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] 4 5 ... 12
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 16, 2015, 02:26:41 PM »
The ADR-NIPR Extent losses have really tapered off in the last week, which  is somewhat normal for this time of the year.  The average daily loss for the first 15 days of August, 2015, was 69,404 KM2, which  is only slightly below the 2003-2014 average of 70,118 KM2/day..

In looking ahead to the last 16 days of August the average daily losses are only 47,007 KM2.  The maximum average daily loss of  64,991 KM2 was in 2012.

It will take well above average losses for the  remainder of the melt season for 2015 to go below 2011 and record losses to end up 2nd below 2007.  It looks more likely that 2015 will end up 4th.  See latest chart and my table of projections below:

The rest / Re: A “BABY BOOMER’S” Apology to Future Generations
« on: August 13, 2015, 05:06:03 PM »
I've been overwhelmed by the responses and comments I've gotten on this topic.  Thank each and every one of you for sharing your experiences and personal concerns. 

No matter where each of us our are on our journey through life, we still have an obligation to future generations.  Individual efforts may seem insignificant, however, collectively they will have some impact.   The magnitude of these impacts depend entirely upon the time and effort we put into shaping the future.

The forum / Re: Neven's "TIP JAR"
« on: August 13, 2015, 04:36:38 PM »
I thought it was time for me to throw a few more Euros your way.  This Forum is such an invaluable asset as a learning platform and tool for sharing knowledge.

May I suggest that you take a few of these Euros and do something nice for your wife and daughter. We appreciate that they are sharing you with us for the betterment of the world.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 12, 2015, 07:15:21 PM »

...For all practical purposes 2012 will retain the record low for SIE.  A good science fiction writer would have trouble creating a scenario that would allow 2015 to set a new record low.

I happen to agree with you on the record low, but I may give writing that scenario a try, as I'm a bad science fiction writer.

To give everyone an idea how improbable, akin to science fiction scenarios, it is for 2015 to end up below 2012, this is what it would take:

1. If, and it is a big IF, in the 19 days left in August, 2012 would lose 100K/day.  That then must be followed by an additional 650K of losses in September.  This would result in the following:

2012   3,177,455
2015   3,172,632

Ain't going to happen folks!!

The rest / Re: A “BABY BOOMER’S” Apology to Future Generations
« on: August 12, 2015, 03:11:18 AM »
OldLeatherneck, thank you for reply.
When a local 'moral verticals' steal millions media will talk about a man who stole bread, broadcasting message "You Are Not Better Than Us".

People like you give me the strength to continue.


Thank You for the very kind compliment.

 I wish I had the wisdom and fortitude to give more people the strength to continue.  When I first posted this, I did not take into consideration the many members of this Forum who are already making sacrifices to help make the world more sustainable.  Among the most notable is our host Neven, who not only bears the financial burden of maintaining this Forum, but has built an eco-friendly home for his family, and they live a lifestyle consistent with a strive for sustainability.

The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: August 12, 2015, 02:19:25 AM »
Need I say more??

The rest / Re: A “BABY BOOMER’S” Apology to Future Generations
« on: August 12, 2015, 01:14:58 AM »
OLN, with all respect,
"we forgot to plan for a sustainable future"
I'm not counted in 'we' above!


I didn't mean to imply that there were NO people doing their very best to live their lives in a manner that would foster sustainability.  However, for too many years, the vast majority of people were exploiting resources and over-consuming.

Thank you for what you have done and continue  to do to set an example for future generations.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 12, 2015, 01:08:59 AM »

I agree that the global population problem is the most prominent "Root Cause" of most of the crises we are facing today.  Re-reading the many posts on this thread reminded me of an essay I wrote several years ago, while  taking an on-line course on Sustainability.  We had come to the point of discussing the earth's carrying capacity.  Having knowledge of resource depletion (Peak Oil) and AGW/CC, I decided to write the below linked essay entitled "A 'BABY BOOMERS' Apology to Future Generations."  Before for posting here of the forum, I made some changes to the final paragraph.  Since it addresses more than population growth,  I  posted it in the Off-Topic Category.,1359.msg60389/topicseen.html#msg60389

The rest / A “BABY BOOMER’S” Apology to Future Generations
« on: August 12, 2015, 12:54:48 AM »
Having been born in 1946, I’m one of the original “Baby Boomers” born in the immediate aftermath of WWII.  What an exciting time it was to grow up and begin the learning process.  The future seemed limitless, with promises of technological developments that would solve most, if not all of the world’s problems.  Medical technology had developed a vaccine for polio.  Nuclear technology had been harnessed to provide electrical power.  Electronic technology had developed the transistor. Drilling and mining technology had enabled the exploitation of natural resources.   It seemed that almost anything was possible.  Advancement continued for decades, with massive infrastructure development.  It wasn’t long until the world was connected, via satellite communications and extended transportation networks.

All of these “wonderful” advances have allowed the world’s population to grow exponentially, which has placed a burden on not just the world’s ecosystems, but on the world’s infrastructure, economic systems and governing bodies.  In our race to develop the world, we forgot to plan for a sustainable future.  In large part, this may be attributed to lack of awareness about how fragile the ecosystem was or how limited the finite resources were.  However, we can’t absolve the world’s leaders for allowing greed and corruption to dominate their agendas.

I’m sorry that the world my generation is passing on to those of you who are much younger, is not as healthy as the one we inherited.  We are giving you a fragile worldwide economic system, dysfunctional governmental systems and a biosphere about to be destroyed by rapid climate change.
It is my hope, in my waning years, that those of you who are a part of changing the future will make wise decisions and select wise leaders to implement the changes that are needed.  The only thing that gives me some glimmer of hope is that there is a growing sense of awareness, globally, of the severity of the multiple imminent threats that mankind is facing, be it overpopulation, climate change, critical resource depletion or income inequality.  Not only that, many of you are aware that these threats are interconnected and must be addressed as such. By definition the world you pass on to future generations will not be the same world my generation has created for you.  The climate will be more hostile, there will be insufficient natural resources to provide infrastructure, food and shelter for the current global population, let alone a growing population. The decisions your generation is facing will not be popular, nor will they be easily implemented. My life’s experiences have taught me that major global transitions are never accomplished bloodlessly. Yet you must keep in mind that every life lost, in every conflict, causes a ripple effect locally and regionally that lasts for generations, if not centuries and often leads to future conflicts.

Again, please accept an apology from a member of a “Failed Generation”.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: August 11, 2015, 02:38:29 PM »

   So based on the above I predict the IJIS extent to continue to drop fast to somewhere around 4 million square km, as happened in 2012, and in the process presumably blowing down to second place on the IJIS extent graph, below the 2007 and 2011 lines.

slow wing,

I agree that your prediction may be correct.  If we have many more near-century drops within  the next 5-10 days, I can easily see a high probability of going below 2011 and reasonable chance of going below 2007.  For all practical purposes 2012 will retain the record low for SIE.  A good science fiction writer would have trouble creating a scenario that would allow 2015 to set a new record low.

The politics / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: August 11, 2015, 12:07:57 AM »
FOX NEWS Plot to Sabotage Donald Trump Fails!!

    "Donald Trump and Roger Ailes Make Up — for Now"
    By: Gabriel Sherman, New York Magazine - Daily Intelligencer

Full Article here:

It's quite obvious to me that FOX News planned to attack Donald Trump in Thursday Night's debate.  Roger Ailes is a very old friend and compatriot of President George H. W. Bush.  Considering this alliance and the Establishment Republican angst over Trump's candidacy, I'd be willing to bet that the GOP hierarchy and the Jeb Bush Campaign were involved somehow in trying to destroy Trump's candidacy.

Apparently, the loyal rabid FOX-spewing viewers did not appreciate that Meghan Kelly was so mean to Trump.  The vast majority of the e-mails and twitters received by FOX lambasted the network and Ms Kelly.  Roger Ailes is in panic mode, fearing that their loyal viewers will abandon the network.

The politics / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: August 10, 2015, 11:07:44 PM »
Well maybe I'll be eating crow.  The first poll is out following that mind boggleing 'debate' and Trump going full misogynist on the debates female moderator/reporter.

He leads the Republican with 23% and the 2nd place guy (Cruz !!! omg) has 13%.
[my BOLD]

It will be interesting to see what the next 4-5 polls say.  If they are approximately consistent Trump better get some good body guards as the party establishment will be getting their knifes out.

Do you think he works for Hillary?  lol

OMG!!  Sadly, I can see that there are enough poorly educated, misogynistic, racists who actually believe Trump can be a leader on the national stage, but I did not think that there were that many. 
What is more unnerving is that Ted Cruz jumped into 2nd place.

I watched both debates and I would like to know if any one of the responders to this poll actually watched the debates.  In the Prime Time Event, John Kasich was the only one who acted like an adult.  In the Junior Varsity Event, I thought that Rick Perry actually did a good job of appearing presidential, and I detest him for what he did for 14 years as the governor of Texas.

The GOP might as well invite Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman back into"Circus Ignoramus- 2015 "!!!

Another Dumb "Congress-Critter" from Texas

I'm ashamed to admit that my state continues to elect such ignorant buffoons and that they rise to power in important committees.  This is the same Joe Barton that apologized to British Petroleum, after the Deepwater Horizon disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  He actually felt that the media was treating BP unfairly.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 10, 2015, 04:44:57 PM »
The Current ADR-NIPR SIE is 5,903,228 KM2 with a 1-day drop of 93,170 KM2.  2015 now lags behind the 3 record low years by:

2011 -   95,473 KM2
2007 - 465,112 KM2
2012 - 867,435 KM2   

It will be interesting to watch the next few to see what the effect of predicted cyclones have on all of the rubble in the Bering Sea.  Also, I've been following the chatter on the 2015 Melting Season topic about whether 2015 will have a extended melting season due to above average SSTs and surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere.

In any case, it's time to stock up on beer and snacks because getting exciting!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 09, 2015, 07:13:35 PM »
Updated ADR-NIPR SIE Projections

During the first 8 days of August, SIE lost  567,464 KM2. The average daily loss was 70,933 KM2 which  is only marginally more than the 2003-2014 average of 70,118 KM2.

 Due to the current state of the ice in the Bering Sea, I would anticipate continued fluctuations in daily SIE losses,  However, I still project that losses will continue to be average, if not somewhat above average through the 15th.  I'm becoming move convinced that 2015 will end the season in at least 4th place, with  a reasonable chance of going lower than 2011.  With significant losses in September, such as in 2010 when the SIE dropped ~500K KM2 and didn't reach the bottom until the 21st, there is some possibility of ended up 2nd, lower than 2007.

Science / The Great Victorian Weather Wars
« on: August 09, 2015, 05:33:03 PM »
Fascinating article in the New York Times Sunday Review by Peter Moore about Professor John Tyndall's significant contributions to the understanding of heat trapping gases.  This article also gives a brief introduction into early days of Meteorology and one of it's early proponents, Robert FitzRoy, a veteran of the Royal Navy who first coined the term "forecast" when predicting near-term weather events:

Full article here:

ThE history of today’s climate change debate may have begun on Feb. 7, 1861. That day, an Irish physicist named John Tyndall, a professor of natural philosophy, delivered the annual Bakerian Lecture to the Royal Society in London.

John Tyndall studied subjects that were new in the 1800s, like glaciation, radiation and sound.

Credit Science & Society Picture Library, via Getty Images

His experiments had shown that gases like oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen retained very little heat. But others, particularly carbon dioxide, absorbed surprising amounts of radiation — “nearly 100 times as much as oxygen,” he said.

For the sharp minds in the hall, the implication of Tyndall’s discovery was clear. The higher the concentrations of absorptive gases in the atmosphere, the higher atmospheric temperatures would be. Thus was laid the theoretical foundation for climate science — though few could have envisioned that, more than 150 years later, Tyndall’s discovery would be one of the great political debates of the day.

Tyndall’s was not the only contribution that year to our understanding of earth’s climate and its threats. That bleak winter week in 1861 was a stormy one. As Tyndall spoke, Atlantic gales were tearing across England, from the Irish coast to the North Sea. A 10-minute walk from where Tyndall was giving his lecture in London, a veteran of the Royal Navy, Robert FitzRoy, was embarking on an audacious meteorological experiment.

Tyndall knew FitzRoy. They mixed in London’s intellectual circles and had served on the same British Association committee. For the previous seven years, too, FitzRoy had been making a name for himself, as head of the British government’s new Meteorological Department.

NOTE:  I could have just as easily posted this in the Science category, however, since the title included Weather Wars" I chose to post it here.  As always, Neven is more than welcome to move this topic as he sees fit.

Policy and solutions / Re: Collapse marches on
« on: August 06, 2015, 01:02:12 AM »
"Dancing to the Precipice"

When I read about the impending societal and economic collapse scenarios, whether causality is due in some part, directly or indirectly, to AGW/CC or other factors, it reminds me of many of the conversations I've had, over the years, my with wife about the inevitable collapse.  My wife is a retired university administrator, educated in economics and finance, a prolific reader of history and a self-admitted "Francophile."  During these conversations she quite often refers to "Dancing to the Precipice, The Life of Lucie de la Tour du Pin, Eyewitness to an Era", a biography written by Caroline Moorehead.  This books book provides insight as to how the aristocracy continued to live their lives in splendor, completely oblivious to the surrounding societal and economic events which led to the  French Revolution.  Yes, I finally did read the book!!

I see the 0.1%, who control the machinations of the global economies today as being equally oblivious to reality as the French aristocracy in the 1800s.  They're living lives of luxury and could care less about the needs or happiness of the burgeoning class of serfs.

Tomorrow's GOP debate will be entertaining, and provide some insight as to which  candidate, if elected, will bring us to the precipice more rapidly with no assurance of a soft landing. At best, a progressive Democrat may slow the dance to a waltz and provide a somewhat softer landing for some who fall off the cliff.

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: August 05, 2015, 02:43:40 AM »
A-Team already posted this piece by Jason Box in de Greenland-folder, but it's appropriate here too:
A must read by the good doctor!
What worries me most is that each new and unexpected finding seems to point toward either rapid sea level rise or at minimum acts to undermine our confidence in prior, more conservative extrapolations.
I'm unaware of any community, other than the good folks in Southern Carolina, taking any action to mitigate against even the previous, conservative rates of sea level rise.
Why are near sea level buildings in California built to withstand 100 year earthquakes while they ignore sea level rise that will certainly take place well within that time frame? I've seen giant subdivisions built in areas that I've seen under 20' of water. The homes are all "earthquake proof", but no one paid attention to flash flood paths.
Will the ocean view edifices now being constructed survive 'The Big One', only to be swept out to sea when a storm roils the 1 meter higher ocean 50 years from now?
No one complains about the costs of retrofitting an older home to conform with earthquake codes, but no one insists that new construction be sited far enough away from the coast to survive even the most conservative estimates of sea level rise.

Jason Box has the intestinal fortitude (cojones) to tell it like it is, unlike so many of his cohorts hiding in the comfort of their tenured positions, hidden in the ivy-covered walls of academia. Yet, I don't always fault those academicians, whose careers can be ended on the whim of an angry politician. (Can't think of any politicians in the US, Canada or Australia who would do such a thing.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 05, 2015, 12:57:49 AM »
So, what does everyone think about that stubborn ice hanging on in Davis Strait and Baffin Bay that's still blocking coastal access to much of Baffin Island? And what about the persistent ice along the east coast of Ellesmere Island, as well as the ice in Kane Basin/Nares Strait? It seems my upcoming expedition (Aug. 16 departure) might be canceled and postponed to 2016... 13 of 17 locations we planned to visit on Baffin, Devon, and Ellesmere, as well as the route to Petermann, are still inaccessible (i.e., blocked for an ice-reinforced vessel that is not an ice-breaker). Looking at the various maps, satellite images, and ice charts daily (well, actually I've been staring at them obsessively multiple times a day), it strikes me that most or all of those regions of ice are likely to continue hanging on in the coming weeks, perhaps even through September. In some locations -- along parts of the Baffin Coast in particular -- the ice conditions actually seem to be getting more problematic rather than less. Your thoughts?
Wait a week or two and the ice will be gone..


What forecasts did you use to make the above claim that all of the  ice Jenny was referring to will be gone in the next two weeks?  Jenny and her colleagues  will be sailing in a vessel that could easily be stranded or damaged if they risked entering the Nares Straight when it is not safe to do so.

Please let some of  the experts on this forum respond to questions like that.  This is not an amateur hour, where a flippant guess can be misconstrued as a fact-based opinion based on scientific knowledge.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: August 04, 2015, 10:52:00 PM »
Looking good/bad in Beaufort.   :) / :(

Do I have both interpretations covered?  ;)

   You missed likely favorable, probably favorable, possibly favorable & unlikely favorable
                likely unfavorable, probably unfavorable, possibly unfavorable & unlikely unfavorable

The politics / Re: Empire - America and the future
« on: August 03, 2015, 11:05:55 PM »
If anyone is up for watching something really scary I wanted to point out that the first political debate of this election season is this Thursday.

The top 10 of the 17 Republicans running to bring the US military to Your Front Door are going to mud wrestle.  Current top contender is The Donald.

If that does not scare you nothing will.

Fox Propaganda Network  News 9 pm ET Aug 6th.

Good reminder JimD.  Don't forget that Fox will be hosting the Junior Varsity Debate, with the 7 lower ranked candidates earlier that same day. We can look forward to multiple promises of the following idiocies:

Defunding Obamacare
Starting a War with Iran
Kicking the "Illegal" Mexicans out of the  country and building a wall to keep them out
Reducing the tax burden on businesses so that they can continue to grow
Provide easier access to gun ownership
Remove burdensome environmental regulations
Prohibiting use of Federal funds for Climate Research

We may be on the brink of societal collapse!

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 01, 2015, 02:03:15 PM »
During the last 16 days of July, the ADR-NIPR Sea Ice Extent lost a whopping 1,646,110 KM2, which is the most ever lost in the 2003-2014 time frame. Looking ahead to the first half of August, during the first 15 days the average losses are just over 70K/day. So if we see any century or near-century drops, we can gain ground against 2007 and 2011. For all practical purposes 2012's record will not be matched this year. It was August of that year when 2012 lost just sort of 2.6M KM2. Below are the current SIE chart as well as an updated table of simulated projections thru September 15th.

Consequences / Re: 6 meters of SLR?
« on: July 31, 2015, 04:07:31 AM »
6 Meter SLR, Risk Assessment for SanDiego, California

I picked San Diego for a risk assessment such as this for two reasons. The first being that unlike Miami, San Diego will not have to be entirely abandoned and with proper planning and preparations i can still remain a functioning seaport.  The second reason is that I am intimately familiar with San Diego, having lived several different times, been there numerous times for both business and family reasons, in the past 50 years.  I've also spent a great deal of time at all of the naval facilities.

I chose the above map because it was a free download and not cluttered with tourist attractions or too many streets and highways.  My identifying markers for critical infrastructure are to the best of my recollection and I believe close enough for this discussion.  The brown shaded areas are approximate and indicate areas that should not not be threatened by SLR in any scenario for an extended (centuries) period of time.   I'll start by providing brief thoughts on the impact and possible courses of action for  each identified risk area.

International Airport

At an elevation of only 17 feet (~5 meters), this airport will need to be relocated long before SLR reaches 6 meters.  It is not at all feasible to move higher toward the more elevated terrain.  It's already a difficult landing due to the surrounding mountainous terrain.  Most likely place would be at Mira Mesa, about 15 miles NE of the above map.  This location is currently a Marine Corps Air Station. 

Coronado Bay Bridge

When this bridge was built in 1969, the intention was to have it high enough above the water for most naval vessels to pass under.  It was never intended for aircraft carriers to pass under it.  At some point of SLR, naval warships might not be able to sail north under the  bridge for the normal route around North Island.  Then North exit/entrance to the bridge on the San Diego is elevated well above any anticipated increases in sea levels.  However, as memory serve me, the southern exit/entrance on North Island arrive not far above current sea levels.  Will require some re-engineering.

Headquarters US Navy Pacific Fleet

The 32nd Street Naval Base is one of the largest in the world, surpassed only by Norfolk, VA in the number of personnel assigned there and the number of ships home-ported there.  Many of the logistical support and training facilities can be moved nearby to higher ground.  Obviously, the piers and quay walls need to be elevated.  I believe I heard and Admiral say that in Norfolk they will be building double-decker piers to prepare for eventual SLR.  Also, once the Coronado Bay Bridge become an obstacle to ship traffic, a shipping channel will need to be cut through that narrow spit of land going south from the village of Coronado.  Also, if San Diego is going to remain a seaport, a breakwater needs to be constructed along the southern shore of North island all the way down to the southern perimeter of the bay.

North Island Naval Air Station

At 26 feet (~8 meters), much of North  Island will be threatened as sea levels rise. It critical for the Navy to at least protect the berthing facilities for aircraft carriers and at least landing spaces for helicopters and short take-off and landing facilities for certain fixed wing aircraft.  Is this possible?  Yes.  I have no  idea what the costs of this are and how much acreage will eventually given back to the sea.  Those are decisions far above my pay-grade.


This village of just over 25K population sits at an elevation of 16 feet (5 meters).  In addition to some off-base housing for the  Navy, there are some residential neighborhoods, some high-end restaurants, boutique hotels and the famed Hotel Del Coronado.  Unfortunately, the high-end properties and tourist facilities are at the low end of the village.  The powers that  be must perform a cost/benefit analysis to determine how much of the village to save.  Keep in mind that to protect the  harbor, the western shore must have a sea wall.

Point Loma

Before I discuss the Navy's submarine facilities, I have to describe the topography of Point Loma. Someday, Point Loma may become and island although at a minimum there may be a narrow isthmus to the  high elevation areas to the east.  Western edge of Point Loma is a steep cliff reaching down to the ocean. Much less beach area than my drawing depicts.  At the far western edge of Point Loma's peak is Cabrillo National Monument.  Other than that, most of the highest elevation areas are consumed by US Naval facilities.  The southern slopes toward the submarine base on the west and resort and commercial areas towards the east, while steep are sloped enough to have allowed development.  Most of the residential properties on this slope will probably be safe from anticipated sea level rises.  However, the commercial and much of the resort areas will be threatened by SLRs of far less than 6 meters.

US Navy Submarine Piers

I've only spent 6 weeks living at this facility, however, I was going to school on the top of Point Loma.  My only experience with the subsurface navy was teaching a class of technicians, that was held much farther away from the docking facilities.  Since there is a relatively rapid rise fro this facility with a bedrock base, it is feasible to raise the docking facilities for the  submarine fleet.

Ocean Beach

This residential/resort area is on the northwestern fringe of Point Loma going north to the canal which leads to Mission Bay.  For California purposes, this has always been one of the  lower rent residential areas near a beach.  I can remember renting a cottage here in 1966/67 for only $95/month.  I would estimate that at least 40% of this area will be lost to anticipated sea level rises.  Fortunately for the richer folks, they seem to have built on the higher elevations.

Mission Bay

Mission Bay is a low lying beach and resort area, that includes Sea World, that include many man-made peninsulas for either resorts or recreational activities.  The northern portion of Mission Bay is heavily populated with commercial enterprises and condominiums.  I would estimate that most of this area going eastward to Interstate 5 will have to be abandoned.  There is no critical infrastructure here that would warrant protection from either the US Government, the State of California, the City of San Diego or influential mega-moguls.  However, and this is a guess, I believe that Interstate-5 is still safe, with a much better view of the water.

Cruise Piers

If they are going to create a safe harbor for the US Navy, they might as well provide docking facilities for the cruise ships and the fishing fleet.  Much of the tuna caught off of the coast of Ecuador is caught by shipping vessels home ported in San Diego.

Other Threatened Areas

Adjacent to the International Airport are a number of Aerospace manufacturing companies, some of whom make the launch vehicles for NASA missions.  Then there is the Convention Center which is very vulnerable to SLR, possibly well before 6 meter.  Also, I have not mentioned the numerous high-rise hotels in low lying areas and the many docking facilities for luxury yachts and other pleasure craft.

Safe Facilities in the San Diego Area

Scripps Institute
UC San  Diego
San Diego State University
Balboa Park
San Diego Zoo

A Nostalgic Moment in San Diego

I mentioned earlier that at times I visited San Diego for family reasons, however failed to mention that my mom and dad retired in a very wonderful retirement village just east of San Diego in the mid-80s.  Therefore, on those rare years that I wasn't there on business, I made frequent trips to visit my aging parents.  My last trip was just 4 years ago, soon before my mom passed on.  Since my mom's dimentia, at the age of 92, had reached the point where meaningful conversation was no longer possible, I decided to spend my last few hours before my flight, to give myself a farewell  tour to my most memorable places in San Diego.  Among them were, Seaport Village, Shelter Island, Harbor Island, Balboa Park, Old Town, Point Loma and Ocean Beach.  It's not often this aging Marine sheds a tear, yet my eyes were moistened more than once  that day.

When I think of that moment, I can't help but think of the 10s or 100s of thousands of San Diegans who have lived their entire lives there, building homes, building careers and raising families that will someday lose somethings that they will never be able to see or touch again.

And this is one of those fortunate cities that can be salvaged, what about the  trauma and heartbreak for those who leave their cities that will never be inhabited again.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 31, 2015, 01:30:22 AM »
I didn't mean to start another off topic discussion regarding the name of the "Gap", however, I'm happy for the support I got in the the resulting comments and sentiments.

Glad to see the last several posts are relevant and on-topic.  Every year is a new laboratory experiment in one of the world's most remote and hostile environments.  No test plan was ever written and the only variable under human control is GHG levels and we have decided to forgo reducing that.  The remaining variables are all dependent on the laws of physics.  While we know what these laws are, we still are learning the interdependence of the many uncontrolled variables.

This is a wonderful place to discuss and learn about the many sciences as it unfolds in front of are very eyes. 

Thanks to Neven for opening such an informative learning platform.  Now back to 2015.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 30, 2015, 10:50:07 PM »

The Beaufort low seems to wander about around Beaufort and into the CAA, as you say it's hard to determine what the effect will be without knowing exactly how it will be set up. Beaufort extent in winter tops out at about 0.53, it is currently 0.36, of the post 2007 years only 2013 was higher. However Beaufort area tops out around 5.1 over winter and is currently 0.14, by this time 2008 and 2012 were virtually zero. Given behaviour over the summer, I think that multi year ice is stopping the decline of Beaufort, this may continue through August. I wouldn't bet on it, but my suspicion is that Beaufort has more to lose but won't be on the low side of the post 2007 distribution and will not be ice free by mid September.

Beaufort has been and is importing a 'fresh' load of MYI, so I agree there will be ice left in September. About the MYI it was before, well, not sure. The carnage fields of the Arctic as u say.

It is interesting the combination of big scale HP and smaller scale LP has brought a bit of Gyro plus the weak divergent drift which when both  added they have caused the big "Tommy" gap and the migration of ice from the CAA

I agree that a certain amount of that MYI will remain in the Beaufort co,e September, waiting to die a slow death next year or the following.  However, like Chris Reynolds has said it will be interested to see the July PIOMAS to see how much damage has been done to the volume.  As far Extent goes this year, I'm now getting concerned that we may not eclipse 2007.  Even with above average losses in August, it will take a substantial amount of additional melting in September to make a difference.  We may need a September like 2010  when the IJIS Extent dropped ~500k and didn't reach it's minimum until the 21st.

On a second note. Do we have to call the gap off of the CAA the "Tommy" Gap.  I thought it was rather presumptuous and egocentric for a "newbie" to start naming an unusual, though not unheard of, event after themselves. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 28, 2015, 11:48:25 PM »
Guys, there are I don't know how many threads on this Forum to ruminate and speculate about AGW in general, its consequences, the role of scientists in it, etc, etc.

Thanks Neven,

Between off topic discussions and new members just learning about Arctic Ice Loss I've gotten confused.  I've always depended on the analysis of some of the "OLD TIMERS" here to provide near-term forecasts for the upcoming weather in the Arctic regions.  After all of the noise in the discussions today, I don't know whether to expect a dramatic slow down in the melting or a continued rapid decline such as seen in 2007, 2011 or 2012.

Policy and solutions / Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« on: July 28, 2015, 06:53:13 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

While I firmly believe that there  is no  merit to your assertions that your tunnels will restore Arctic ice, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 years in the Defense Industry, is the knowledge of the US Government's Procurement Process and Naval Shipyard capabilities.

I've taken classes and attended seminars on "How Washington Works", I've written specifications for Target Simulators, I've conducted Critical and Preliminary Design Reviews
It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.

Even if the 20,000 of them cost 1 trillion dollars it is still better than paying the 60 trillion dollar bill by 2050 in disasters climate change is going to bring us.. These are well worth the investment to avert that and have the ability to restore the Arctic Ice for as long as Earth spins. They are good for the environment and place all fossil fuel that will be burned and nuclear fuel in the ground FOREVER...

While I sincerely doubt that there is any merit to your claim that your tunnels will restore the Arctic Ice Cover in 5-10 year, that is merely intuitive on my part.  What is not intuitive, after 33 year in the Defense Industry, is my understanding of the US Government's Procurement Processes as well as Naval Shipyard Facilities and Production Processes.

I've taken classes on "How Washington Works".  I've worked on programs from initial concept, strategeic planning, through various design reviews, proposal development, prototype development and testing, limited rate production to full -rate production.  From initial concept until a project like this passes all reviews and is deemed ready for full-rate production is about 12-15 years.  Remember, Congress will only approve funding incrementally for each stage of this process.

Secondly, after having worked for almost 20 years, in shipyard environments worldwide, there are limits as to how fast these could be produced.  In the 15 years since I was active in that arena, I know that some shipyards have closed.  At best, there are probably only 10 shipyards with the drydock capabilities to build your tunnels, of which I'm only certain that 5 are still active.  Keeping in mind that these same shipyards will be building new warships and refurbishing old warships for the US Navy, there are limits to how many tunnel systems could be built each year.  It is unlikely that you get 10 shipyards activated and producing 10 tunnels per shipyard per year.  Very unlikely.  But even if you could eventually get to that production rate, it would take 200 years to produce 20,000 tunnel systems.

This concept is not feasible technically, practically or economically.


Policy and solutions / Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« on: July 28, 2015, 03:06:14 PM »
So you expect them to cost roughly 100,000 each? What output in kw would that supply?

Solar PV has a capacity factor of between 10 and 30% (seasonally, EIA 2011-2013), wind between 20-40% (also seasonally, opposite to PV, EIA 2011-2013).

This means your cost per kwh needs to be less than that of what solar or wind will cost in 10 years.

It is ludicrous to think that a 400 foot long structure that is meant to survive 24/7 in a marine environment can be built for $100,000.  A simple 50-60 foot motor home costs more than $300K.  Sailboats built for offshore cruising easily have more than $50K worth of marine electronics.

Remember also that these must be built in a shipyard that has either drydock or wetdock facilities that can can handle a 400 foot vessel.  The small commercial yards do not have those facilities.

Don't forget that each of these will need crew berthing, a galley and a desalinization plant.

Then there is the matter of towing one of these structures from the shipyard to it's destination in the Gulf Stream.  Ocean going tugs charge about $75K/day.

Your looking at closer to $50 Million per structure when you take all of the requirements into account.

Consequences / Re: 6 meters of SLR?
« on: July 26, 2015, 06:34:24 PM »
...P.S.:@Neven, I am not sure why you address me, but I suggest you to look who suddenly stopped arguing properly. Though it's quite amusing actually thinks he can tell an economist how to distinguish between capital and income. Dunning Kruger is my favourite...

If memory serves SH is a PhD candidate in economics.  Finishing up his dissertation?


I also share your respect for SH's valuable contributions to this forum and his insights into the complex world of economics.  It's not often that a practitioner in one of the social sciences readily admits the laws of their sciences are human constructs and not the immutable laws of physics.

I''m concerned that the belief in the "old laws" and the strive to maintain BAU, with infinite exponential growth will delay meaningful efforts to prepare for the known consequences of AGW/CC.  There may well be a very rapid transition from the state complacency to a state of pandemonium and mass panic.  I hope that I could be wrong on that.

I have more thoughts on preparing for eventual seal level rises, however, I'll wait until I've gathered all of the  pertinent data to support my thoughts.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 26, 2015, 02:41:05 PM »
The last 10 days has seen a loss of slightly more than 1.2M Km2 of SIE according to ADR-NIPR.  I think it's safe to say that the rebound is finally over.  With the current forecasts and the general state of the ice, 2015 will most probably finish the season between 3rd and 5th lowest on record.  With well above average losses in August, there's even a possibility of eclipsing 2007.  The reason 2012 is so difficult to beat is that it lost almost 2.6M Km2 in August.

Below are my updated charts and a table of projected loss scenarios, based on the average losses of years 2003-2014.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Northwest Passage thread
« on: July 25, 2015, 06:23:47 PM »
It's currently 54o (F) in Resolute, with 26 mph winds.  That should help melt and move some ice in the NW Passage.

Arctic background / Re: Peter Wadhams in Murder Mystery?
« on: July 25, 2015, 03:45:14 PM »
Being an Aficionado of murder mysteries, particularly those with global conspiracies and international intrigue, I find this to be a bit incredulous.  I have no doubt that the proponents of BAU would conspire to silence scientists using means that are unethical, deceitful, immoral and at times quasi-legal at best.  However, I doubt that they have resorted to targeted assassinations that are made to appear as accidental deaths.  It appears that Professor Wadhams is under so much stress and facing so many obstacles that it is resulting in some degree of excess paranoia.

Meanwhile, it would make a great movie.  Obviously, Jim Hunt has to have the leading role as the sleuth that has to solve the crimes.  It may even become evident that the co-conspirators are communicating via codes and symbols selectively inserted into posts and graphs on Neven's blog and forum.  What remains to be seen is which of the seductive females vying for Jim's attention is one of co-conspirators and which one is obsessed with saving planet earth.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 23, 2015, 10:06:19 PM »
In regards to ADS-NIPR (formerly IJIS) Sea Ice Extent, the last 7 days have seen a loss of slightly over 908K Km2.  It will be interesting to watch if 2015 will continue have above average losses through the middle of August.  Personally, I can not see any path for 2015 to eclipse 2012.  As for 2011 & 2007, they are vulnerable but not yet seriously threatened.  Will update and post my graphs and projections sometime over the weekend.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 23, 2015, 09:57:30 PM »
I miss interesting forecasts from Frivolous21.  Any idea where he is hiding.

Friv also posts over at AmericanWX as The_Global_Warmer. His most recent post:

Verbatim the 12 euro destroys the Western CAB throughout most of the run.

It's better than the gfs which leaves the ridge more ESS centered.

But that Southerly flow from the Warm continental air mass is a Western CAB killer.



Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 23, 2015, 08:03:52 PM »
I miss interesting forecasts from Frivolous21.  Any idea where he is hiding.


sorry, i'm confused, all that happened because of an inch of rain?  or is that a foot of rain?  hurricànes and tropical storms are capable of producing a foot of rain in a day, so from context i feel like it should be a foot, but i'm used to the convention where ' indicates a foot and " indicates an inch.... but i know thats a rather unofficial convention and people here post from all over the world so i could be wrong.

Sorry for the confusions.  There are two parts to this story.

The area of the eastern desert where the bridge was washed away received over 7" (inches) in a very short period of time.  This was enough to destroy the bridge.

In Sand Diego, they only received 1.69" (inches).  However, that was enough to set the dramatic record.

Policy and solutions / Re: Underwater suspension tunnels
« on: July 22, 2015, 02:20:20 AM »
This idea has been bandied about since 2007 by Patrick McNulty (Patrick12 here and Cyclonebuster at Wunderground).  I mention his name, because today he has been bugging the regulars at Dr. Ricky Rood's Weather Underground climate blog to help him identify Neven by his full name, found it, and published it.  He claims it is important to know a blogger's full name.  I think he is trying to get you to "promote his idea."

From my perspective, I cannot see that the infamous Cyclonebuster "tunnels" idea has merit at this time.  He spammed Dr.Rood's blog with it many times, and is no longer allowed to do that.  In eight years, there have been no engineering studies, feasibility studies or anything else that could remotely be referred to as rigorous research and analysis. 

The only "testing" of the concept was a simplistic "prototype" gadget with a few PVC pipes in a local creek.  (LINK to YouTube video.)  Yet it is touted as "THE SOLUTION" to global warming.  The purveyor of this primitive and untested scheme gets upset when challenged and asked for more information or evidence of serious development.  After eight years, it is still at ground zero. 

I see underwater suspension tunnels as an interesting basic principle, but its feasibility is supported only by an extremely primitive prototype.  Such a large marine geoengineering project based on a floating monstrosity in the Gulf Stream would be massive, complex and expensive, and require constant expensive maintenance.  I cannot see it surviving major hurricanes.  No real engineer seems interested in pursuing it after eight years of promotion on blogs. 

Below is the only graphic of the proposal - the only document that goes beyond generalized  discussions of the concept.  I am not aware of any additional "engineering" for this proposal which is touted as a sure way to reverse global warming: 

If anyone sees merit in this "tunnels"proposal, I will listen to any rational and logical arguments. 

I concur with Xullon wholeheartedly.  I first saw this cartoon concept on the Wunderground in 2012.  Having spent much of my career in shipyard construction environments and at sea facing the elements, I decided to identify the many flaws to the initial concept as well as the potential development costs and numerous regulatory hurdles.  Having worked on $100M+ proposals for both the Department of Defense and NASA, I felt I was giving "12Patrick" or "Cyclonebuster" my professional opinion.  Assuming the concept was scientifically sound, which  I  doubt, getting a prototype built and approved for at-sea testing would take a minimum of 5 years and well in excess of $150M.  My opinions, nor those of other, were not listened to.  I could go on, but this idea has been debunked for years.

What the Weekend Rains Did to Southern California—and What a Real Hurricane Could Do

By: By: Bob Henson , 3:07 PM GMT on July 21, 2015 - Wunderground

Full Post:

Figure 1. Emergency crews respond after a pickup truck crashed into the collapse of an elevated section of Interstate 10 on Sunday, July 19, 2015, in Desert Center, Calif. The bridge, which carries the eastbound interstate about 15 feet above a normally dry wash, snapped and ended up in the flooding water below, the California Highway Patrol said, blocking all traffic headed toward Arizona. Image credit: Chief Geoff Pemberton/CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire, via AP.

This is weird!

If some one had asked me a few weeks ago for places in Southern California that needed infrastructure improvements in preparation for threats of Climate Change, it would not have been a remote bridge on Interstate-10 in the barren desert near the Arizona border.  I've driven across that bridge no less than 20 times in my life.  Fortunately no lives were lost, however, the long range impact will be felt for a long while.  That stretch of highway is a vital  transportation link between Phoenix and Los Angeles.  I've driven that stretch in temperatures approaching 120o(F), without the benefit of air conditioning.  I'd hate to think of doing on the back road detours.

One of the most amazing factoids of bob Henson's post is the two-day rainfall in San Diego that was a remnant of TS Dolores:

San Diego’s Lindbergh Field measured a whopping 1.69” on Saturday and Sunday—more rain than in any other July in San Diego records that go back to 1850 (the runner-up was 1.29” in July 1865). Midsummer is typically bone-dry in San Diego, with June through August racking up a combined average of just 0.14”. Amazingly, the past weekend produced more rain in San Diego than the previous 100 Julys combined (1915 – 2014).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 20, 2015, 09:23:25 PM »
Mea Culpa Time!!

It's never fun to admit having made a substantial mistake, particularly when it is in something you have made public.  When I first built my SIE models last spring, somehow I erroneously entered the wrong value for the Record MAX Loss for the latter half of August, by an amount in excess of ~400K. Therefore, my charts and tables wrongly indicated that there was some small chance of catching 2012 values this year.  My apologies to everyone for the mistake. Please note that any plots or results using average values for each period were correct. I'll assign the mistake to one of the following:

Partial vision in one eye
Attention Deficit Disorder
Lack of due diligence
The aging process
Here are corrected versions of both the chart and the table.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 20, 2015, 04:54:28 PM »

Can you explain the methodology by which you looked for it?

A  methodology to look at a graph ? Come on, you are looking for more than there is into this.

I have no idea what criteria you are using to make the current rate of area decrease stand out as in any way exceptional.

So in English the words remarkable and exceptional are synonymous? Perhaps it is my simple English but that is not what is meant.

I did choose the word "remarkable" with some care. I did not want to imply anything about significance. Instead I am in the process of trying to understand the day-to-day changes, using the different sources of information that are available each day. The CT-area path is mostly a rocky road, the eleven day smooth pause is noticeable (is that a better word?) enough.

So that is the second point where you missed my intended meaning: it is not the current rate but the constancy of it.

All in all, I always like to word things better when it causes misunderstandings and did so in the past. I am not sure how to have done it here, but am open to suggestions.

We are beginning to get obsessed with semantics.  What may be "exceptional" or "remarkable" to one person may be mundane to someone else.  We should remember that for many members of this Forum, English is a second or third language.  Even among native English speakers there are significant semantic differences between countries and regions within a given country.  I found  this to be true when I had the opportunities to work with the British and Australian navies.

I have the utmost respect for the massive efforts Wipneus has made to both the Forum and the Blog.  His charts, graphs and animations have been "Exceptionally" valuable learning tools for each of us.  His choice of adjectives and adverbs is entirely up to him.

This thread is not about "Scientific Technical Writing 101"

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 19, 2015, 12:30:55 PM »

Considering the losses of the past few days and the current forecasts for the next week, I am willing to say that 2015 will almost certainly end up below 2013 and 2014.  I now also think that 2007 and 2011 are vulnerable, although it will still take favorable melt conditions for the remainder of the season. As to 2012, it's probably safe for now.

The big question is this; how rotten, mushy and slushy will the remaining ice be when this current attack of heat ends?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 18, 2015, 01:07:57 PM »
IJIS SIE has lost 290K in just two days.  It will be interesting to see how many more century losses will occur before the end of July.

I know it's too early to get excited.......yet, this is exciting to watch.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 17, 2015, 01:41:50 PM »
would love to see more, OL.  Good to have you back.


Thanks.  I'll keep the chart updated and post it on a weekly basis, +/_ a few days.

Yesterdays IJIS SIE loss was 155K.  The average daily loss for the last 16 days of July is about 87K, while the record loss was over 99K. 

In following the comments and charts on the 2015 Melting Season topic, it would appear that we are in for a week to ten days of significant melting.  The  question remains, how much of that will be seen in SIE loss. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 16, 2015, 07:20:35 PM »
Since we're on the topic of 2015 setting the stage for 2016, how about considering the the SSTs in the North Pacific.  The lack of significant sea ice in the Bering and Okhotz seas contributed to this years record low maximum SIE.  Will there be enough heat left in those areas this winter to further reduce ice growth in those regions.  Is it possible that we are soon to enter time when when seen the last of sea ice in the Bering and Okhotz seas forever??

Consequences / Re: 6 meters of SLR?
« on: July 16, 2015, 06:58:12 PM »
There are several factors regarding SLR that I think are not being adequately addressed. 

The first factor is that I hear and read a lot of chatter about evacuating certain major population centers, such as Miami.  I'd like to point out that there is a very significant difference between evacuation and a permanent abandonment.  For an abandonment to be done in an environmentally sound manner would mean draining all underground fuel storage tanks, capping all underground gas lines, emptying sewer systems and demolishing high rise structures. And that is just a beginning of the myriad of things that should be planned for and funded properly.

The second factor regards preparing seaports for anticipated SLR.  Every seaport has a different and unique surrounding topography.  I've worked in and visited dozens of seaports worldwide.  Those seaports surrounded by mountainous terrain or coastal bluffs may require losing a few hundred yards of coastal infrastructure and having the piers elevated appropriately.  Whereas port facilities such as Houston, Texas and other Gulf Coast ports are a far more difficult matter.  These are areas that are already subsiding and are surrounded by low elevation swampland.  The decision as to which ones to protect and which ones to permanently abandon will not be easy and will be politically charged to the point of civil unrest.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2015 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 16, 2015, 04:34:33 PM »

At first look, it would appear that 2015 has only a slight chance of competing with 2007 and 2011 and no realistic path to approaching 2012's minimum.  My projections, from the current date use the average losses (2004 - 2014), average + 10%, average - 10%, as well as record minimum  and maximum losses for each  semi-monthly period.  I've stopped the projections on September 15th, because after that there is too much noise in the data to be meaningful.

Because there is still a significant amount of ice left in both the Hudson and Baffin bays, my projections are probably skewed somewhat high.  The general consensus is that these regions will be essentially ice-free by early September, if not sooner. Therefore, I'm not going to rule out having a minimum less that 2007 or 2011.

Setting a new record low SIE this year, will require maintaining near-record losses during the last half of July and first half of August, followed by new record losses in late August and/or early September.  Obviously, it will take ideal melt and transport conditions to prevail. 

If anyone finds this chart useful, I can post updates weekly, bi-weekly or never again.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 14, 2015, 11:16:51 PM »
I have 3 questions:

1.  Is it correct that the current SIE in the Hudson and Baffin Bays is ~750K?

2.  Is it a reasonable certainty that both Hudson and Baffin will melt out completely in 2015? If so, when?

3.  For the next few weeks, what regions of the Arctic are most vulnerable to significant losses?

I've only just got round to downloading and reviewing data from the last few days, been busy.

1. Don't know, haven't had the chance to check.

2. Haven't they generally melted out in recent years? I think they will melt out.

3. Watch Chukchi, ESS, Laptev, what's happening there is very exciting.


While watching a slideshow of Bremen for the last few years I was reminded of "2010: The Year We Make Contact". Where Jupiter darkens and shrinks....

Anyone see any dark rectangles on Modis?  ;)

Thanks Chris!!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 14, 2015, 10:49:35 PM »
I have 3 questions:

1.  Is it correct that the current SIE in the Hudson and Baffin Bays is ~750K?

2.  Is it a reasonable certainty that both Hudson and Baffin will melt out completely in 2015? If so, when?

3.  For the next few weeks, what regions of the Arctic are most vulnerable to significant losses?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2015 melting season
« on: July 14, 2015, 04:48:16 PM »
Is it my impression or are the models slowly moving away from the high pressure-anomalous heat combination? High pressure remains over Greenland, but is much less expansive, starting 4-5 days from now.

 I'd say that is wrong


Thanks for bringing  this thread back ON TOPIC!!

While I don't comment or post on this forum as frequently as I did in past years I'm still here on a daily basis.  When I click on this thread, I do it to find out about the 2015 melt season. I want to know what is happening, why it is happening and what is likely to happen in the remaining few months of the melt season.  I value the knowledge and expertise of the vast majority of contributors to this Forum.

Like many others, I have an interest about all of the aspects of Global AGW/CC, both the sciences involved and the potential impacts.  However, I will search for the appropriate topics on other threads.  If i want science fiction, I'll go to the bookstore!

Neven just commented a few entries ago about comments that bleonged elsewhere.  Please folks, let's get back on track.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 11, 2015, 05:41:45 PM »
For 2015 SIE to catch up to 2012 by July 31st would require average daily drops of 122K, for 21 straight days.

For 2015 SIE to catch up to 2012 by August 31st would require average daily drops of 122K, for 52 straight days.

Unless we start seeing a number of multi-century drops in the next few weeks, it's going to be hard to set anew record this year.  We may need a "Super GAC-12" in late August to stir up and flush out a massive amount of rubble.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 12