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 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 169
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 05, 2017, 02:32:03 PM »
There seems to be a substantial number of people on here that, almost pathologically, ignore the difference in the condition of the ice, as well as the volume.  Yeah I know this thread is about extent.  But that doesn't mean you can just pretend all the rest doesn't exist.

Projections based on what happened in the past, focusing on extent exclusively, is beyond unrealistic.
Why do you assume that those who post on this thread "almost pathologically, ignore the difference in the condition of the ice, as well as the volume", and "pretend all the rest doesn't exist". The vast majority of ASIF members know that volume going down at 20% per decade but extent only at 13% is not sustainable. Sooner rather than later extent has to collapse. The question is - when?
The extraordinary weather over winter and spring and amazing loss in volume up to May made me think that perhaps this year is it. But climatic conditions in May and up to now plus the diminishing reduction in volume have made me think twice. I am convinced by Jim Pettit's postings in the PIOMAS thread that a new minimum volume is probable. I am unable to convince myself the same applies to extent. To achieve a record low, let alone the 1 million km2 minimum, requires melting conditions to be unique in the satellite record.

ps "Projections based on what happened in the past, focusing on extent exclusively, is beyond unrealistic." Once again, I wish to say that projections I have posted are not intended as forecasts in any sense of the word. They are tests of what has to happen for certain outcomes, e.g. a record low, compared with past melting seasons. That's all.

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?
« on: July 05, 2017, 01:51:56 PM »
One thing Antarctica gives up is stunning images. Herewith cci-reanalyzer's image of the jet  stream.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 05, 2017, 01:40:54 PM »

Want to bet on that?  ;)

In order to catch up with 2016, approximately 470,000 km2 of SIE must be lost by 9th July, which translates into roughly 95,000 km2 per day.

So, bet is on. That is all we can do now. ;D
In order to confuse the issue, below is a little table showing the 2007-16 average daily melt 4th to 9th July. Damn close.

Below that is a graph I bashed up to try and get more of a grip on melting season progress. I am still thinking about what it shows. Definitely for 2012 the effect of the GAC in August, and perhaps to show that while the long-term average is smooth, an individual year is all over the place.

I am a pedestrian (in England). I have many incidents where motorists assume they have the right of way. They do not. Muddy water ? Only because the urban roads in the USA are crap.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 04, 2017, 07:26:37 PM »
Yes you can!


You just don't want to. But on some level, you (and we all) really should ignore previous years. The state of the ice this season is really very different from anything ever happened before. I think i have just one word which describes this melt season best:

The "soup" season.

+1 short and spot on (kurz und knackig) LOL
Want? Don't want? On a hot day a child may want an ice cream. But what the child needs is a glass of water. I am not convinced because as yet the data on previous years and tthe current year to date is insufficiently convincing. But "Thunderbirds are go! Anything can happen in the next half hour !".  (Google for attribution).

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 04, 2017, 05:06:02 PM »
So the sea ice is melting. Well, it is summer at the height of the melting season. Yes, average thickness of the ice is lower, but not by as much as it was last month. A record low volume is certainly on the cards. I am not convinced about extent, momentum or no momentum.  I cannot ignore what has happened in previous years. I hope the graph below is self-explanatory.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:29:36 PM »
I don't think anyone who posts here needs convincing that Trump is a terrible president. Some of us do however believe that impeachment, particularly an impeachment charge based on a Russian conspiracy is the wrong direction to go. Having Pence as our next fearless leader isn't something that I look forward to.
If Trump is charged and wins we'll have 4 more years of Trump, if he loses we get 8 years of Pence, where is the upside?

Cynical old me has always believed that at best the Law is but an imperfect substitute for justice, and at worst legalised wrong-doing purchased by the highest bidder. So the only action I might take re Trump is to have my "Go Home" banner ready if he pitches up in England.

It sounds to me that you are promoting rule by man over rule by law.  There is an on going investigation by a Special Counsel, which you seem to want to either shutdown or ignore.  It seems to me that your time would be better spent defending democracy from Trump's numerous assaults, rather than trying to put your thumb on the scales of justice.


Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: July 04, 2017, 03:13:20 PM »
Greenland melt continues to be "The Dog That Did Not Bark". Greenland's cold spell set to continue for several days yet. As previous posts have pointed out that the majority of net mass loss of Greenland's ice sheet is from melt as opposed to calving does this mean the chances are for a net mass gain this year after the amazing snowfall over winter /spring?Any signs of calving being somewhat slow so far this year?

DMI's analysis not updated since June 30 so NSIDC image as at July 2 shown.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 04, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
Once again, I throw in some numbers. Jaxa data as at July 3.

The first little table is a projection of what has to happen for various results. Despite the increase in daily melt recently, nothing really changes. A second lowest minimum looks eminently possible, a record low increasingly unlikely.
The magic 1 million km2 would require remaining melt to be 66% greater than the 2007-16 average remaining melt, over 3 times the variation from the average in the Great Leap Forward of 2012 (19%).

The second table just looks at melt to date and remaining melt over the years. On average, 53% of melting happened by July 3. 2012 looks like an outlier for the melt achieved in the remainder of the season.

Unless the condition of the ice this year is fundamentally, dramatically, different then it still looks like a case of the slow-motion train wreck continuing.

The rest / Re: Jason Group - Earth Turning to Mars?
« on: July 03, 2017, 05:47:29 PM »
mars lost its atmosphere because it cooled, lost its molten center and magnetic field and after hundreds of millions of years, the solar wind stripped it of its magnetic field. 

This 'theory' is not based in reality I would be surprised that Guy Mcphereson supports it, though I give him little credibility, I am sure that he has a stronger scientific background that that!

But in the article guy States that the source is from the pentagon Jason group so that should make it more credible
Theta, I recommend more skepticism towards "hype" sources
Read "On The Beach" "from the 1950s. A much more credible novel about the aftermath of all-out nuclear war.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: July 03, 2017, 05:24:31 PM »
Is there an easy way to move a posting from the the thread on which it does not belong to the thread to which it does belong ?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 03, 2017, 05:09:36 PM »
The Russian Federation has an over-riding military, industrial and economic imperative -to make as much of the Arctic Ocean and its resources its own as possible. So they have their own rules as to when the NSR is open. If a few ships get a few dents and scratches on the way - so what. Russians go in where angels fear to tread. Can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, ships, people.
Sorry, Neven - couldn't resist.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 02, 2017, 07:25:23 PM »
I agree - data must be tested. "Question all assumptions " is always a good motto. However, the response was to a post that suggested that the data was bent through malicious intent. I felt that would not do.

Yep. I'm going to do a further response to what you and Shared Humanity were saying.

However, as I'm being dragged out for some beer to (belatedly) celebrate having dodged the coffin for yet another orbit of Sol, that must, perforce, wait until tomorrow.
The advantage of age is to say "you can wait until tomorrow". I am off to a quiz with some other ancients. The objective is beer and sarcasm to the young.
Happy Birthday.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: July 02, 2017, 05:18:05 PM »
Off-topic comment. Wear and tear of the road surface is proportional to the cube of the axle load.
An island in the pacific banned all trucks with gross laden weight greater than 3.5 tonnes.


49 so far / 51 to come is the average of the last 10 years (2007-2016). If it does not add up my spreadsheet is stuffed. Just checked - my table starts with rows for each year as follows
June 30 melt
 Remaining melt
 Total melt
 Control - all nicely zero.

And no data I have says that a new record minimum is likely.
Thanks for the clarification.
Still, if the 2017 maximum was around 13.8 - 13.9 million km2 (not sure of the exact number) with slightly above 10 million km2 of total melt you should get something around 3.8 - 3.9 million km2.
Coincidentally it is within the range I have just selected
My spreadsheet has refused to budge from that range for weeks. My guess is that it is when average thickness in the arctic basin gets below a critical point is when all bets are off. As the kids in the car say "are we nearly there yet?" and Daddy has to either lie or say  "not yet, darlings".

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 02, 2017, 04:38:02 PM »
I agree - data must be tested. "Question all assumptions " is always a good motto. However, the response was to a post that suggested that the data was bent through malicious intent. I felt that would not do.

Not sure why you picked 49%, numbers seem to vary a lot, meaning a 52/48 proportion leads to a substantially different result to a 49/51.
But in any case, shouldnt the final result be like one million lower? I think it doesn't add up

49 so far / 51 to come is the average of the last 10 years (2007-2016). If it does not add up my spreadsheet is stuffed. Just checked - my table starts with rows for each year as follows
June 30 melt
 Remaining melt
 Total melt
 Control - all nicely zero.

And no data I have says that a new record minimum is likely.

I had a thought (sorry). The melting season is more than half over in elapsed time, but what about in melting ? So I had a look (JAXA data). The answer is that if history is any guide, melting is just under half-done (49%). The data is very consistent. Even in the magic year of 2012, and despite the Great Arctic Cyclone, melting was 51% done by June 30. Surprised? I am. Only in 2010 and 2014 is there a significant increase in melting from July 1 to minimum.

My 2nd thought (sorry again) is that unless something extraordinary happens, it is a case of the continuing slow-motion train wreck. (PIOMAS rules, OK?)

 Melting to now and until end of melting season                
           To June 30        Rest of year            Total Melt
                 Km2             %         Km2             %    
1980's     4,033,183    48%       4,339,270    52%     8,372,453
1990's     4,051,375    48%       4,470,661    52%     8,522,036
2000's     4,427,110    48%       4,764,147    52%     9,191,257
2002    Incomplete data             
2003            4,207,796    46%       4,924,530    54%     9,132,326
2004            4,535,181    50%       4,482,544    50%     9,017,725
2005            4,520,327    49%       4,696,467    51%     9,216,794
2006            3,718,307    44%       4,789,027    56%     8,507,334
2007            5,403,661    53%       4,728,010    47%    10,131,671
2008            5,291,762    52%       4,982,391    48%    10,274,153
2009            4,797,542    50%       4,805,450    50%     9,602,992
2010            4,263,292    42%       5,803,156    58%    10,066,448
2011            4,823,503    49%       5,035,027    51%     9,858,530
2012            5,862,456    51%       5,669,175    49%    11,531,631
2013            4,803,052    49%       4,911,295    51%     9,714,347
2014            4,173,437    44%       5,390,859    56%     9,564,296
2015            5,225,313    54%       4,397,257    46%     9,622,570
2016            4,956,444    50%       4,960,446    50%     9,916,890
2007-1  4,960,046    49%       5,068,307    51%    10,028,353

2017          4,847,643

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 02, 2017, 10:57:07 AM »
Great Arctic Cyclone
Now I remember, watching in near disbelief the cyclone and the melt. Like everyone else thinking "Is this the one ?",  and then along came 2013 and the answer was "NO".

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 01, 2017, 09:41:32 PM »
A big contributor to the amazing melt in early August 2012 was the GAC. Surely, there would have been a record but the question is how big the melt rate in August 2012 would have been without the GAC.
Brain-fade. GAC IS ?

For those who look at JAXA data a lot, just to note that over the last 10 years the NSIDC Sept average extent has been greater than the JAXA daily minimum extent by an average of 0.40 million km2.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 01, 2017, 07:32:10 PM »
Duckanado !!! Another made-for-TV movie coming to cable tv forever!!!

Some of us think "why not less cars, and less trucks, and more public transport and more ability to find work and places to relax a bit closer to home".

"In economics, the Jevons paradox (sometimes the Jevons effect) occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand."

The paradox is mostly debunked by the intelligentsia. But it is true to say that in the UK the improved energy efficiency of household appliances, TVs, lighting, heating systems etc initially led to a reduction in electricity consumption but that is now in reverse.

The revolution in transportation from EVs and renewable energy production (plus highspeed trains etc) could easily lead to vastly increased demand for use, and consequent demands for yet more roads....... London can't take any more, the UK motorway network is a pain in the butt. Can LA widen its autoroutes without complete and utter disruption?

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:15:51 PM »
Herewith some analysis of Jaxa sea ice extent numbers. The projections are not meant to be forecasts in any sense of the word. Rather they are attempts to test what melting is required from now to minimum to achieve certain results.

 As at June 30              Melt        As % of      Resulting 
                             Required     07/16 av.   Minimum
 For 2016 Result     5,013,380    101.1%    4,017,264
 For 2012 Result     5,853,189    118.0%    3,177,455
 For 2007 Result     4,964,905    100.1%    4,065,739
 Av 2007-16 melt        4,960,046    100.0%    4,070,598
 For 1 million km2     8,030,644    161.9%    1,000,000

It is obvious that a 2nd lowest miminum only requires remaining melt to be a modest fraction greater than the average remaining melt in the last 10 years.

For the magic 1 million km2 minimum, melt from now to minimum has to be 62% above the 2007-2016 average. This seems unlikely, given variations in previous years.

For a record low (below 2012), remaining melt has to be at least 18% above the previous 10 year average. This has only happened once in the satellite record - in 2012. My memory of 2012 was that it was the late season melt that made 2012 such a record record low. So I looked at the Jaxa record. In 2012, melt from Aug 1st to minimum was 35 % greater than the 2007-16 Average. In 2008 it was + 15%. No other year comes close.

 Melt Aug1 to min    Km2         cf with 07-16
1980's Average       1,588,705    -26%
1990's Average       1,502,583    -30%
2000's Average       1,728,320    -20%
2002    No data    
2003                       1,658,226    -23%
2004                       2,181,360       2%
2005                       1,721,140    -20%
2006                       1,345,561    -37%
2007                       2,116,693      -1%
2008                       2,466,075      15%
2009                       1,717,881     -20%
2010                       2,036,131       -5%
2011                       2,039,229       -5%
2012                       2,904,945       35%
2013                       1,833,934      -15%
2014                       1,848,264      -14%
2015                       2,211,140         3%
2016                       2,304,571         7%
Av. 2007-2016       2,147,886         0%

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: July 01, 2017, 03:41:34 PM »
More numbers

Jaxa data as at June 30      
Extent in km2    13,568,681    
Compared with:-    Difference    
                                km2              %
2014 (max year)   -2,508,157   -16%
2015                           -2,153,427   -14%
2016                           -1,008,448   -7%
1980's (min decade)   -1,040,133   -7%

Antarctic Sea Ice has been lowest (in the satellite record) , 2nd lowest or third lowest for nearly 240 days. It is currently lowest.
In the second half of June average refreezing has been 84,000 km2 per day, just 74% of the average since April 1 this year. This is odd given the time of year and a somewhat chilly Antarctic.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: June 30, 2017, 06:39:23 PM »
I have trusted no western news media or intelligence agency for a very long time, and I am mildly surprised that anyone yet believes them. Especially after the intelligence agencies were extensively exposed as liars and torturers and the press as shameless cheerleaders for atrocity and war.

Oh, for a Government that was moderately honest and moderately competent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 30, 2017, 06:18:13 PM »
3rd lowest for this date. 6/29/17 value of 9112K is 78K above 2016, 171K above 2010. In the other direction, the 6/29/17 value is 42K below 2011, 51K below 2012, and 73K below 2014. So despite being 3rd lowest for the date, 6/29/2017 is closer to 6th than 2nd.

instead of ranting again i simply ask you, means i ask a question and explain why i ask, so nothing personal, ok?

what do you want to say with this, because the only thing i can imagine is that things are getting better or that they are not THAT bad but again many forget that 5% lower volume compared to 2% higher extent is a huge gap in ice to melt out, hence energy needed to melt what's there, on the negative side means, MUCH LESS ICE MASS than last year and any year before that

i simply can't get over this kind of posts which i personally think that they are either misleading for newcomers or being ignorant of certain factors like thickness, fragmentation and the likes. not saying which because i dunno and there are probably more possibilities than those two.

if you want you can PM me your intention, perhaps i'm the one to learn something and will shut up in the future once someone can give me a good explanation about what the meaning could be, other than simply posting numbers of course but i see not much benefit in reading every days dozens of posts with 3rd, 4th and so on lowest and the related speculations in the aftermath.

again, tell my your reason and i promise to learn if there is something to it.
This is the thread on which is posted the numeric data from JAXA. "It is what it is". Elsewhere are images and data from images and weather / SSTs , volume etc on what is now and may be in the near future. From that one might make interpretations on the future.
But data is just data. It does not express an opinion. It just is.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 30, 2017, 03:39:07 PM »
Greenland mass loss is less due to calving than melt. I have not the time to find the reference, I have posted it previously, i believe the authors were Enderlin and Howat.

Hullo sidd.
Melting or calving, if the sluggish progress of SMB loss continues, it looks very much as if at Sept 30th there will be a net addition to Greenland Ice Sheet Mass this year, rather than the "usual" 200 gt loss. Expect crap from Trolls? Also note the ridiculous contrast with the 2011-2012 year.

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: June 29, 2017, 08:04:02 PM »
The linked article indicates that scientists are concerned as to why atmospheric CO₂ concentrations are increasing as fast as they are:

"Carbon in Atmosphere Is Rising, Even as Emissions Stabilize"

Extract: "The excess carbon dioxide scorching the planet rose at the highest rate on record in 2015 and 2016. A slightly slower but still unusual rate of increase has continued into 2017.

Scientists are concerned about the cause of the rapid rises because, in one of the most hopeful signs since the global climate crisis became widely understood in the 1980s, the amount of carbon dioxide that people are pumping into the air seems to have stabilized in recent years, at least judging from the data that countries compile on their own emissions.

That raises a conundrum: If the amount of the gas that people are putting out has stopped rising, how can the amount that stays in the air be going up faster than ever? Does it mean the natural sponges that have been absorbing carbon dioxide are now changing?"
I guess one cannot degrade the environment continually without reducing the planet's ability to absorb co2. On the other hand, while direct man-made emissions may be flat, what else is going on?
An on-going data deficit situation?

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 28, 2017, 01:06:44 PM »
NSIDC Greenland Today seemed to have made some changes to both the graph presentation and content..  See below, new one first, old one second.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 28, 2017, 12:34:21 PM »
Here are some numbers. (I like numbers).

Jaxa data as at June 27
Extent in km2    13,327,296
Compared with:-    Difference    
                                   km2    %
2014 (max year)   -2,499,716   -16%
2015                   -2,119,571   -14%
2016                   -1,041,200   -7%
1980's (min yrs)   -1,024,239   -7%

And it is still all about West Antarctica.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 27, 2017, 10:38:47 PM »
What are your guesses? Here i put my very simple idea about how the 2017 minimum might look like by the middle of September:
Trouble is this years melt will probably continue well past mid September.
Why should this year's melt be prolonged? What am I missing ?

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 27, 2017, 08:01:42 PM »
The negative anomaly is entirely related to West Antarctica. Will be interesting to see if the sea ice will catch up with other years later this season.
In a month or two those gentle curves on the graph go all wobbly until melt sets in again. Maybe difficult to see any real trend until that melt gets going?

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 27, 2017, 04:04:28 PM »
Did you mean: "2012 melt from now to minimum was 17 % greater than the 10 year average"?  ;D

Thanks Neven.
I certainly did. Thanks again for the modify button. Definitely time I put my pen away. The little grey cells between the ears have turned to mush.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 27, 2017, 03:33:11 PM »
Did you mean "... or even a 2012 result look remote"?

I expect 2012 was on the order of 150% of the best previous year on this date, but I would never predict it happening again in any particular year.
Thanks, Tor. (also thanks to Neven for the modify button)
Correction  made.

2012 melt from now to minimum was 17 % greater than the 10 year average.
2007 melt from now to minimum was 10 % greater than the 10 year average.

No other year came close, not in the previous 10 years or any year in the satellite record.

So I am still expecting the slow-motion train wreck to continue. Given my age, it could be a close run thing as to whether I see the Blue Ocean Event.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 27, 2017, 03:20:34 PM »
The Jaxa extent data and a simple arithmetic projection (based on previous 10 year average melting) says the prospects for a new record low are diminishing rapidly, and 1 million km2 is beyond reason. Also the JAXA sea ice thickness image for June 26 one year ago looks more favourable for melting than this year's image.

However, Jaxa AMSR2 volume is dropping like a stone. I think I will put my brain and pen into pause mode until PIOMAS for June comes out next week.

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 27, 2017, 03:02:18 PM »
Antarctic Sea Ice Extent remains lowest in satellite record (Jaxa and NSIDC). Low daily increases in extent seem once again to be mostly due to strong sea ice drift parallel to coast and onshore.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: June 27, 2017, 02:42:25 PM »
Some more boring numbers based on JAXA data. 5 days of somewhat modest melt has reduced the arithmetic projections of the 2017 minimum somewhat, as the little table below shows. Melt required is from June 26 to minmum.

 As at June 26             Melt required    % of 2007/2016 avge      Resulting Minimum
 For 2016 Result            5,392,500             101.3%                             4,017,264
 For 2012 Result            6,232,309             117.0%                             3,177,455
 For 2007 Result            5,344,025             100.4%                             4,065,739
 Avge 2007-2016 melt     5,325,075             100.0%                             4,084,689
For 1 million km2      8,409,764             157.9%                             1,000,000

With about 80 days of the melting season left, of which about 10 are usually of minimal melting, the possibility of 1 million km2 or even a 2012 result look remote. However, it still looks as if an awful lot of ice is just waiting to die.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: June 26, 2017, 02:43:35 PM »
For some years in my simplistic analyses I have thought that it would be when big impacts on winter ice happened that a tipping point could happen. I don't  think it will be this year. But if winter 17-18 replicates last winter and the ice-cap enters winter in an already enfeebled state....

It is just a case of when, not if.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 26, 2017, 01:48:21 PM »
Hullo "devil floe". (Verdade ?)
Your posts have convinced me to rely on the DMI analysis, and especially on the progression of the smb.
Muchas gracias for the explanations.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 26, 2017, 11:20:59 AM »
The conclusion seems to be that any statement regarding Greenland melting has to have a great big caveat attached ? What a shame.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: June 25, 2017, 03:19:09 PM »
I look at two sites on Greenland melting:-,

The two graphs of melting were similar in May, but now show entirely different assessments. I have read the notes on what the data is and how it is collected and analysed, and cannot see any reason for such a profound difference to emerge.
I have recently been relying on the Denmark Meteorological Institute site as there is a lot more insight on it. But is this wise? Anybody any idea on what is going on? Je suis confus, embrouillé, désorienté.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2017 melt season
« on: June 24, 2017, 03:26:44 PM »
The difference between the NSIDC Greenland Today Melting Graph and the DMI Greenland Melting Graph continues to increase.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 23, 2017, 04:23:58 PM »
Totally off-topic, but will the Guv'nor kill a poem? This is a poem by Kay Kendall (January 1885) mocking Darwin's Origin of Species. I could not resist it.

The Lay of the Trilobite
A mountain’s giddy height I sought,
Because I could not find
Sufficient vague and mighty thought
To fill my mighty mind;
And as I wandered ill at ease,
There chanced upon my sight
A native of Silurian seas,
An ancient Trilobite.

So calm, so peacefully he lay,
I watched him even with tears:
I thought of Monads far away
In the forgotten years.
How wonderful it seemed and right,
The providential plan,
That he should be a Trilobite,
And I should be a Man!

And then, quite natural and free
Out of his rocky bed,
That Trilobite he spoke to me
And this is what he said:
‘I don’t know how the thing was done,
Although I cannot doubt it;
But Huxley – he if anyone
Can tell you all about it;

‘How all your faiths are ghosts and dreams,
How in the silent sea
Your ancestors were Monotremes –
Whatever these may be;
How you evolved your shining lights
Of wisdom and perfection
From Jelly-Fish and Trilobites
By Natural Selection.

‘You’ve Kant to make your brains go round,
Hegel you have to clear them,
You’ve Mr Browning to confound,
And Mr Punch to cheer them!
The native of an alien land
You call a man and brother,
And greet with hymn-book in one hand
And pistol in the other!

‘You’ve Politics to make you fight
As if you were possessed:
You’ve cannon and you’ve dynamite
To give the nations rest:
The side that makes the loudest din
Is surest to be right,
And oh, a pretty fix you’re in!’
Remarked the Trilobite.

‘But gentle, stupid, free from woe
I lived among my nation,
I didn’t care – I didn’t know
That I was a Crustacean.*
I didn’t grumble, didn’t steal,
I never took to rhyme:
Salt water was my frugal meal,
And carbonate of lime.’

Reluctantly I turned away,
No other word he said;
An ancient Trilobite, he lay
Within his rocky bed.
I did not answer him, for that
Would have annoyed my pride:
I merely bowed, and raised my hat,
But in my heart I cried: –

‘I wish our brains were not so good,
I wish our skulls were thicker,
I wish that Evolution could
Have stopped a little quicker;
For oh, it was a happy plight,
Of liberty and ease,
To be a simple Trilobite
In the Silurian seas!’

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 23, 2017, 04:10:33 PM »
Since I am too dumb and not up to understanding the science in all the weather projections, I have to rely on the 5 day outlooks from cci-reanalyzer. But I thought I would see what the 5 day min and max temperature  images looked like, and assume that most of the difference in such a few days would be from night and day. The simplistic conclusion seems to be that where the minimum difference between max and min temperatures is the Arctic Ocean. Given that it is the high Arctic and close to the summer solstice, and over the moderating influence of water and ice, this seems logical.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: June 23, 2017, 01:47:23 PM »
I was wondering if the Jaxa sea ice thickness images over the last few days have been showing the effect of winds in the CAB, especially the almost circular striations. If so, does that also indicate the poor state of the ice in both thickness and compaction?

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 22, 2017, 10:04:00 PM »
Being a mixture of limestone and domolitised limestone, Hans Island will be there for a very long time after there is no ice left to wear it away. But it was nice to see that some of the geology I learnt 50 years ago is still lurking in forgotten areas of the cerebrum.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 22, 2017, 08:49:39 PM »
From the first paragraph of the above referenced Geo. Survey of Denmark paper:
... Rising less than 170 m above normally ice-infested waters, the 1.25 km2 island is physiographically far overshadowed by nearby Franklin Ø (Fig. 1).

Referencing "Government of Canada, (1985) Sailing Directions, Arctic Canada, Vol. 2, Ottawa: Canadian Hydrographic Service", this Canada's Unresolved maritime Boundaries paper) reports:
Hans Island (80° 49’N, 66° 28’W) is described as being sandy in colour with a cliff at its south end of about 150m in elevation.
  This would be the height of the cliff.

Finally, from Hans Island: Meteorological Data From an International Borderline:
Hans Island (80º49’35’N, 66º27’35’W) is a small sandstone landform that occupies an area of about 1.3 square kilometers and is 168 meters in height (Figure 1a).
"Sandstone"  Hmmmm.
Looks more like dolomite to me. That horizontal stratigraphy also reminiscent of periodic deposits of calcium carbonate in shallow warm seas?

Arctic background / Re: Arctic Maps
« on: June 22, 2017, 07:24:41 PM »
cross post:
Hans Island is composed of Silurian aged limestone, per this  1931 map (via Geo. Survey of Denmark)
(Interesting that Petermann Fjord had a different name then.)
Has the limestone gone dolomitic? Memories of breaking my hands and heart breaking up some of it in the Forest of Dean, England.
ps: These old maps are wonderful, made by true Mariner Masters.

Pages: 1 ... 160 161 [162] 163 164 ... 169