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 - gerontocrat

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 168
51
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 27, 2020, 03:16:55 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 26-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,503,961 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,503,961    km2      
-240,057    km2   <   2010's average.
 35,983    km2   >   2019
-877,663    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -109    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -45    k   loss
Central Seas___   -64    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -27    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -10    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Greenland____   -7    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -5    k   loss
Beaufort_____    1    k   gain
CAA_________    1    k   gain
East Siberian__    2    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -26    k   loss
Laptev_______   -16    k   loss
Kara_________   -22    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 109 k, 8 k more than the 2010's average loss of 101 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #5 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 240 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 878 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 74 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 36 k more than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 238 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
Area loss only just over the average area loss- these few days to mid-July are the peak of sea ice area losses at around 100k per day

52
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 27, 2020, 02:15:16 PM »
Quote
but the biggest assumption of all is that SARS-CoV-2 suddenly popped up in November 2019 on a wet market in Wuhan


The origins of the virus are irrelevant to fight it. The origins of the virus may be the biggest assumption from the perspective of mass media or historians, but from an epidemiology and healthcare perspective, the origins are barely relevant. ( except to the super detailed expert developing cures and understanding based on genetics and other specific markers.)
And of somewhat more immediate concern is what is happening now..

World & the USA both at record levels of new cases (using 7 day trailing average for a clearer view). But both the World and USA deaths data not yet showing the sort of increase to be expected very soon. (graphs attached)

The UK graph is also attached, which given the recent UK news reports on mass abandonment of social distancing, suggests the UK is more likely to join the USA & World trends.

I also attach the Italy graph to show where we would like to be by now.

53
As at 26 June 2020,

- The NASDAQ Composite Index is 22% higher than a year ago,

- The S & P 500 Index is 2.3% higher than a year ago,

- The DJ 30 index is still 6% lower than a year ago.

The 30 stocks which make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average are:
3M, American Express, Apple, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, Cisco, Coca-Cola, Disney, Dow, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Home Depot, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan Chase, McDonald’s, Merck, Microsoft, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Travelers, Raytheon Technologies, Unitedhealth, Verizon, Visa, Walgreens, and Walmart.

I am sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.

54
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: June 27, 2020, 01:37:20 PM »
He will run. Such narcissists are rarely aware when their situation is worsening (if indeed it is).
Spoiler. If Trump can ignore reality then so can I, at least on this thread.

55
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: June 27, 2020, 01:25:08 PM »
I don't think Biden will be running against Trump. It looks like Trump has given up. Joe Scarborough had a good theory this morning, that Trump doesn't really want a second term. That's why he's preaching to his hard core supporters. If they stay with him, he'll have a lot of customers for his new TV station that he can make money with. And I think he could be right. Trump doesn't really want this this job anymore. He never wanted it in the first place, so I think Joe is right; Trump will soon resign, because he hates losing, and the way it looks right now, he'll get his ass kicked badly.

Take with that the SARS2 catastrophe that's happening now, with a wrecked economy and no end in sight for the virus, I think people will start to begin to ask for his resignation.

So shall we place a bet? Will Trump run? Run for president, or run away from his responsibility? I say he will be forced to resign soon. If not resign, then he'll lose badly and blame it on a rigged election. He already started doing that, so... Biden vs Pence?
Why resign ?  it's all over on the 20th Jan 2021 anyway.

The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.

Why try for another 4 years?
There are a number of court cases out there - some carrying potential time in The Big House - with a statute of limitations ending after Jan 2021 and before Jan 2025. But a man who thinks he's invincible might ignore that.

So, maybe Trump will just not run for a 2nd term. After all, "The Best President That The USA Has Ever Had" might want to leave at the top. And how to do that? Wait until the last moment before announcing he is not a candidate for President. Blame the GOP for being a bunch of girlies for not supporting him, and even betraying him. And how can even the heroic magisterial Trump win with the voting system rigged against him by The Dark State aided and abetted by Fake News leftie antifa commies? That would satisfy his destructive instincts and his need, craving, lust for bigly headlines.

I must admit that scenario would be super duper. Shall I write to him and ask to be his script writer?

56
Very early in the year, and we are about 100 GT below the average.  Is this the year we end up with a negative for SMB?
Below the average, yes, but above last year. I think it can only happen if precipitation in the next two months is well below average - i.e. sunny days & dry. See below....
________________________________________________
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 26 June 2020. Melt very much the same as 3rd to 25th June, i.e. gradual intensification of melt. Melt rose yet again, now at 36.4% of the surface area of Greenland. 
Precipitation for once was low. The result was an SMB loss of nearly 3.6 GT, which is above average..

Temperatures seem, if anything, rising for the next few days, with real heat in the long afternoons. Most precipitation forecast to be confined to the SE quadrant of Greenland, and somewhat lower than in recent weeks.

 i.e. There may be some SMB gains in that SE quadrant and perhaps significant losses in all the rest of the coastal regions.

Will Greenland get dryer for the rest of the melt season?
_______________________________________

57
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 27, 2020, 10:34:33 AM »
2 day gif of Kennedy and Kane Basin.
I say, Niall, what a super gif. Please, pretty please,  add some more as the days go by. Will make a super demo of what the break-up of the arch means.

58
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 27, 2020, 09:56:05 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,291,764 KM2 as at 26-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 56k, 24 k less than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 80k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,156 k, 436 k, 9.2% more than the 10 year average of 4,720 k.
- Extent is at position #3 in the satellite record
- Extent is  150 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  89 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  97 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 47.4% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 80 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.06 million km2, 0.88 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________

59
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:23:13 PM »
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/image_container.php


Falling to bits all over the place.

60
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:07:15 PM »
Is it just me or has it been sweltering in the CAA?? I hate to rely on models so much, however the temperatures as indicated on windy.com have had several of the larger islands in the 50-60f range. I can't say I doubt it that much given the blue hue of the ice, but this entire season is just so strange and lot like the others in my opinion.
If you look at my recent postings on the Greenland SMB & Melting thread, you will see that the CAA / NE Canada / Northern Greenland region has been warm to stinky-poo hot in the last week or two, and looks like staying the same for some time.

61
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:33:08 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data.

US Solar + wind energy continue to grow - and I haven't the heart to put it in context against fossil fuels.

62
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:29:21 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA
did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data, Coal continues its steep decline, and is actually steeper than the 12 month average graph shows.

63
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:25:10 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA
did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data, apart from some petroleum (oil) data that is up to May.
The first graph shows monthly totals of the major fossil fuels analysed by heat content. NB. these are simple monthly totals, NOT 12 month trailing averages. For me the main points are..
- Natural Gas consumption in March did fall, but very much in the normal seasonal pattern,
- Petroleum products supplied dropped sharply in April, but with a partial recovery in May.
- Coal was king, and is now the beggar at the feast. We may hope that one result of covid is its accelerated decline.

The second graph is USA Primary energy consumption by source - the 12 month trailing average. Oil & Gas rule the roost. Crowing about coal plants shutting needs to be put into perspective.

64
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 07:00:46 PM »
4 NSIDC Area Graphs

The CAA did hit the dogleg, but at an area between 75 & 100k less than "normal". When will area loss resume - still very warm to hot in the region.

Russian Shore ...
The Kara Sea continues to shed sea ice area at a high rate. The Eastern end where ice remains is still warm while the Western end, where ice is gone, looks cool.

The Laptev Sea ice area flirts with #1 & #2 position, currently #1. It looks really hot there.

The ESS sea ice area has stalled & gone into reverse. One more day's increase and 1990 becomes the year at #1.
It looks COLD in far Eastern Siberia.


65
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 03:24:21 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 25-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,613,043 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,613,043    km2      
-231,871    km2   <   2010's average.
 25,998    km2   >   2019
-868,707    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -61    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -52    k   loss
Central Seas___   -9    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______    1    k   gain
Bering _______   -1    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -26    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -13    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Greenland____   -11    k   loss
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -4    k   loss
Beaufort_____    16    k   gain
CAA_________    4    k   gain
East Siberian__    12    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -17    k   loss
Laptev_______   -5    k   loss
Kara_________   -15    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 61 k, 38 k less than the 2010's average loss of 99 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #6 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 232 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 869 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 95 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 26 k more than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 231 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         

66
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:44:54 AM »
World data continues to climb - daily new cases & daily deaths (though as yet the daily deaths graph rises much more slowly than daily new cases ).

A daily new case rate of between 150 & 160k a week puts the monthly rate at between 4.5 & 4.8 million a month.

The data comes from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ - they are revising the data - usually in an upward direction which is a pain to keep up with.

67
Which would deserve a headline, or even a note?
  • Snow Melts Rapidly in Northern Hemisphere Summer
  • For Months, Now, Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent and Volume Remain Above Average
Or, you could say ...
"the snow year has been a demonstration of what the climate models predict."
Or you could say ...
"development of the new ice sheet in the far North of Canada has been delayed for yet another year."

Meanwhile.....
https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current

The snow in the far North of Canada continues to vanish. The slope of decline reduces as the available snow declines in thickness and extent- The Gompertz curve kicks in. This I presume will reduce the snowmelt run-ff into the channels of the CAA.

The strongest +ve temperature anomalies are still where not so long ago the strongest -ve temperature anomalies were, i.e. Central Canada & the CAA, and looks set to remain high. As the snow cover disappears I guess the albedo on land will greatly reduce , the land will dry out, and therefore heat up quickly.

68
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:56:18 AM »
A little gif - things are changing in Kane ( http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/kane.uk.php )

A lot of snowmelt runoff from Greenland.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2899.msg270526.html#new

69
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 25 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 24th June,

except that melt rose yet again, now at 35.8% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation stayed not as strong. The result was an SMB loss of nearly 3 GT, which is close to and a bit above average..

Precipitation and temperatures seem to indicate more of the same for the next few days, with most precipitation on the  eastern half of Greenland, i.e. most SMB loss in the Western coastal region and also the far north.

But each day the melt gets stronger, and the temperature anomalies remain strongly +ve, especially in the north on both sides of the Nares strait. How the arch in the strait has survived given the strong meltwater runoff and warmth I do not know. Perhaps it will just dissolve in situ?

- it is this persistence in combined high melt and precipitation that is interesting -  has a pattern of higher-energy weather set in? (AGW + Polar amplification?)
_______________________________________-
ps For those with less than perfect eyesight - e.g. me, click on the images for a clearer view.

70
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:02:14 AM »
Just a reminder why predictions are a mug's game when it comes to Global Sea Ice...

71
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:58:59 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT:  23,450,202 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

An above average daily Arctic sea ice extent loss + a below average daily Antarctic sea ice gain = a Global Sea Ice extent loss for a second day.

- Extent gain LOSS on this day 39k, 55 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 16k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 6.73 million km2, 0.79 million km2, 10.5% less than the 10 year average gain of 7.52 million km2.
- Extent is at position #5 in the satellite record
- 2020 Extent is  0.70 million km2 MORE than 2019,

On average 82.3% of sea ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 132 days to maximum

Projections of the Unknown Quantity. (Table JAXA-AA1)

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2020 of 25.07 million km2, 1.31 million km2 above the 2016 record low maximum of 23.76 million km2.
However, before that there is also the false maximum rapidly approaching in late June – i.e. NOW, or early July, followed by the false minimum in August/September before the “maximum maximum” for the year.


72
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:43:21 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  14,102,139 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

- Extent gain on this day 50k, -39 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 89k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 11.34 million km2, 0.20 million km2, (1.8%) less than the 10 year average of 11.55 million km2.
- Extent is at position #14 in the satellite record of which 8 lower values are in the years before 2000
- Extent is  63 k LESS than 2016
- Extent is  809 k MORE than 2017
- Extent is  256 k MORE than 2018
- Extent is  857 k MORE than 2019
- Extent is  40 k LESS than the 1980's Average

- On average 72.3% of ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 87 days to maximum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining freeze (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in Sept 2020 of 18.53 million km2, 0.47 million km2 above the 2017 record low maximum of 18.06 million km2.
___________________________________________________________

73
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:26:55 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,348,063 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 89k, 16 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 73k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,100 k, 460 k, 9.9% more than the 10 year average of 4,640 k.
- Extent is at position #2 in the satellite record
- Extent is  -156 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  97 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  146 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 46.6% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 81 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.04 million km2, 0.86 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________

74
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 25, 2020, 07:59:51 PM »
....Yet what's far more concerning for me is the record-breaking regional changes, especially the recent onslaught of ice in the CAA. From my perspective, the snow and sea ice there serve as a mitigating factor to WAA over the thick MYI that builds up against the north CAA and Greenland. Losing the CAA ice early in the season seems like it would make the thick MYI much more vulnerable late in the season, as well as creating open water that does not normally occur in this area during peak insolation (impacting the following freezing season).

I'm curious to hear what the veterans have to say on this. I've been lurking since 2015, but don't have a very longitudinal perspective on this, only started to become familiar with most of this content in the past couple years.
I am also not a veteran (on this forum)- so instead I put into the search facility "garlic press". If the CAA melts out early, and the winds / currents do their stuff, thick ice from the Cntral Arctic will be squeezed into the multiple open & warm water channels of the CAA - i.e. the CAA becomes "The Garlic Press".

Here is a posting from A-Team back in 2016, that shows this effect lasting well into October.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg91963.html#msg91963

I also attach the lovely gif he made. Perhaps 2020 will mimic 2016?

75
Glaciers / Re: Alpine Glaciers
« on: June 25, 2020, 05:39:45 PM »
Hot off the Press.... read all about it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16818-0?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news#Abs1

Rapid glacier retreat and downwasting throughout the European Alps in the early 21st century
Quote
Abstract
Mountain glaciers are known to be strongly affected by global climate change. Here we compute temporally consistent changes in glacier area, surface elevation and ice mass over the entire European Alps between 2000 and 2014. We apply remote sensing techniques on an extensive database of optical and radar imagery covering 93% of the total Alpine glacier volume. Our results reveal rapid glacier retreat across the Alps (−39 km² a−1) with regionally variable ice thickness changes (−0.5 to −0.9 m a−1). The strongest downwasting is observed in the Swiss Glarus and Lepontine Alps with specific mass change rates up to −1.03 m.w.e. a−1. For the entire Alps a mass loss of 1.3 ± 0.2 Gt a−1 (2000–2014) is estimated. Compared to previous studies, our estimated mass changes are similar for the central Alps, but less negative for the lower mountain ranges. These observations provide important information for future research on various socio-economic impacts like water resource management, risk assessments and tourism.

Introduction
Substantial retreat and downwasting of mountain glaciers due to global warming have been observed worldwide1. In the European Alps, glaciers have been retreating since the Little Ice Age (~1850)2,3,4 and future ice volumes are predicted to be largely reduced5,6,7. During previous decades, accelerated glacier shrinkage has been reported8,9,10. Mass-change rates were close to −1 m.w.e. a−1 during the first 5 years of the 21st century11. The ongoing reduction of glacier volume raises challenges for water supply during dry periods, civil security, and tourism12.

Mountain regions are frequently described as “water towers”13. Seasonal shifts in glacier meltwater discharge can have widespread impact on runoff during dry periods14,15,16. In the Alps, meltwater contributes to late-summer runoff when seasonal snow cover is minimal17. During 1908–2008 glacier discharge contributed ~20% to August runoff of the Rhone and Po rivers17. However, maximum runoff from glacier long-term storage (“peak water”) has already been or will be reached in the coming decades14.

On a regional scale, changes in seasonal runoff affect the production of renewable energy in Alpine countries and require adaptive strategies for hydropower18. As another important economy, summer tourism partly relies on the scenery of the glacierized Alpine landscape. Shrinking glaciers affect tourism by changing the shape of the landscape and frequency of natural hazards19......

Results
Alpine-wide glacier shrinkage and downwasting

Highly negative mean elevation changes (< −0.6 m a−1, Fig. 1a) are recorded for both larger subregions in the Western (regions 01–06) and Eastern Alps (regions 07–10) during 2000–2014 (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Balanced conditions (elevation change ~0 m a−1) are observed above ~3500 m a.s.l. for the Graian, Pennine, and Bernese Alps with no region having significantly positive values even at highest glacier elevations. In many regions, change rates are negative throughout all altitudes, indicating the loss of former accumulation areas and thinning over the entire glacier. Particularly, areas below ~2000 m a.s.l. experience average regional surface lowering of up to 5 m a−1 in the Graian, Bernese, and Glarus Alps. Glacier-specific change rates can be even more negative (e.g., < −8 m a−1 at terminus of Grosser Aletsch, Bernese Alps) caused by the complete downwasting of frontal areas during the observation period. Area (Fig. 1b) and mass change (Fig. 1c) are controlled by the regionally different extents of glaciers. The highest absolute area reductions are found in the Bernese, Pennine, and Graian Alps which include the largest glacier areas of the Alps. The overall retreat is ~39 ± 9 km² a−1, corresponding to an area loss rate of ~1.8% a−1 between 2000 and 2014

We demonstrate the vulnerability to an imminent glacier vanishing by imposing the present mass-change rates (2000–2014) on total estimated ice volumes28 for each region. Figure 1d shows the glacier volume (~130 km³) at beginning and the proportion of ice that would survive under current regional mass-change rates (−1.0 to −2.3% a−1) over the course of the 21st century. This approach does not consider dynamic adjustments nor climate projections or any other factors which can only be achieved by respective modeling attempts6. Nevertheless, our extrapolated values match well with model projections6 and show that the lower Alpine mountain ranges would be almost ice-free by the end of this century. The remaining glacier volume of the entire Alps would be approximately one-third compared with the volume at beginning of the 21st century. Larger amounts of ice (>10 km³) would only be left in the Pennine and Bernese Alps whereas the Dauphiné, Glarus, and Lepontine Alps are prone to be nearly ice-free within this century.
__________________________________________________________________
PS: You have to click on the images, and then again to get full page, and yet again to get fullsize.
(even though I have reduced their original size)

76
The rest / Re: The Collapse Of America
« on: June 25, 2020, 03:26:08 PM »
OMG!!! Bolton is a greedy piece of shit without any respect for the country he swore to protect...
He's worse than Trump!

What a disgusting hypocritical lying greedy sack of shit...

But we already knew that, didn't we?
Trump should've kept him in the tent - pissing out,
Now he's outside the tent - pissing in.

I believe that's a lesson in Statecraft from one Lyndon B. Johnson.

77
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 03:19:38 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,436,977 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

EDIT


Something must have gone badly wrong at NSIDC. The data for the 24th June has been significantly changed in the data files for the update produced on the 26th.

e.g.
total area loss according to NSIDC data for the 24th June produced on the 25th = 34k,

total area loss according to NSIDC data for the 24th June produced on the 26th = 60k,

So the data and tables produced by the sweat of my brow that were attached  are completely useless, of value Sweet FA.

Hence this edit is deleting the data from this post, from whence it will be consigned to the Vale of Tears to join most of Humanity's achievements.
_____________________________________

78

Can you really model something that you don't understand? Yes, you can. But it will definitely be GIGO.
Yes you can and it will not necessarily be GIGO.

Before the nature of gravity was described by Newton models were constructed to determine the trajectory of cannonballs.

Scientists in Ancient Egypt modelled the annual floods of the Nile and predicted whether it would be a good or bad year. They knew nowt of the seasonal rains in the headwaters of the Blue Nile.

Priests in Neolithic times designed monuments such as Stonehenge relying on predictions of the movement of the sun in the heavens.

79
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 25, 2020, 01:44:50 PM »
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries gives a slightly different result for the USA.

It shows the 7 day trailing average of daily new cases at a new record of 32.4k.

The 7 day trailing average of daily deaths still unchanged, but with hospitalisations increasing and miracles in short supply, it is only a matter of time before that graph heads up.
______________________________________________________
ps:- One of the hottest new spots is Texas - being where Musk may well move the Tesla operation lock stock & barrel because California was too insistent on maintaining the lockdown.

80
The defence  getting themselves organised - (hoping for NOT 4 More Years?)
One can only wish them the best of luck, because assuredly they will need it. At least they have a wide range of friends (see 2nd quote below).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/43_steps_for_restoring_science.html
   
Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term
Posted on 22 June 2020 by Guest Author

A guest repost by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF). Fundraising is not the objective of this article but readers may wish to know that CSLDF is currently conducting a summer fundraiser to support the important work of defending research scientists and research integrity from anti-science interference by politicians and industrial interests.
Quote

We’re one of the dozens of organizations working to advance good government, public health, and environmental, consumer, human, and civil rights, who today [June 11] collectively released Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term.

The COVID-19 crisis shows what can happen when science is sidelined from policy decisions or subverted for political purposes. When data is suppressed or manipulated, or medical experts and scientists are prevented from sharing their expertise with the public, the result is a dearth of information the public needs to operate safely during a pandemic—and more people get sick and die.

The politicization of science isn’t new, but it has escalated into a full-blown crisis under the Trump administration. In the Silencing Science Tracker we maintain with Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Law, we’ve documented 428 instances of science being censored or restricted since November 2016. Many of these actions pose troubling risks to public health.

The next administration must prioritize repairing the culture of scientific integrity in the federal government. Federal scientists must be free to pursue valid research and communicate their findings to the press and taxpaying public without fear of political interference or manipulation. Those in federal agencies who have decision-making authority on matters that involve or use science must fully consider the best available science. And much more.

This series of memos provides concrete steps the next administration can take to restore a culture of scientific integrity across the federal government. These would help rebuild public trust in scientific institutions and ensure that scientific evidence informs government decisions. They also represent simple, low-cost, good government reforms that would improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

The memos offer recommendations in eight categories:

  • Federal advisory committees
    Personnel policy
    Agency scientific independence
    Restoring strength to scientific agencies
    Whistleblower protections
    Scientific communications
    Data collection and dissemination
    Regulatory reform
We will share these recommendations with major presidential campaigns and transition teams. We encourage all who have influence over White House and executive branch priorities in 2021 to read these short documents and take them to heart.[/size]

https://www.csldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/restoring-science-protecting-the-public.pdf
Quote
ENDORSED BY..
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO / Californians for Pesticide Reform / Center for Biological Diversity / Center for
Reproductive Rights / Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) / Climate Science Legal Defense Fund /
Environmental Protection Network / Equity Forward / FracTracker Alliance / Friends of the Earth / Government Accountability Project
/ Government Information Watch / Greenpeace USA / Inland Ocean Coalition / Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health / Milwaukee
Riverkeeper / National Center for Health Research / National Children’s Campaign / National Federation of Federal Employees /
National Freedom of Information Coalition / National Parks Conservation Association / National Women’s Health Network / Ocean
Conservation Research / Oceana / Oceanic Preservation Society / Open the Government / Pesticide Action Network / Project on
Government Oversight / Public Citizen / Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility / Revolving Door Project / Society of
Professional Journalists / United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) / Union of Concerned
Scientists / Virginia Association of Biological Farming

81
Shit just went bad on Greenland...


The percentage area of melt is pretty much the same on the NSIDC Greenland Today graph and the DMI graph. High, but not that unusual

This year is nothing special SO FAR.
Perhaps I will have to eat my words.....

Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 24 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 23rd June,

except that melt rose again, now at 34.5% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation stayed pretty strong. The result was an SMB loss of just above 2 GT, which is close to average..

Precipitation and temperatures seem to indicate more of the same for the next few days, with most precipitation on the  eastern half of Greenland, i.e. most SMB loss in the Western coastal region and also the far north.

But each day the melt gets stronger, and the temperature anomalies remain strongly +ve, especially in the north on both sides of the Nares strait. How the arch in the strait has survived given the strong meltwater runoff and warmth I do not know. Perhaps it will just dissolve in situ?

- it is this persistence in combined high melt and precipitation that is interesting -  has a pattern of higher-energy weather set in? (AGW + Polar amplification?)
_______________________________________-
ps For those with failing eyesight - e.g. me, click on the images for a clearer view.

82
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 10:08:25 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT:  23,489,297 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

An above average daily Arctic sea ice extent loss + a below average daily Antarctic sea ice gain = a Global Sea Ice extent loss on this day.

- Extent gain LOSS on this day 34k, 36 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 2k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 6.77 million km2, 0.74 million km2, 9.8% less than the 10 year average gain of 7.51 million km2.
- Extent is at position #5 in the satellite record
- 2020 Extent is  0.79 million km2 MORE than 2019,

On average 82.1% of sea ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 133 days to maximum

Projections of the Unknown Quantity. (Table JAXA-AA1)

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2020 of 25.12 million km2, 1.36 million km2 above the 2016 record low maximum of 23.76 million km2.
However, before that there is also the false maximum rapidly approaching in late June or early July, followed by the false minimum in August/September before the “maximum maximum” for the year.
___________________________________

83
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 25, 2020, 09:53:17 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  14,052,320 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

- Extent gain on this day 66k, -13 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 79k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 11.29 million km2, 0.16 million km2, (1.4%) less than the 10 year average of 11.46 million km2.
- Extent is at position #17 in the satellite record of which 10 lower values are in the years before 2000
- Extent is  46 k LESS than 2016
- Extent is  821 k MORE than 2017
- Extent is  326 k MORE than 2018
- Extent is  948 k MORE than 2019
- Extent is  1 k LESS than the 1980's Average

- On average 71.7% of ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 88 days to maximum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining freeze (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in Sept 2020 of 18.57 million km2, 0.51 million km2 above the 2017 record low maximum of 18.06 million km2.
___________________________________________________________
No drama -

84
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 09:41:34 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,436,977 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 100k, 24 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 76k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,011 k, 444 k, 9.7% more than the 10 year average of 4,567 k.
- Extent is at position #2 in the satellite record
- Extent is  -161 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  105 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  124 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 45.9% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 82 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.05 million km2, 0.88 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________
Is this the start of a substantial new wave of extent losses?

85
Shit just went bad on Greenland...


The percentage area of melt is pretty much the same on the NSIDC Greenland Today graph and the DMI graph. High, but not that unusual

This year is nothing special SO FAR.

86
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2020, 03:11:09 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 23-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,733,847 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,733,847    km2      
-298,472    km2   <   2010's average.
-82,176    km2   <   2019
-955,401    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -52    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -46    k   loss
Central Seas___   -5    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -0    k   loss
Bering _______    1    k   gain
Hudson Bay___   -16    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -13    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Greenland____   -16    k   loss
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______    7    k   gain
Beaufort_____    17    k   gain
CAA_________   -12    k   loss
East Siberian__    15    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -7    k   loss
Laptev_______   -7    k   loss
Kara_________   -18    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 52 k, 37 k less than the 2010's average loss of 89 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #3 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 298 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 955 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 17 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 82 k less than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 154 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
Another really low daily sea ice area loss, though the Peripheral Seas lost more sea ice area as did the CAA & the Kara Sea.

87
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 24, 2020, 02:01:21 PM »
The natural gas production decline forecast by Rystad is merely a hiatus.

CO2 emissions need to drop by 7% per annum  to keep the sliver of hope for a limit to a 1.5 Celsius temperature increase alive.

I am sure that Solar, Wind, Batteries & EVs will increase greatly this decade.
I am also sure that the required 7% annual reduction in CO2 emissions will not be achieved, probably not even in 2020.

88
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 23 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 22nd June,
except that melt rose to 32% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation was also a bit more than in recent days. The result was an SMB loss of just above 1.3 GT, which is below average..

Precipitation and temperatures see to indicate more of the same for the next few days, with most precipitation on the  eastern half of Greenland, i.e. most SMB loss in the Western coastal region.

89
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2020, 10:01:10 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,537,428 KM2 as at 23-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 79k, 6 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 73k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 4,910 k, 420 k, 9.3% more than the 10 year average of 4,490 k.
- Extent is at position #2 in the satellite record
- Extent is  -121 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  112 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  73 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 45.1% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 83 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.08 million km2, 0.90 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________

90
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: June 24, 2020, 12:30:49 AM »
GSY needs some new stuff - endless repetition gets so predictable and....boring.

91
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 24, 2020, 12:21:54 AM »
The point of discussion highlighted .  ;)
Quote
If we immediately stopped emitting greenhouses gases, would global warming stop?
Not right away. The Earth’s surface temperature does not react instantaneously to the energy imbalance created by rising carbon dioxide levels. This delayed reaction occurs because a great deal of the excess energy is stored in the ocean, which has a tremendous heat capacity. Because of this lag (which scientists call “thermal inertia”), even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century is not the full amount of warming we can expect from the greenhouse gases we have already emitted. Even if all emissions were to stop today, the Earth’s average surface temperature would climb another 0.6 degrees or so over the next several decades before temperatures stopped rising.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/would-gw-stop-with-greenhouse-gases/
I was looking at "even the 0.6–0.9 degrees of global warming we have observed in the past century" which certainly needs an update. We are so much further along the road to ruin.

Just think if the sort of heat anomalies that has happened this year over Siberia (and in the Aussie fire season) hits the densely populated mid-latitudes in the USA or Europe for several months. We  are already in the frame for some real nasty surprises.

92
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: June 23, 2020, 11:45:40 PM »
Any building on or near the water faces challenges from the sea that those built further inland do not.  In low lying countries, like Bangladesh, this is a major issue.  This is not a major issue in Africa, due to the locations of the population, higher waterfront grounds, and lack of major oceanic storms.

Not a major issue i Africa? The data says the reverse ...

Sea-Level Rise: West Africa Is Sinking
Quote
The western coast of Africa, stretching more than 6500km from Mauritania to Cameroon, is in peril. Caused by global warming, rising sea levels are causing massive erosion — in some places eating away more than 30 metres of land in a single year. 

Sea levels are expected to rise by more than 76 cm around the world by the end of this century, but they are expected to rise faster than the global average in west Africa, where the coastal areas host about one-third of the region’s population and generate 56% of its GDP. A recent World Bank study shows that flooding and coastal erosion due to sea-level rise cost the region about $3.8 billion and cause 13,000 deaths in just one year. 

Ghana — the fastest growing economy in the world — is among the worst affected countries in the region. Coastal erosion at its 580km coastline comprising of sandy beaches and outcrops has consumed areas like Keta, Ada, and Shama. Rising temperatures have triggered the migration of fish stocks while salinisation has contaminated farmlands and freshwater reserves affecting the livelihoods of millions of fishermen and farmers. Frequent inundation has led to the destruction of commercial buildings, houses, and even human lives.

Once a thriving trading hub, Ghana’s Keta city has suffered massive coastal erosion in recent decades that forced more than half of the population to flee. Fuveme — a coastal village in Keta that lies between the Gulf of Guinea and the Keta Lagoon — has already been reduced to an island forcing thousands of families to migrate to the inland.

Senegal, another west African country, has been witnessing the devastating effects of sea-level rise this decade. The country’s famous colonial city Saint-Louis — a UNESCO World Heritage site with a population of 300,000 people — is seeing houses destroyed, streets flooded, and crops damaged by the encroaching saltwater.

Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa, too has low lying cities that are being destroyed by the sea. Its most populous city Lagos, a megacity located next to the Atlantic Ocean, consists of a mainland and a series of islands with an estimated population of 21 million. A large number of city residents who live on waterfront slums with no proper drainage or water systems have been suffering due to rising sea levels as their dwellings get flooded frequently.

Other west African countries such as Benin, Cote d’Ivoire, and Togo face a high rate of coastal erosion. A World Bank study reveals that 56% of the coastline in these countries has been eroding 2 metre per year. Damages from the sea-level rise cost the government of Cote d’Ivoire nearly $2 billion — 4.9% of its GDP, while it cost the Benin government $229 million — 2.5% of the country’s GDP.

https://earth.org/sea-level-rise-west-africa-is-sinking/#:~:text=Sea%2Dlevel%20rise%20is%20threatening,villages%2C%20decimating%20dwellings%20and%20farmlands.&text=The%20western%20coast%20of,to%20Cameroon%2C%20is%20in%20peril.

and if you want more..
Sea level rise impact on African coastal zones

Quote
Introduction
The African coastal zone, most of which is very low-lying, consists of the West, Central, East and Mediterranean coastal zones. Within these coastal zones are many cities: Dakar, Abidjan, Accra, Lagos, Dar es Salaam, Alexandria, Tripoli and Tunis. These coastal cities are characterized by teeming populations, industries, dense transportation and communication networks as well as extensive coast-based tourist resorts. At present, widespread erosion and flooding are devastating vast areas along the African coastline, causing severe ecological problems as well as creating a high level of misery for the people. A rise in sea level of say one metre, which in many places may be accentuated by the phenomenon of subsidence, would aggravate the already existing ecological problems through increased rates of coastal erosion, more persistent flooding, loss of wetlands, increased salinization of groundwater and soil as well as greater influx of diverse pollutants.

Other socio-economic impacts include uprooting human settlements, dislodging port and navigational facilities, upsetting coastal fishery as well as coast-based tourism. These adverse effects would impose unbearable pressure on the already hard-pressed African economy. This then calls for the establishment of coastal management policies including a phased disengagement from the coast, where practicable, and enforcement of set back lines. In already built-up areas, the use of low-cost, low-technology erosion and flood defense measures are advocated.
http://www.ciesin.org/docs/004-153/004-153.html


93
The politics / Re: Your 2020 US Presidential Election Map
« on: June 23, 2020, 11:26:26 PM »
  ^^^ this is why I didn't choose to let this thread through .. can we at least drop it from the front page ?
 
Definitely belongs in "Politics - Enter at your peril", and certainly does not belong in the front page.

ps:- Trump is relying on the stock market and the economy to pull the rabbit out of the hat.  If that takes a few score thousand more dead - so be it.

94
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 23, 2020, 11:17:51 PM »
0.6 degrees, eh sidd
So we are already past 1.5 degrees!

The NASA article was posted on Monday, July 2nd, 2007, so 0.6 is already history.

95
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 23, 2020, 06:21:54 PM »
To reinforce the previous post by R. Boyd....

The IEA are now producing data for countries other than OECD members - e.g. China & India.
That means data produced in a standard format & methodology.

The latest data is up to March 2020 (starting at Jan '16 when they promoted renewables in the formats).

I am staggered. I had not realised how in energy terms, China makes the USA look so unimportant. To put it in perspective -
 - the USA is producing only just over 50 TWh of electricity from coal each month.
- China produced at maximum impact of covid-19 a minimum of 300+ TWH electricity from coal in Feb 2020 (& a maximum of of 430 TWh in Aug 2019).

- the USA produces on average a total of about 300-350 TWH electricity per month,
- China's electricity production is more like 600-650 TH per month, and after dropping to a low of 450 TWH in February is already back to 550 TWH.

It all makes the good news on Coal use reduction in the US & Europe look rather feeble.
That's what happens when a country becomes the Workshop of the World.

ps: Not had a good look at India yet - but its use of coal for electricity is about double the USA.

_____________________________
Shrunken images attached - You have to click on them to  see them properly- (forum software change)
___________________________________________________

96
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: June 23, 2020, 04:03:04 PM »
I was just hoping the One Percent would get hurt and then maybe, I don’t know, they’ll catch a clue?
Experience will triumph over hope.

There are LAWS in the States that require more money to be spent on sea defences where property on the shore is high value than where property is of low value.

High value property tends to be where rich people live and places where rich people work, shop, & play i.e. low population density. Low value property - that's for your huddled masses.

ie. the Law discriminates for the rich and agin the poor.  'Twas ever thus - the rich will always be with us.

97
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 23, 2020, 03:35:26 PM »
Yesterday I wrote
Quote
Canadian Archipelago (CAA) -NSIDC  Area Graph..

You will see the elbow or dogleg that happens right now in every year.
The valid assumption is that melt ponds and snowmelt run-off confuses the sensors which take this as sea ice area loss. When those melt ponds drain bingo - the ice reappears.

This year the melt was very late & very fast. Snow on the Canadian shore and the islands of the CAA has been & is melting very fast, and will continue to do so.

This year just maybe the year when extreme heat melts the CAA ice so fast that sea ice area breaks through the dogleg... watch this space.

Area loss on 22nd June for all the Central Seas just 5k, but the CAA managed 20k.

So at least on this day the CAA has pushed past the dogleg (2nd day @ '#1).
_____________________________
You have to click on the image to see it in its full glory - (forum software change)
___________________________________________________

98
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 23, 2020, 03:19:19 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 22-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,785,412 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,785,412    km2      
-335,602    km2   <   2010's average.
-133,466    km2   <   2019
-997,646    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -45    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -40    k   loss
Central Seas___   -5    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
Bering _______   -1    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -13    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -12    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Greenland____   -11    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -3    k   loss
Beaufort_____    3    k   gain
CAA_________   -20    k   loss
East Siberian__    14    k   gain
Central Arctic_    13    k   gain
Laptev_______   -1    k   loss
Kara_________   -10    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 45 k, 48 k less than the 2010's average loss of 93 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #2 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 336 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 998 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 34 k less than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 133 k less than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 126 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
Looks like a hiatus in Area losses is happening - drained melt ponds? How temporary?
__________________________________________________
You have to click on each image to see it in its full glory, i.e. readable - (forum software change)
___________________________________________________

99
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 23, 2020, 02:46:14 PM »
I've had a look at the 7 day averages for daily new cases and daily deaths.

World - deaths quickly up as new cases rise.

USA - deaths not yet rising in line with recent increase in daily new cases - but we know hospitalisations are up, so the grim reaper is standing by.

100
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 22 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 21st June,
except that melt rose to 29% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation was a bet less than in recent days. The result was a merely an SMB loss of just above 3GT, well above average..

Sunday was supposed to be the first day this year for a decent SMB net loss.
Sunday became Monday


_________________________________________________
You have to click on each image to see it in its full glory - (forum software change - humph.)
___________________________________________________

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 168