few weeks we will continue to see well above average losses since that average daily losses through the first ten days of June is only 50K.  If average losses continue to be in the 65-70K range for the next month, 2012's record will be in jeopardy.

After seeing the the table, I decided to plot 2016 losses from 20 March against the 2003-2015 averages as well as +/- 10% and 25% deviations.  It would appear that after a few wild swings 2016 is tracking about 25% above the average. 

Bad things are happening to the Arctic......with no reprieve in sight!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 11, 2016, 05:16:47 PM »
It will require average daily losses of 69K, for 2016 to be 1,000,000 below 2012 on June 15th.
That  suggests that with "average" average losses, 2016  will be 500,000 below 2011 on June 15th and 200,000 below by Jul 1st.  Of course for the last 6 weeks 2016 has been falling  much  closer to  record rates rather than average rates. And there is no reason to think that  will stop any time soon.
It will require average daily losses of 69K, for 2016 to be 1,000,000 below 2012 on June 15th.

First of all.....GREAT CHART.  Love it...

Secondly.....69K per day MORE THAN LIKELY given the conditions of the ice on several fronts.


I agree with both Buddy and David R that given  the current forecasts and condition of the ice, there is a high probability that losses will be well above average.  Whether a high rate of loss can be maintained for an extended period will depend on the vagaries of weather.

I'm glad that some find these charts and projections useful, I will provide another update along with June loss statistics within the next week.

After that, my wife and I are leaving for nearly a month in Italy and Croatia.  During our travels, I will only have access to the internet via my wife's tablet, which I am still rather clumsy with.  At best, I may be able to make an occasional snarky comment.  Will not be doing any charting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 11, 2016, 03:25:29 PM »

During the first 10 days of May, the average daily losses were 66K, which is well above averages.

The next month will be very interesting to watch, for those of us you are speculating about the possibility of setting a new record this year.  As the projections show, it is reasonable to assume that 2016 will still be below 2012 on the 15th of June.  The real question is how far below 2012 will we be on the 15th of June.  As you can see, 2012 had massive losses in early June.

It will require average daily losses of 69K, for 2016 to be 1,000,000 below 2012 on June 15th.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 10, 2016, 02:06:01 PM »
During the first 9 days of May, 2016 IJIS Extent has lost 610,287 Km2 for a daily average of 67,810 Km2.

For the first ten days of May only one year, 2010, lost more than 600 Km2.  That was 2010 with a whopping loss of 861,227 Km2.

For the entire month of may only six years have had IJIS Extent losses greater than 1.5 M Km2.  The below table shows the May loss for each of those years and the average daily losses required during the remaining days of May for 2016 to equal the loss of that year:

YEAR   Total Loss in  May       Avg Daily Losses Required in 2016
2010          2,183,976                           71,531
2015          1,828,445                           55,371
2009          1,767,733                           52,611
2011          1,722,843                           50,571
2012          1,677,761                           48,522
2014          1,508,260                           40,817

It will take near record breaking losses for the remainder of this month for 2016 to equal the May losses of 2010.  However, it is highly likely that 2016 will exceed the losses in 2012.  To exceed the losses of 2015 will only require slightly above average losses for the remainder of the month.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 10, 2016, 01:56:13 AM »
ACNFS is capturing the ongoing fracturing quite well - and foresees everything poleward of the shores of the CAA breaking free and being entrained into the gyre!

Looking at the ACNFS image it strikes me that the cracks radiating from Beaufort Gyre seem to propagate even in the thickest part of the MYI north of CAA, pretty close to the coast. Can this cracking propagation be powerful enough to let loose the fast ice remaining there (if any)?

The CAA ice was loose last year.  Although the timing and cause of last year's looseness may be completely different from this year.

When portions of the ice along the CAA were pulled free, last year, it was much later in the year.  I think that what is happening this year is much more worrisome. What the final impact of this one event won't be known until we see the final Area, Extent and Volume numbers later this year.  Even then we won't know which contributing factors were the most prominent until the scientists have a chance to analyze everything.

After all many of us are nothing more than amateurs with some degree of scientific literacy and a great deal of concern over what is happening to our global ecosystem.

While it's a bit early to predict anything with certainty, I stuck my neck out and selected 2.75 - 3.0.

My only rationale for this is that the stage seems set for well above average losses in the very near-term.  According to my simplistic modelling, if 2016 losses from today forward till early September exceed average losses by 10%, it would be essentially tied with 2012. I can see a path for greater losses than that.

Fasten your seat belts, it's going to be a wild ride this year!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 06, 2016, 01:46:13 AM »
Let's not spend too much time discussing the losses of one or two individual days. When you look at the losses of the past four days, there were two days well above average and two days well below average for this time of year.  The end result is an average loss of just more than 53K Km2.  The average loss during the first ten days of may is just over 52K Km2.  Therefore, nothing spectacular yet, although I expect some larger than average losses within the next week.

Below is the type of losses that have previously occurred in May.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 03, 2016, 10:41:16 PM »

I just hope that we will not break the 2012 record, for the sake of the humanity.

But if we do, I hope it will be with a great margin (no ice in the Arctic) so that the news will reach the general public.

I share your feelings.  While 2016 is currently well below 2012, it is far to early to make any meaningful predictions about whether 2016 can or will end up lower than 2012.  Last year, 2015 was 500K Km2below 2012 at the end of May and still ended up by just barely dipping below 2011 for third lowest on record.

As whether an ice-free arctic this season would get much public attention, I'm afraid the US media is so obsessed with the presidential election that any news regarding the Arctic Ocean or AGW in general will get only scant attention.

I'm not going to go off topic and begin a 20 page diatribe about the current state of US politics.  I don't have the time or a 6 month supply of beer!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 01, 2016, 10:19:02 PM »
More Data for IJIS Extent Losses During May

I decided to go ahead and post the detailed Extent loss data that I have used for projecting near-term losses.  The first chart is the average daily losses for each period of the month along with the record maximum and minimum losses.  The second chart is a table of raw data for all years between 2003 and 2015, with record maximum losses highlighted in green and record low losses highlighted in green.  2010 had the record highest loss for the month of May at 2,183,976 KM2.  2013 had the record lowest loss for the month of May at 1,210,376 Km2.  Average SIE loss for the month of May is 1,555,762 Km2.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 01, 2016, 04:28:02 PM »

The above chart is current, with my projections out til the end of May. For 2016 to maintain a substantial lead over 2012 will require well above average losses for the next month.

The below chart is a summary of average daily SIE losses compiled from the ADS-NIPR archived data for years 2003-2015.  What I find most interesting is that from late April through early June there is very little difference in the average daily losses.  It is also interesting to see the drop in late May, where I would have expected to see more of an increase.  Maybe it is just because I only had 13 years of data to work with.  The wide swings between record high and low losses in any period clearly shows the impact of different weather patterns.

If anyone is interested in seeing the raw data I've used, I'd be happy to post it.  Just don't expect it within the next few hours!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 29, 2016, 01:16:20 PM »
2012 also had a big string of 100K losses.

2012       SIE (Km2)        Daily Loss (Km2)
 22-Apr      13,849,761    
 23-Apr      13,735,437         114,324
 24-Apr      13,666,921          68,516
 25-Apr      13,560,700         106,221
 26-Apr      13,436,906         123,794
 27-Apr      13,336,421         100,485

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 26, 2016, 02:25:54 AM »
This must be the annual 'Neven thinks there's something wrong, but it's just his bloody Adblocker'-moment. I think this is the third time now this has happened to me. And I'm only 42.

Thanks, doogi! That did the trick!

Wait until you age another 30 years.  I'm finding that adapting to new technologies is more threatening than Climate  Change, Donald  Trump, Ted Cruz, Kim Jung Un and ISIS all combined.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 26, 2016, 02:10:58 AM »
"If this year follows 2012's trajectory..."

I would be interested in hearing your and others' opinions as to whether this melt season may be even faster and more thorough than 2012's trajectory.

Surely the ice is even weaker, thinner, etc.

We had a very warm winter up there, and we are likely heading into the first or second warmest years globally on record.

Last I checked, snow cover levels are very low in many places, another factor that correlates with low end-of-melt-season sea ice extent numbers, iirc.

Mostly, people talk about 2012 rate of ice melt as if it is some ultimate limit. Is that a well founded assumption, or just our own version of reticence??
As I refer to it in my comment, 2012 is just one example of how a melt season can go, not a limit or a metric.  I'm just using one example for which we have direct observational experience; it has happened, so it could happen again. 

It is wholly possible that there could be greater melt than 2012.  In fact I think there is good probability for that happening this year.

I'll respond to both Wili's and JD's comments (highlighted above) regarding using the losses of 2012 as a "Gold Standard" that seldom, if ever, would be matched or exceeded.  My rebuttal to that way of thinking is to remind everyone that the earth's climate is NOT currently in a state of equilibrium.  When recent statistics and deviations from the norm are used, it implies that the occurrence of any given event had a likelihood of happening within a given time frame. Typically, 2 Standard Deviations (2 STDs) from  the norm are considered within the realm of normal random occurrences, 3 STDs are considered rare.  Unfortunately, this assumes some semblence of normalcy in the major variables which can result in being either positive or negative feedbacks.

Among some most prominent variables, that are no longer in equilibrium, that can have an impact on Arctic  ice loss are GHG levels (elevated),SSTs (elevated globally and more so in the Arctic), Surface Temperatures (record high globally and well above normal in the Arctic), NH snow cover very low and that pesky Jet Stream that hasn't learned how to respond to Arctic  Amplification.

Given that situation, there is  nothing to prevent any given year not to have ice losses greater than 2012.

Well, that last statement is not entirely true.  Some year, in the not too distant future,there will not be enough ice in the Arctic, as measured by any metric, to permit losses greater thatn those that occurred in 2012.

Sadly, that may well occur in my lifetime.....and I'm fast approaching my 70th birthday!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: April 24, 2016, 10:29:18 PM »

No folks, I haven't gone away.  Just been overwhelmed with other events.  Although, I've been lurking here as often as possible.

I've finally had the time to put my simplistic model together with simple near-term projections.  The only change from last year's version is that I'm using 10 or 11 day bins each month to calculate the average and record losses for each month, based on years 2003 - 2015 as opposed to two monthly bins of 15 or 16 days each.

As of today, if 2016 follows a path of losses 10% greater average, on September 10th the SIE would be  3,383,175 Km2, which would be just over 100K above 2012 for that date.

The next 5-6 weeks are critical for any number of reasons.  As memory serves me, peak insolation covers a 6-8 week window about the summer solstice.  Therefore the  less ice in late May means that there is more open water to absorb the solar heat.

It will  be  interesting to see if SIE drops below 11M Km2 by the 20th of May.  If that were to occur and there is significant meltponding in May, it would almost certainly set the stage for a record breaking year.

I'll try to keep this chart updated regularly for the next few weeks, then I'm off to Italy and Croatia for a month.  While  travelling, I'll be forced to clumsily use my wife's tablet to access the internet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS/JAXA
« on: February 03, 2016, 04:13:53 PM »

Going back the last 12 years (which are what I have good IJIS data for), I've compared the loss from this date (2/3) to the yearly maximum.  Here's what I get.

Year   Increase from 2/3 to Max
2003   1092562
2004   607031
2005   317968
2006   304308
2007   494331
2008   805890
2009   645700
2010   396365.5
2011   358956
2012   228472
2013   452389
2014   373126
2015   314866


I get completely different numbers for the IJIS Extent gain from February 2nd until the Annual MAX.  Here is what I get for the past four years:

Year    Date    Max Extent       Gain
2012   7-Mar    14,709,086     1,173,253
2013   1-Mar    14,513,370        842,191
2014   20-Mar    14,448,416       766,391
2015   15-Feb    13,942,060       377,696

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015/2016 freezing season
« on: January 30, 2016, 07:57:36 PM »

Considering that the Arctic temps were well above normal during the last 3 or 4 days of 2015, we now have had in excess of 30 consecutive days with temps in excess of 5o C above the long term average.  This must have some eventual impact on the final maximums of area, extent and volume.  How much....I don't have a clue!!

The politics / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: January 06, 2016, 11:00:30 PM »
So interesting news this morning.

North Korea claims the seismic event which just occurred there was the result of them testing a hydrogen bomb.  Should this prove true what does the rest of the world do about it?


Good question.  While there are a multitude of things that the world could do in response, most of them could have very serious consequences.  Among these are:

1.  The US has the capability of using non-nuclear weapons to destroy North Korea's nuclear infrastructure.  This however, would almost certainly cause Kim Jong-Un to invade South Korea with his million man army.  Another risk would be that he might have nuclear tipped rockets that could be fired into the  south from conventional launch platforms.

2.  South Korea, with  help of allies, could use covert means to attempt to "decapitate" North Korea's leadership.  This would be fraught with risk, unless they could ascertain significant support from within North Korea.

3.  Most probably, further UN sanctions will be imposed, resulting in further hardships for the starving masses and will have little impact on the  behavior of the North Korean Leadership.

In summation, I think the Kim Jong-Un picked this time to detonate this device just get get the world's attention.  With  the world focused on the problems in the middle east, he wanted to get his name back on the world scene.

Has anyone notticed the similarity between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un.  They are both self-aggrandizing, attention seeking, megalomaniacs with bad hair!!

The rest / Re: 2016 Predictions
« on: January 05, 2016, 06:09:49 PM »
For 2016 I fear the heating up of geopolitics more than the heating up of the environment.

We fight WWIIII with sticks & stones.

Sadly, I must agree with  you.  Even with a potentially disastrous year for catastrophic climate related disasters, the complete and utter breakdown of governance throughout the middle east will cause far more death and destruction.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 12