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 - F.Tnioli

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 24, 2020, 05:34:44 AM »
...
Going to be never before seen melt IN MODERN HUMAN HISTORY.
...
Small talk, Friv. Hell small talk!

Never before seen melt IN ALL DARN BILLIONS OF YEARS EARTH EXISTED!!!

That's what it is, man. When we say "in human history", it's like "oh well geologically human history is just a tiny blip of geological past, and this probably happened some time before human history began" impression.

Wrong impression.

All the data i know of about geological past has no such rapid ice ice loss ever discovered / described. And one particularly well made research about it which i can recommend - is this quite recent one. It plainly states, quote (my bold):

"That means, sea‐ice conditions similar to those reconstructed for the late Miocene may occur in about 2–3 decades. Although the sea‐ice conditions might be similar, however, the rate of change was quite different between both situations. Whereas the recent change from a permanent to a seasonal central Arctic Ocean sea‐ice cover (strongly driven by anthropogenic forcing; cf. Notz & Stroeve, 2016) proceeds over a few decades, the corresponding past (natural) change probably occurred over thousands of years".

We are truly witnessing our planet going through a sort of fever it never before suffered, gentlemen. Ever.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 22, 2020, 06:32:40 PM »
Note to Neven / Oren

<Original post moved to posting style thread. O>

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 20, 2020, 05:50:15 PM »
Today's Yale piece on this melting season, comes with a few lively pictures and a few quite funny statements among the others.

Like their graph which is a bit "softened" in terms of how bad it looks (15th last date, running average - small ways to "tone it down a little" eh). Or like while some of us discuss chances for BOE this very season, the piece notes that "most of the models now produce a blue ocean event prior to 2050, even if major emission cuts are put into place". 2050? Seriously? Wow. Sigh. They'll probably keep saying that even after BOE happens. It'd be extremely funny if it wouldn't be extremely sad. :-\

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:55:33 AM »
This is one of the things I'm looking forward to whether that could happen. It's not a BOE, but an ice-less pole is sort of a milestone in its own way. I think this would reach international news too.
This melt season has already reached international news, actually. This one recent CBS piece starts with siberian heat story, but follows it up with sea ice, Laptev situation (graph) and such.

This season is and will remain one for the history books and plenty breakthrough research for the years to come - no matter if it's BOE, open pole, both or neither.

5
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 19, 2020, 11:30:29 AM »
Thank you Oren, and thank you ArcticMelt2, for not answering my queries above despite my specific requests for you both to do so. This shows clearly i am dealing with nothing else, and nothing but, hypocrisy here. I know this is strong accusation and nothing pleasant to hear, gentlemen; it brings me no joy to attack anyone's ego, and the point is not to do so. But rather, the point is to present the only logical conclusion i can make in result of above discussion, in order to guide further discussion (or raher, lack of) for those (probably few) who would side with me on the matter. I hope you will not grudge.

Oh and that paper, ArcticMelt2, has one "Mark Z. Jacobson" as its lead author. Stanford professor alright. The guy advocates 100% wind + solar + hydro for US through his career, despite the fact it's impossible to do in practice in any observable future, as well known to any person who spent more than few days studying how power grids work. Further, when confronted about it, the guy filed a lawsuit demanding 10M USD in damages: "In 2017, Ken Caldeira and 20 other researchers published the largest focused critique of Jacobson's "100% Renewable world" paper.[68] David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, a co-author of the critique of Jacobson’s model for a cheap "100% renewable world", was motivated to contribute to the paper "when policy makers started using this [Jacobson] paper for scientific support," when it was "obviously incorrect".[69] This 2017 critique resulted in Jacobson filing a lawsuit against the peer-reviewed scientific journal the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Christopher Clack as the principal author of the paper, demanding $10 million in damages for defamation.[68] News reports and academics have criticized the lawsuit.[70][71][72][73] Jacobson withdrew the lawsuit in 2018 after re-evaluating the time and cost associated with potential appeals, stating that when he filed the lawsuit, he expected a settlement.[74]".

But sure, it's a scientific paper, it's a computer model, can't be wrong! Yeah. Sure. Matter solved. /s

I'm out of here.

6
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 19, 2020, 02:49:43 AM »
So there was this year with a big crash and then some recovery from that. So you ploy the yearly values and draw a line but that is not how that works.

If you look at a youtube movie of the ice over the years you can see it change to now where we only have a failing skeleton of bigger ice left. The trend will not keep reversing and hence you don´t need your theory.
I did not talk about "single year with a big crash". I talked about a trend, and about how that trend was reversed. Please note that "trend" means a number of years forming clear progression - like decline or increase. And that number can not be "1" or "2" or "3". It takes 5+ years to even start a trend. One or two years with big dips happened even back in 1980s as shown on that same graph, but there was no jaw-dropping declinining trend like there was in 2000s. Why trends are important and single years are not? In short, because this thread is about aircraft contrails influence on sea ice, and to explain my opinion on that subject, an argument was made which requires to observe certain trends, but not single years.

Your inability (or worse, an act of intentional faked ignorance) to grasp even such most basic words - such as "trend" - makes me unwilling to comment your post in any further detail. Sorry.  :-\

7
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 18, 2020, 10:57:49 PM »
I am willing to read references on the effects of airline flights on the Artic, hopefully scientific references, or calculations by members.
However, I am unwilling to entertain chemtrails, conspiracies and hidden campaigns that no one knows about. Sorry, don't be offended, but not on this forum.
Nor am i.

Do you have anything to continue the discussion of any other possible causes of the trend reversal i mentioned prior with? I do not see a single word from you regarding my objections towards your ideas of MYI and weather influences, in particular.

Or THAT is also "conspiracy theories" now?

The ice of my trust gets a little thin here, old friend...

8
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 18, 2020, 08:32:56 PM »
Abrasiveness is common for bulk alumina compounds, yes. However, it's not those compounds i was talking about. It's no secret that "... properties of bulk alumina that allow it to be such a versatile element in the industry are different from those of its nanoparticles". And as can be seen from other applications of the matherial, industries produce different shapes of Al2O3 nanometer-scale particulate - including spherical ones.

Most commonly used method of making the stuff, which is laser ablation in inert gas, produces quite very smooth surfaces - at scale involved, surface tension is very efficient. This and well smoothed fuel lines are simple and (relatively) cheap methods to prevent wear and tear good enough. And with AL2O3 melting point being over 2k degrees C, things remain well-shaped through and through in the engine, as jet engines of modern airlines are well known to have maximum burn temperature at or below 2k C.

SO2 was ruled out of any perspective GE applications fairly large number of years ago - not because it's way less effective as noted above, but also because large scale implementation leads to obvious problems with acidity. H2SO4, which forms as SO2 freely reacts with H2O, is one very agressive substance. Acid rains were enough problem in the past for WH folks not to repeat the mistake. Also, you can't easily have SO2 in jet fuel as fiel burning always occurs with substantial presense of H2O from outside air - you'd lose large amount of SO2 exactly as it happened in old-style coal plants responsible for much of acid rains around the globe. But Al2O3? Easy peasy. Reacts with nothing short of strongest bases, which are of course absent up there.

Those are not the only but already more than sufficient - and rather simple - causes to not see SO2 used for the job at the required (for desired effect) scale.

9
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 18, 2020, 07:40:55 PM »
No, Oren, neither weather nor MYI loss is enough.

The latter is one big contributor to what we had so far, i agree with that much. But not the main cause. MYI loss happened because extra energy in Arctic surface layer entered and melted it. We know where that energy came from, and after 2012 there is even more of it, not less. In the near absense of MYI, that energy, should it keep coming in in ever growing amounts, would unavoidably result in further rapid loss of minimum volume and extent: you know full well that as long as any ice remains at the surface, that energy can't be spent to anything else, like extra evaporation or surface temperature increase. But this further accelerating melt at the minimum did not happen. Conclusion: there was significant decrease in overall amount of energy reaching Arctic surface layers, net total per a melt season. Despite all the drivers which remain in action to pump more and more of it there. Something has to block that energy flow after 2012. Absense of MYI can't do it.

As for weather variability, it's sure there, but it always was there. The beauty of that graph is that it contains data all the way since 1980. And we see what weather can do, by seeing the scale of resulting variability: in 1980s, the trend was "slow decline", and fair amount of variability then demonstrates how much it can do when Arctic is more or less balanced energy-wise. In 1990s, the trend changed to more rapid loss of minimums, and as you can easily see size of year-to-year swings decreased in compare to 1980s: this is because peripheral seas began to have much harder time about getting more ice due to freeze-favorable weather simply because of amount of heat stored around. In 2000s, the trend became very rapid loss, and due to same but more prounounced factors weather variability played even less role than in 1990s. This all is pretty clear from merely eye-balling that graph, so strong are the forces involved. If those observations would be expressed in numbers and percentages, some truly stunning figures would appear.

365-day average volume reaching lowest ever in 2017 is likely due to less effects during winter times. I gathered some information about volume of production of Al2O3 nanometer-sizes particulates (which is being done on indeed industrial scale) and corresponding costs. The thing is not free to make nor to distribute. Nobody who would be able to pull that off would have the freedom to just keep doing it with same intensity and amount all year long. One must understand that welsbach seeding was never intended as any kind of permanent solution, too. Even its creators noted that it's a temporary measure, one which also further worsens long-term conditions at that. The main goal is not to "heal" Arctic nor "revert" AGW; merely to "buy some time" both in terms of postponing irreversible BOE state (which would have much damaging effects all around the globe) - trillions USD damages are at stake here; and also to "prevent public worry" for same "some time", which mainly requires an "impression" that ASI is still there and doing "OK". Extent does not fall, major publications note "recovery"? Good enough, "job well done".

As for "unreported", it did not go unpreported, Oren. I've seen reports - by airline pilots, scientists, private enthusiasts aplenty. Testimonies in courts. Detailed papers about it. But i am telling you, it's being supressed. Publications vanish. Recordings disappear. I'd give you plenty examples, but they are not around anymore. I have some saved on my drives, but you know, "i can take the hint" - no intention to rock this boat so much by republishing them. Mere scale of the campaign dedicated to make clowns out of anyone who even dare use the term "chemtrail" in any manner - indicates to me it's best not to play hero too much. So i'm sorry, but you'll have to dig yourslf if you'd want to find such reports, leaks and notices. I assure you, quite many still can be found.

Good luck.

10
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 18, 2020, 03:56:04 PM »
Very curious why you said what you just did. I'll answer 1st, then provide few statements which i hope you will find possible to comment, ArcticMelt2.

I am so sure about prevalence of cooling from contrails because i've spent serious amount of time digging into the matter. The information i provided in the above post is but a tip of an iceberg of knowledge i accumulated. May i offer you to research the subject of global dimming in general, and reported role of contrails in it in particular. Warning: you will definitely find contradicting statements and papers if you would try, and you will need good methods of deducting which ones are false, if the goal is to obtain any good knowledge. It will most likely take months if not years to make any good progress in understanding it, - at least, took for me.

As for SO2, it was proven much inferiour for welsbach seeding in compare to Al2O3. 2...4 times inferiour by mass, if memory serves. Lowell Wood did detailed research about it, but presently i don't think his results are available for the public. They were several years ago, but since then were removed from public access as far as i can see.

Now, few things i'd like you to comment for me - very curious to see what (if any) you would have to say:

- solar cycle is not "13...16" years, which you stated seeing you used word "equal", - it's 11 years;

- we know that "... solar luminosity is an estimated 0.07 percent brighter during the mid-cycle solar maximum than the terminal solar minimum". I.e., the difference is less than 1/1000th. Blaming solar cycles for major, and more importantly unprecedented and clearly non-rhythmic (seeing back to 1980s and 1990s) changes in minimum sea ice volume is therefore massively wrong;

- while it's true that short-wave radiation (UV, X-ray) has major, solar-cycle variable effect on Earth's upper athmosphere, any idea that this process through some unknown cause-effect chain would cause the revert of the trend i mentioned crashes into the same argument: if this would be the main cause, then we would clearly see 11-year pattern in minimum arctic sea ice: the loss would occur in "dips and recoveries" manner, or at very least "dips and pauses", over the decades since 1979. But we don't. This reversal is one unique event in the history of satellite observations, so massive that it also is clearly reflected by extent annual minimums as well, with 2012 to this day holding the minimum record.

11
Permafrost / Re: Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 18, 2020, 03:12:47 PM »
I think you need more science to establish a linkage between flights or lack thereof and intensity of ice melt. (Perceived) correlation is not necessarily causation. Has there been any paper quantifying the effect of flights on Arctic atmosphere, insolation, cloudiness, etc.?
None i currently know of. Not specifically about the Arctic, that is.

The subject is touchy. And i can explain to you why. Look, we know that past-2012 seasonal minimum ice volume trend has not only stopped, but even reversed. We know it happened despite ever growing GHG concentrations, despite all the positive feedbacks in play by 2012 which were much responsible for the acceleration of said trend pre-2013, and despite ever growing global surface temperatures and Arctic amplification, none of which were suddenly "gone" after 2012. Still, we see this:



This little graph is partially my creation, namely i added dots for minimum volumes after 2012, CO2 content numbers on top, and slowly gaining-minimum-volume line for years after 2012.

I am quite sure you know the scale of energies involved in those processes. In short, they exceed whatever kinds of energy mankind generates, every year. This kind of trend reversal, given circumstances, can not occur without extremely powerful new factor in the post-2012 ASI affairs.

To this date, the only known to me technology which could _possibly_ introduce such factor - is welsbach seeding. You can easily find corresponding patents by Hughes Aircraft Company filed in some 1991, if memory serves. The only known to be carrier of it into the Arctic - are those thousands of flights, with notable increase of their numbers exactly during Arctic melt season (as most people prefer to take vacations and travel not in winter, but in summer).

Lots of artificial nonsense about "chemtrails" in the net very much looks like indeed noise made on purpose to hide something. Way too much "obviously ridiculous" websites and statements around. For example, in lots of places you will find them "chemtrail crazies" stating that special tanks and nozzles are installed into civilian aircraft to produce the trails. In reality, jet fuel can simply be altered itself, adding required substances into it. And if you'd try to find out _what_ exactly are fuel additives for modern western types of most commonly used jet fuel - detailed formulae - all of a sudden you will "hit a wall". The information is nowhere to be found.

Now if Welsbach takes place any significantly, it can not take place in the open: public reacts very badly if they discover some "governments" and "companies" spread unknown chemicals over their heads. Aluminium oxide, for example, is known to cause some very bad health effects. Not to mention all the uncertainties about such methods in principle, especially long-term.

Indeed, i've seen recordings of US court hearings of "people vs state" kind, where citizens were presenting results of laboratory analysis of surface water and snow in places they inhabit, demonstrating enourmous violations against maximum allowed levels of certain pollutants as well as showing that the only source of that pollution could be with precipitation / air particles, such as taking sampels from high mountain regions with no kinds of human business existing anywhere near or uphill.

This is why, i'm plenty sure, there are no honestly made, scientific papers on the subject.

I'd be extremely grateful if you could provide any other, however hypothetical, explanation to what we see in the above graph, Oren. But so far, the line "contrails have massive cooling effect" is kind of "good manners" way for people who know a bit or two about what's going on to discuss related matters, you see. Especially in public.

P.S. I've sent this graph to Neven and some other gentlemen, last year. Noone can provide any alternative ideas as to why it happens. But here's one little detail: since then, the copy of this graph which i uploaded to one of image sharing services - was deleted. That service never deletes  user uploaded pictures in less than a year, at no circumstance, by its scripts. Someone deleted it by hand. This is by far not the only sign i see around that the subject is more than "touchy" - it's actuvely supressed. Personally, i'm quite sure such supression is indeed required in any widely watched / heard (by public) mass media, but overdoing it, in the same time, - i think is counter-productive. But we have what we have.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:41:53 PM »
...
Weather forecasts have become less accurate during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the reduction in commercial flights, according to new research.
...
Good post, but all discussion detailing air traffic subject is to be done in this separate topic as requested by our moderator Oren here, couple pages ago. So, you can save him a bit of work if you would put a copy of your full good post there and remove it in this topic. Thanks!

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 02:36:35 PM »
That wasn't a typo. It's a racial slur and was done on purpose.
It's important to give benefit of the doubt to people we like, but twice so to people we don't, IMHO. Otherwise it's escalation of hostilities...

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 12:31:33 PM »
Love what FRIZ contributes here. But November melt is a concept I'm taking a hard PASS on.
Geez, you're not a very pleasant fella now are you? It's FRIV, not FRIZ. Please don't misspell him, we love the guy and it hurts our feelings when you do!  :'(

As for taking a hard pass on, perhaps it'll be interesting for you to read this piece piblished in 2016, and in particular those words in it, quote:

"Both the Arctic and Antarctic experienced record lows in sea ice extent in November, with scientists astonished to see Arctic ice actually retreating at a time when the region enters the cold darkness of winter".

I dare think it is clear that "arctic ice retreating at the time" means melt and nothing else. Have you anything to object, or will you agree you were wrong and apologize for posting factually incorrect information? Your reaction - or lack of - to this post will tell us much who you are and how to react to any of your future contributions, so i thank you in advance for it.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 06:35:14 PM »
Melt pretty much stops the last week of August when insolation is at half the solstice-max. Three weeks later, in mid September, insolation hits ZERO.

Melting in the dark is a big NOPE.

I wonder what Friv would say about this. Like was mentioned few pages ago:

I am starting to think that the real wonders will come after September-October. All that insolation had to warm up the seas very much and it will take a very long time for them to cool down. We could see a very late freezing season with a steady low pressure system and plenty of clouds...
Yes, probably a jump start above 80N into the freezing season and then a painfully slow freeze in increments, depending on the weather.

with such thin ice that late, FRIV's idea of a partial november re-melt becomes a possibility as well.

November re-melt - probably some space mirrors channeling summer sun all the way back? ;D

Further, back in the old days, and i mean really old days, geologically - Arctic was ice-free 24/365 with crocodiles (who just can't live in freezing water) happily inhabiting the waters. Last i heard, Earth was still going same 40000-year cycles between 22...24.5 tilt. Means same polar night as we have today.

I hope you won't try to convince us it's modern paleontologists who secretly transported crocodile fossils into the Arctic to make some sensation in some journal for "discovering" 'em...  8)

edit: oh and this is not discussing this melt season minimum date a slightest. That's me protesting against unacceptably wrong statement - and made in CAPS at that.  >:(

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 06:13:14 PM »
I humbly disagree, the latest minimum ever was I think 22nd (was that 2007?), one of the early ones was 2016 (the 8th? 9th?). Despite the heat in the system I very much doubt a minimum on 25th-30th. This will have to wait for a BOE, until then the surface water is cold and fresh where ice has recently melted, and freezing isn't hard once air temps hit a strong negative.
It's true though that a compacted ice pack refreezes later than a dispersed one, because refreeze usually starts from the center where it is cold earlier, and because open water beyond the pack's edges has time to become mixed and has higher salinity and SST. So it depends on the shape of the pack in September.

In any case, this discussion will be more appropriate later in the season as we get nearer to the minimum.
I agree this discussion should wait about at least a month. However, based on what you said here, i think you might find an interesting thing or two by merely quickly reading the abstract of this mid-2000s paper. Perhaps whole text would also be valuable to you, too. Well, till late august with more on that, then.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 05:50:43 PM »
It is almost a certainty, thus, that 2020 will be the new lowest of all time. To me, the only question is not "if" 2020 will beat 2012; the only question is by how much.

That's a brave statement while the "almost" contradicts the "only question" part a bit.

Be assured that I see things exactly like you do, only with one little caution. We have gotten by surprises so many times in the past that I would sign your views off but with a "most probably" instead of "only question"

Really curious about the outcome like most probably anyone else.

 8)
Can't agree. The question "if" is answered with "almost certainly it will". Certain international panel uses the term "very likely" in such circumstances. Thus, in practice the interesting question by now is not "if", but rather how much 2020's minimum is expected to dip under 2012 in "most likely to happen" scenario.

In other words, there is no contradiction. "The only question" is for short; "the only indeed interesting question in this regard" is what was meant.

P.S. Oren: i am surprised to see the old (and quite good) tradition of keeping a beginning of a forking good discussion (a post or two) in melt topic and moving follow-ups to a separate thread while providing a link and invitation to such thread to anyone willing to continue - has changed. Complete removal of such beginnings from melt season topic is detrimental to its health a bit, i feel. Just an opinion for your consideration, hopefully helpful one. A copy of a post or two is probably the ideal solution, though i of course don't know if it's technically possible / easy-to-do with your tools. Still i think it'd be best for such future cases (no matter who begins next one of the kind - it's inevitable it'll happen regularly as we see over and over again, eh). %)

18
Permafrost / Re: Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 12:21:25 PM »
Thank you very informative.
You make me blush, man. %)

Here's one extra thing to perhaps complete the story:



See, up to ~1990s (great many) folks flying from US to China were going sort of "around" ESS and such, but the more long-range airliners entered service, the more "over pacific half of the Arctic" direct flights were happening. Now, i'm sure you know how in 2000s and especially 2010s atlantic half of minimum extent was giving up way faster than pacific side, in general. Hardly a coincedence. Further, we now see how this melting season, pacific half, especially russian side of it, is vanishing fast (relatively slow american side melt is significantly due to early-season cold anomaly there). Hardly a coincedence, too.

The sad part is (my bold): "The scattering properties of the ice crystals in contrails and natural cirrus are different and result in differences in their radiative forcing. Figure 4 illustrates the effect of ice particle sizes and habits of contrails, contrail-induced cirrus, and natural cirrus on the solar and infrared radiation. The influences of particle effective size and habit on radiation are stronger for solar radiation than for infrared radiation, particularly for thicker cirrus clouds" (page 11 of this paper). Thus, we won't see as much extra cooling once it's (mostly) dark in a given region of Arctic towards the end of the melting season as we see extra melt now at high insolation. In other words, for the ice, it's better when lots of planes are flying over it - and now they don't.

19
Permafrost / Impact of aircraft flights on ice melting
« on: July 17, 2020, 11:37:45 AM »
Airplane trail?

Pretty positive that's it.
Normally there would be hundreds of them in various states of dissipation, forming a veil making it difficult to so clearly see single ones:



The usual half-a-CAB "highway" between US and China&Co especially dense, as you can see. However right now, this is not the case. This recent ICAO publication provides one excellent infographic, which shows how international air travel dropped to nearly nada, and is not in any hurry to recover - note the blue line:



Thus, it is no surprise to me we now see those trails as clearly as never before: single trees are always seen in greatest detail when standing single and not in a dense forest, so to say.

I wonder if anybody could any well quantify how much of an increase this particular 2020's development had on the melting momentum increase from GAAC. Personally, i estimate it be ~12% plus-minus couple percent of an increase, averaged over whole Arctic. This is based on published pan evaporate multi-decadal measurements from a number of NH locations initially meant for agriculture but later used to estimate global dimming phenomena; yet this is not even napkin calc - only a rude guess, as i don't even fathom how to do one in this case. If someone can anyhow improve on that - please do.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 10:53:30 AM »
Regardless of what happens from here on out, 2020 has carved out a deep new low range for Arctic sea ice for part of the year and will be one for the books.  In my appraisal this means it is already a very bad year for the ice.  Keep setting new lows for different days and sooner or later one of those days will be September 16th.  We definitely will never carve out new highs for any day of the year henceforth.
Looks like, yes. Just one little detail: September 16th is not very likely for the minimum. Rather, something like September 25th...30th, more like. The reason is all the extra heat in the system likely to extend melting season a bit. The trend of it is well obvious, if one would plot a graph of 5-year running-means from 1980s all the way to 2019. It slowly extends, obviously with lots of noise outta weather effects this or that particular season. But this one, with the GAAC and remaining effect of cleaner air due to less air travel and industries much of the spring and summer due to all the quarantines around the NH - one would expect the lengthening of the season to be especially likely to be big. Which, of course, would lead to lower minimum than would "normally" be expected - more time to melt things, more things melt out in the end.

It's melting momentum, i call it. The bigger it gets, the longer it takes to exhaust its potential with everything else being "usual". And right now, it's big.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 03:22:59 AM »
I think it needs to be pointed out here...

Average loss over the last 5 years between the current date and minimum works out to approximately 3.58 million km2.

That gives us a September minimum of approximately 3.4 million km2.

Emphasizing... With *Average* melt. Average.

Even the lowest of the last 20-odd (2014) would put us in spitting distance of 2nd-4th.

2nd lowest minimum is almost a certainty at this point.

If we see melt like 2012, we're looking at a September minimum of 2.5 million km2 +/- pocket change.

And quite conviniently, right after OffTheGrid mentions that (my bold):

I split the Hycom month animation of thickness and this is three weeks ago, today, and forecast in a week.
The melt last three weeks has been phenomenal. ...

Now, JDallen, here's my point: when we see phenomenal melt rates for weeks on end at the peak of a melt season - we should not anyhow expect "average loss" further into the season. It is very simple: phenomenal melt rates have consequences into nearest future. When you have them, it means you just got a ton of energy into the system - this or that way, does not matter (for this particular point i am making here). Then and only then phenomenal melt rates can actually occur.

But this same exceptional amount of energy which entered near-surface layer in Arctic during recent weeks - way above average, - is not going to "poof" right tomorrow. Phenomenal melt rates means equally phenomenal SSTs, phenomenal albedo drops, phenomenally high water heat content near surface. And those will continue to influence further melt for weeks and even months ahead, phenomenally much.

Granted, weather is always fluctuating and there is some small chance that with _phenomenally_ melt-halting weather further on, we'd indeed end up with "Average loss over the last 5 years between the current date and minimum". But it's one very small chance. With average weather, we should expect at least half-phenomenal further ice loss during this season. Not "average" at all.

It is almost a certainty, thus, that 2020 will be the new lowest of all time. To me, the only question is not "if" 2020 will beat 2012; the only question is by how much.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: Freeform season chatter and light commentary
« on: July 16, 2020, 06:55:23 PM »
BOMBOGENESIS 2020

I like it. Revolution in November. Aliens in December. 2020 is amazing.


First we dodged the bullets, then we dodged the cannon-balls and now we are looking at eventual bombs. What's next?

 ;D ;D ;D
Why, Tirpitz-sized artillery shell, i've posted a picture of one in the topic some dozen or so pages ago. Weighs 800 kilos and hits like a train full of explosives alright...

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 16, 2020, 04:14:40 PM »
The Slater 50 day probabilistic sea ice extent forecast... is showing a potential 10th place finish for NSIDC sea ice extent.

No it isn't:

https://GreatWhiteCon.info/2020/07/facts-about-the-arctic-in-july-2020/#comment-340172

It is however currently showing a very early minimum
At this point, Slater's completely useless. It is made based on past melt dynamics, is it not. And by now, 2020 season is going off the recorded trends. It's like predicting a car crash based on good amount of past data about how the car is driving around without any accident, eh. Won't work.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 04, 2020, 06:06:08 PM »
This anticyclone is powerful, +1035 hPa, meaning warmed air and insolation on top of the CAB, but it won't mean much heat transported from the continents from now on ten days or so. If is was off center, for instance forming a system with a Greenland high it would bring the warmth from NA, but there is no much clockwise circulation over Greenland, so this predicted centered circulation kind of protects the Arctic from continental warmth. These first days however there is circulation bringing warmth from the Pacific along the Eurasia coast toward the Atlantic. But then it will subside.
Will be interesting to see what weights more from this weather outcome.
Torching at peak insolation is the worst, as we've seen countless times. No question about it.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 27, 2020, 10:32:52 PM »
So far temperatures in Siberia haven't been as hot anymore as before the fire season started in earnest. I wonder if that's just a coincidence, due to the weather, or if the smoke is causing a temperature drop. It would be logical that if we had high temperatures because of clean air, that dirty air from all that smoke would lower them again. If they stay lower than they have been pre-fire season, this could be another negative feedback loop, no? Not that these fires will do any good long term, or for the melting season as that black carbon gets dropped on the ice, but what do you think? Is smoke from more extreme fire seasons a negative feedback loop?
It is without any doubt negative feedback short-term - "then and there". Cleaner air means hotter surface, while air with more particulates of any sort (smoke, aerosols of all kinds, clouds, what have you) means cooler (than otherwise expected) surface, "then and there".

That said, forest fires in Arctic itself cause more than just "make lots of air dirty again". Those throw up serious amounts of GHGs, too - i mean high local concentrations of those gases. Something which is not done by "usual amounts of aerosols" travelling to the Arctic from NH's industrial belt: those come with GHGs already dilluted down to pretty background GHG levels. And, as you mentioned, soot on ice is another, if "a bit delayed", effect.

And then there are of course many other differencies between "industrial aerosols" and smoke from forest fires, as well, which are presumably not as strong as above ones but still significant enough to worth a mention at times. Like, for example, lots more black soot in forest smoke than in industrial outputs due to way more efficient (than just burning some wood in open air) combustion of fuels which industries perform, and lack of any soot-filtering equipment over forest fires (obviously). Black soot absorbs way better than most other aerosols, resulting in generally more heat trapped within troposphere which then has further (mostly unpleasant) effects for sea ice further into melt season. Etc.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 21, 2020, 12:09:22 PM »
I have doodled a thin line demarcating ice that is highly vulnerable to export under normal conditions, and a thick line containing ice that can potentially be exported under extreme conditions (and including Nares). ...
Putting similar lines on last frame of Aluminium's 14-18 June update is perhaps slightly more enlightening, so here goes:


27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 18, 2020, 10:34:15 PM »
Thanks, F.Tnioli, for your answer. Consider me very skeptical on that one though. ;)
You're welcome, though i prefer to hear any sound argument behind your sceptical stance rather than mere statement you have one. Quid pro quo, they say. ;)

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 18, 2020, 07:56:59 PM »
...
But how about those ~5 GACs? Why do you think that? It strikes me as very unlikely.
Cyclones of the kind are born in temperate regions, strengthened there, and travel into Arctic to wreak havok and doom to sea ice (is my "french" too dramatic yet? :) ). So, one can look to temperate regions and estimate what is going on there to have an idea about what is likely regarding such cyclones. What i see is plenty places experiencing record _swings_ in temperature. Plenty strong winds, too. This points to likelyhood of more and stronger cyclones forming up, and some will probably head to the Arctic. This is the 1st over-simplified, generalized consideration pointing to the conclusion about multiple GACs likely.

The 2nd is what happens with peripheriral seas in the Arctic itself. It is well known that strongest storms have a tendency to rapidly weaken when they travel over lands (and by analogy, over ice, too) - while travelling over open water is often maintains their strength, at times even intensifying them. This general observation coupled with what we see happening to "low Arctic" seas right about now - like that 50k drop in ESS alone mentioned few posts above, etc, - plus cleaner air this season due to pandemic, and some other factors, - those point to the possibility that some time July / August we'll have plenty open water in "lower seas". Which can very much "feed" some moderate-strength cyclone going in and boost it to a GAC, or simply maintain strength of any "already GAC-scale" cyclone coming into the Arctic - for long enough for it to inflict GAC-scale damage to the ice.

Yet 3rd reason was also recently mentioned in this topic: overall general developments in the Arctic point to the likelyhood of GACs repeating themselves, but we did not see many since 2012 / 16. If any at all (opinions vary a bit). Thus, merely statistically, it's likely a year will come with not one, but few GACs striking in same season. Each passing year, statistically, considering said developments (ice state, temperatures' rise, GHGs rise, etc) - makes "multiple GACs a season" more likely. Personally, my opinion is that 2020, considering all circumstances, is indeed the 1st year when "more than one GAC a melting season" is becoming a big possibility. If it doesn't happen, i'd say we'd dodge not a "bullet", but rather something like a battleship's main caliber's shell. Something like this one:



Fuirther considerations / reasons would take much more space to describe and also would require me to bring serious analysis of certain publications, thus i apologize, but i am not going to do it. Hopefully above is sufficient.

P.S. Please consider the ullustration as a visualisation matherial intended to visually represent how dire things are in the Artic, Oren. That said, if you'd remove it, i'll respect your judgement, too.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 18, 2020, 07:41:14 PM »
Naming will be discussed after the actual storm comes and goes. But I will not sign off on a "GAC" designation unless Neven himself signs off on it.
Of course! Neven it will have to be, i agree. Naturally, i did not mean to "name", above, merely proposed a variant for if the occasion would actually happen. Prematurely, yes; i have a weakness for proposing names to things, please forgive. %)

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 18, 2020, 05:30:16 PM »
A June cyclone is very different from an August cyclone. August has weak ice, warm water and not much sun, ideal conditions for a cyclone to cause immense damage without paying in lost insolation. In June conditions are very different, thus IMHO GAC designation should be reserved for August.
Different - yes. Very. But anyhow so much weaker in terms of ice-killing effects as to deny it "GAC" classification? Hell no.

Consider:

- any cyclone that strong wipes out remaining high-albedo snow cover really well, no matter how thick's the ice, and there is still month+ of very high insolation to follow. Direct result of such a GAC during said month+ following? Plenty extra ice melt, which effect is nearly absent for an August GAC;

- any and all "lost" insolation is in fact not lost at all, rather, it is absorbed by GAC itself. Fortunately, only a fraction of that energy will end up reaching the ice; unfortunately, GAC cloud masses tend to have much lower albedo than "best case" June's fresh-snow-covered sea ice; and unfortunately, much more energy from insolation GAC itself absorbs in June - could intensify the GAC itself, i.e. stronger winds, higher temps, etc (in compare to same GAC in august). End result? Comparable to direct insolation energy transfer to the ice, exactly because it's June (max insolation) and not August (low insolation, plenty energy lost in stratosphere due to low average sun angle over horizon);

- whateever mechanical / wave-action damage is done in June will have consequences for the rest of the season. While in August, whatever parts of "weak ice" end up grinded by the storm to open water state - those parts will not "suffer" any more in terms of further ice lost, since they are already 100% open water.

I.e., June GAC is very possible given specific circumstances. I'd say most important is mechanical integrity of the ice, which in this melting season is cleraly much lower than even "recent average" (like 2010's average). Pretty sure we can be very (unpleasantly) surprised about what this emerging could-be-a-GAC can do.

Oh and about naming. I wouldn't name it "the GAC 2020", because i deem it quite likely we'll see more than one GAC this season. Possibly ~5 even. Thus, how about "GAC '20/1" or somesuch.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 30, 2020, 10:28:35 PM »
This varies great deal seasonally. Polar night, it's surely low. But as soon as there is no ice, it gets big soon enough. Anyone in Alaska / Siberia will tell you: when it's polar day, thing can get pretty hot in the Arctic. Over 30C is nothing exceptional summer-time. Ice and to less extent open ocean prevent that, but Arctic as a whole still generates plenty hot air from its lands.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 30, 2020, 06:38:39 PM »
Re-emission will not necessary be at the same wavelength. Energy may stay in the atmosphere for a time but it means more back radiation to surface. Suitable wavelength exists for any height. Convection tends to warm up upward. Radiation is isotropic.
Radiating - is isotropic. Radiation, as in "the process of energy transfer over distance by means of infrared emissivity", though  - is not entirely isotropic in this case, which was whole point above. Mean free path "upwards" is a bit longer than mean free path "downwards" for IR in general. For wavelengths with said path being short relative to air layer in consideration this leads to significant effect, which affects IR overall.

It's like liquid - say, a river - "preferring" to flow towards lower grounds. Except in this case, IR "prefers to flow up". Sort of. Can't put it any simpler.

And about same wavelength, - the spectrum is quite static, actually, and is defined by air temperature, only. You may find some quite surprising details on this page if you're interested about "how it really works". Great read, IMO.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 30, 2020, 06:01:04 AM »
Yes, must be earliest, and by far. Locals noted that near Dudinka, ice breakup in 2020 was May 16th, close to midnight local time, thus breaking previous record (1997, May 21st) by 5 days. In 2019, solid river ice was still present for some 1100 km distance from the place, for May 16th. They also note that Yenisei ice this year is unusually thin, too.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 30, 2020, 05:09:35 AM »
I think, 7...8 km upward is harder way for photons than 0...1 km downward.
...
I think you think wrong. See, it depends, if to be precise, on what kind of IR photon we talk about. Some IR photons will get absorbed and not re-emitted after travelling merely 30 cm through near-surface air. Many others will suffer same fate after travelling merely few meters. Like i said above, "re-iterated great many times by IR exchanges". I said above this gets complicated, right? Can't be helped. Physics.

Yet some other IR photons will freely travel both down to surface _and_ through all the 7...8 km above (actually, all the way to space). And of course, there are yet other kinds of IR photons which on average gets absorved every few dozens meters, every few hundreds meters, every few kilometers - all kinds of 'em. Depends on wavelength - IR photons are actually very big and diverse "zoo".

You can see table 1 on page 1526 of this fragment for confirmation of the above and some further detail. Oh and that same table 1 also perfectly illustrates my above words about air density playing a role within 1-km column in troposphere: as you can see in the 2nd half of that table, at 150 mb mean free path of an IR photon with wavelength most easily captured by specificaly CO2 moleculae - is massively higher than at surface (1st half of the table).

So you see, this whole deal is exactly _why_ i was assuming, initially, that we're talking 1-meter-thick air layer. If it's just 1 meter, then some napkin energy transfer via IR can be calculated; but for 1-km, with those "short mean free path" kinds of IR photons requiring on average thousands (because omni-directional each time) re-emissions? Nope, this gets more like liquid dynamics than anything else, meaning it's not doable on a napkin in general. I think.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 29, 2020, 03:37:53 PM »
Under "assumptions" i meant this line: "This energy may be received by ice or dissipate into space. Both ways are probably significant". Not the numbers. Sorry for being misleading about it initially. See, the assumptions in this line - i think are far insufficient, as per my larger post above; not detailed enough even for napkin calc of the kind.

As for numbers you just noted, sure, you already mentioned in melting season topic that numbers you used initially were far from warmest / wettiest event of the sort. The strongest ones would do well over 100 km3/day ice loss by your initial napkin math, i recon; do your observational efforts confirm this magnitude of melt from those athmospheric fronts, though? I doubt. But if you say they do, i'll pay attention for sure.

added: oh and about 7 kilometers of greenhouse effect on top of near-surface 1-km-thick layer of the athmosphere: it's more of a sink than insulation, i think. Gets seriously colder with altutude in the troposphere. Soaks lots of heat into itself.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 29, 2020, 03:15:04 PM »
Copy and paste from melting season thread.

Small difference in the calculation of weight of ice which is ~8% less dense than liquid water at 0.919 gram / cc. So 45.95 trillion kilograms.
This particular detail may need further correction for whenever one would be willing to calculate with precision: i read it's not 0.919, but 0.910 as reported on this page. In-situ density of 0.90...0.94 for below the waterline averages to 0.920, but seriously lower above-waterline density still drops overall ice density measurably below 0.919.

Thus i am generally using 0.91 - when not going "roughly" for round numbers of 1000 kg / m3, that is.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 29, 2020, 02:52:01 PM »
More detailed about WAA.

Let's imagine a 1000 km width 1 km thick front. Wind speed is 5 m/s, temperature is 10°C, 100% humidity (10 g/m3 of water vapor). Density is 1.2 kg/m3, specific heat capacity is 1 kJ/(kg*°C), specific heat of vaporization is 2.3 MJ/kg. Total energy density is 1.2 kg/m3 * 1 kJ / (kg*°C) * 10°C + 2.3 MJ/kg * 10 g/m3 = 35 kJ/m3. Flux of air is 1 km * 1000 km * 5 m/s = 5*109 m3/s. Total power is 35 kJ/m3 * 5*109 m3/s = 1.75*1014 J/s = 1.5*1019 J/day.

This energy may be received by ice or dissipate into space. Both ways are probably significant.
And then you mean 1.5*10^19 J/day / 3.34^5 J/kg = 4.491^13 kg/day, which with density of sea ice ~910 kg/m3, we get 4.491*10^13 kg/day / 9.1*10^2 kg/m3 * 10^9 m3/km3 = 4.93*10^1 km3/day. I.e. 49.3 km3/day. Ok, got the math, close indeed to just call it 50.

But assumtptions? Man...

That amount of energy is not just being spent "either to space or to ice". It's not just half of IR "ends up" going up to space, which would already make it 25 km3/day; there are other huge "cuts" to the number, i think:

- only rather small fraction of that vapour will change to liquid through the _whole_ track of the front over the ice, because lots of it will remain as a gas. Never anything close to 0% humidity in summer Arctic, from what i see. So, good portion of that water vapour will remain largely unaffecting the ice if we talk 1km-high air column, so gotta cut resulting ice loss accordingly. Hell to estimate it - we can agree to "halve it again" for starters, so 12.5 km3/day?

- even "downwards" half of IR won't all be absorbed by the ice: good fraction will be reflected (even though in IR ice is less reflective than in optical - it still somewhat is), and good portion of that reflected IR will end up going up into space in addition to the half which was heading there to begin with. So, perhaps dropping it further from 12.5 km3/day to say 10 km3/day?

- for 1-km thick layer, "angled" downwards IR will suffer athmospheric opacity, especially longer wavelengths (this page has some good general info about). Thing is, the way i understand it, when an IR photon is being absorbed by air - sometimes it will result in another IR photon generated, but not always, because often times that IR photon's energy ends up being spent to increase kinetic energy of the atom which absorbed it (thus temperature increase). Thing is, with 1km-tall layer, density difference start to play a role: going "up" is noticeably easier for IR radiation than going "down", simply because there is "less per meter of altitude" air as you go up (lower density). When "re-iterated" great many times by IR exchanges, this difference becomes quite significant, and the whole process is really mind-boggling in complexity overall. For 1km-thick air layer - it'd take proper physicist, not me, to even napkin this; so again, can only offer to imagine the figure halved once again, so from 10 to 5 km3/day.

So, you see, those things combined, quite possibly would drop the resulting figure by an order of magnitude or so. 5 km3/day is still significant, but not seriously crazy anymore, right? :)

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic energy balance
« on: May 29, 2020, 12:40:14 PM »
Alright, now that we're not limited by main thread's requirements to omit excessive detail - i ask you to bring me the whole equation, sir. Mantissas of the numbers you gave don't quite fit the end result of "5.0" mantissa. Something's not clicking in. I'd like to figure out where i am not seeing what i need to see - or perhaps where you've slipped even if a little.

Because you know, like i said, 50 km^3 / day is quite crazy, yes? Thanks in advance!

39
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 29, 2020, 12:35:32 PM »
Ah, there we go, then it's "phew!" alright. I'm plenty sure we should not napkin-calc 1-km-tall layer for purposes of WAA to sea ice. IR transfer through this column will have massive losses: IR release is omni-directional, so lots of IR photons from mid and upper parts of that air mass will be released at all kinds of angles, half of them "upwards" at some angle; and then many of them which are going "somewhat downwards" - will be caught and re-radiated before reaching the ice. I believe well over half of total IR released by that air won't ever touch the ice, in the end, all known to me effects combined - if we talk 1 km tall air layer being the source of that IR radiation.

Further details and discussion, we all can dig into in that topic you created, yes.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 29, 2020, 12:13:14 PM »
My assumptions: 1 km x 1000 km x 5 m/s of air, 1 kJ/ (kg * °C), 1.2 kg/m3, 10°C, 10 g/m3 of water vapor, 2.3 MJ/kg. I saw warmer and wetter events. Infrared radiation provides effective interaction between snow/ice surface and wet air mass.
1 km x 1000 km - this is both horizontal dimensions of a front, with 5 m/s wind speed? What about thickness of it then - 1 m? If you'd elaborate a bit more, i'd be grateful for sure.

P.S. For clarity and lurkers, let's note here that 1 kJ/kg*K is air specific heat; 1.2 km/m^3 is air mass, rounded, per m3; 2.3 MJ/kg is specific latent heat of vaporisation of water, which is released whenever vapor turns back into liquid. There is also 334 kJ/kg, which is latent heat of fusion of ice - the amount of energy it takes to melt 1 kg of it. And, of course, 50 km^3 is no less than roughly 50,000,000,000,000 kg of it (50 trillions kilograms).

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 28, 2020, 01:35:13 PM »
Nice analogy.

WAA probably can affect the ice seriously. I got about 50 km3 of ice per day by calculations assuming high moisture. Though part of this energy will not be received by ice. And it reduces albedo sharply. Another thing is drought. May dry air mass cause a dust storm into the Arctic?
50 km^3 per day by WAA would be extremely serious, yes. If it'd happen... You sure you got the number right? Just stunned by that figure, tbh. And yet it still would be secondary, in the same time. How much km^3 can be gone by sunlight directly? Very roughly speaking, it's triple-digit figure, i.e. over 100 km^3 / day, as evident even from as simple info as "Perspective: Ice Loss and Energy" small chapter on this page and couple simplest napkin math lines, assuming (obviously) than most of ice melt during a melting season comes from direct insolation in less than 90 days (which is maximum insolation times in the Arctic).

Dust storms, were a concern in the past, already. One major effect is albedo drop of dust-covered ice. Personally i call it "dirty ice" (because it's quite that when you experience such ice personally), and i've seen such ice melt way, way faster than clean ice in real-world conditions, myself. Much of the dirt remains on top of it as it melts, continuously soaking lots of extra heat whenever exposed to the sun.

How likely / big dust storms can be? I don't really know, but at least we can see it's serious enough for Arctic dust storm monitoring network being talked about in 2016 (some details - here); glaciologists are acknowledging great effect dust can have on any ice (see for example this short piece); marine ecosystems can be affected strongly enough for piece like this one to exist.

However, from what i know, there is one major obstacle for dust storms to become a "key" factor for any large (means, thousands kilometers in diameter roughly) areas in the Arctic: usually, conditions which lead to extreme soil drying in the same time are resulting in lack of any strong winds in such (dried) areas. Largely, that is; exceptions regularly happen. But still. I.e., i don't think we'll have any significant (say over 10%) portion of Arctic sea ice ending up covered in so much dust that albedo drop caused by dust would dwarf other things which reduce albedo. I think dust storms will remain strong but regional factor, only.

Again, this is merely uneducated guess, though.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 27, 2020, 10:36:15 PM »
...
I have a question for anyone here regarding the importance of continental snow levels in evaluating the sea ice situation. My simple interpretation is that they are an indicator of continental albedo. Lower continental albedo means the land can heat up more and has increased potential to contribute heat to the ice via warm air advection (WAA). Do others see it the same way or is their more to the connection between continental snow and sea ice?
Oh yes, there is more. Much, much more.

Imagine you try to hit a nail with a hammer, but hit your finger instead. Then you ask: what's the importance of my finger being hit by this hammer? Is it that the nail nearby was a bit shaken by the impact of this hammer hit - by the shockwave spreading through my finger and into the board and through it, into the nail? Why, certainly, there is that. But much more important thing is - IT HURTS!!!

Right? :)

Well, same deal with snow cover going away that much earlier. The hammer is sunlight. And the importance of this sunlight wiping away all that snow - is that that same sunlight also hammers the sea ice. Directly. Massively. It melts it. If the snow is gone, then we now it's mainly Sun to blame.

Why look at snow and not at the ice? For the time being - this part of melt season - it is simply so much easier to see the impact exactly on land, because snow is white, while land under it is dark. While ice under snow which was over that ice - is not dark, it's white.

By estimating snow cover in areas directly adjucent to ice-covered areas especially vulnerable to melt during this time of melt season (regarding temperatures, how high sun is over horizon for how long every day, thickness, etc) - first and foremost we can see, with high degree of confidence, how much melt is likely to be happening to snow cover of sea ice and sea ice itself. Everything else - is secondary.

Secondary effects can pile up longer-term, of course, and yes, heat content of air masses is one such thing. Warmer and earlier river runoff is yet another. Possible regional methane release, already mentioned above, is also one - by the way its GWP over 1 year is ~120 of CO2; over few weeks / months? Hundreds times higher than CO2, so any serious release is no joke. Yet another consequence is that further insolation will likely heat up that dark soil well above 0C, - while areas still covered by (by then melting) sea ice will remain near 0C, thus often helping to intensify winds, with further consequences for the ice.

But again, all those are relatively small deal. Insolation is "the" thing to be looking for in June (and near it). Particularly this year, with cleaner air - which intensifies things. To the point it, kind of, "HURTS!!!".

<Great post, removed one word. O>

<It is in my country's culture to keep such words in when emotionally fit, despite obscenity. Apologies... F.T.>

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 25, 2020, 12:14:08 AM »
...
I think this serves to bolster the notion that June of 2020 could truly be SCORCHING over parts of Eurasia, especially those which were warmest in the composite grab featured above. Simultaneously, the cooling this year has been worse in amplitude / scope (IMO) in NA vs. any year in the subset. I would think this portends a very MIXED and odd next thirty days in the Arctic, with accelerated melt in regions that do not normally melt fully until July (Kara, Barents, Laptev), and "protective" conditions in Hudson and the CAA. While Hudson will melt fully regardless, the conditions this spring could result in a very late or overall minimal melt-out in the CAA, and ensure it is relatively protected compared to the CAB this season.
I see some signs that Siberia would cool down serious deal few weeks onwards, though. Those seas will probably keep melting good deal nonetheless, but can be less than SCORCHING, so not holding my breath about it. As for CAA, obviously it was very lucky so far, yes, but we definitely should not exclude a possibility of some wild CAC wiping solid H2O out of the region some time August, for example. Especially if CAB/Siberian will pick up lots of heat by then.

Another very interesting thing of this development, which you indeed well described - is temperature contrasts. If CAA remains extra cold while say ESAS and around it will go all blue and sunny - then it can create some truly unprecedented winds. We've already seen some this March, but that's March. If similarly unprecedented winds happen say July - i imagine it can be one very new and very powerful factor in this season.

P.S. "CAC" being "Canadian-Arctic cyclone", that was. %)

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 25, 2020, 12:01:22 AM »
It's so insanely warm (relatively speaking) in Utqiagvik today! Not the mention the amount of melt ponds on the landfast ice appeared almost instantly. So too did the melting of the lake. Wild!


Timely indeed.

Hey Friv, you hear this? Melt ponds appearing almost instantly. I told you it will happen in 2..3 weeks - exactly 3 weeks ago (this post), when you said it'll be in a month. See, things go wild this time, you see what happens with albedo and i bet you know how it goes.

Think Slater's right?

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 10:07:35 PM »
The ice is very blue in the Hudson bay despite the land snow refuses to melt in that region during the entire spring.
May indicate significant heat content in the water right below that ice?

This reminds me. I am unable to get real-time ICESat-2 data (don't confuse with CryoSat-2 please!) myself. Do we have anybody able to give us the simple average snow thickness for Arctic sea ice for as close to "now" as possible? It'd be great to know what ICESat-2 instruments tell at this time.

We know that average maximum (= April) snow thickness on 1st-year ice is 16.8 cm, and average snow thickness on multi-year ice is 26.6 cm. Those are of course estimated and wildly vary in practice from season to season, but seeing what we have left now directly form instruments - can possibly be quite telling.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 09:47:50 PM »
   Wow, if that forecast verifies, then 2020 would be 600K and 8% below the previous records for July 13 Extent in 2019, 2016, 2012. 

    It is useful to have Phoenix provide a skeptical check on habitual ASIF catastrophism (as in "this year is the big one!"), but it is also true that 2020 has come out of the gate strong, and that the current Extent and Volume numbers do not yet reflect the preconditioning that has occurred.  In addition, the current GFS forecast shows surface temperature for most of the Arctic Ocean above 0C from May 29 - June 3, combined with substantial areas of clear sky and what seems to be high amounts of precipitable water along the Atlantic front and north of Greenland (but I lack the historical perspective to interpret the precipitable water forecast).   

    I worship at the church of the long term linear trend, which has the 2012 volume record remaining intact for 2020 but then a ca. 50% chance of falling in 2021, and increasing each year thereafter.  For Extent, the trend estimate shows the 2012 record being safe for 5-10 years.  While it is far too early to say anything definitive about 2020, considering the recent conditioning, the current GFS forecast, that scary albedo graph, and the Slater model forecast (which has been pretty good in recent years), 2020 seems to have a greater than 50% chance of going below the 2012 volume record.  The Extent record from 2012 was due to a freak event (the GAC) that is unlikely to be repeated in 2020, so is less likely to be surpassed.  But that is less important anyway, as I also worship at the church of Volume vs Extent with the Rev. Juan C. Garcia.
While i disagree with some parts of your post, i really enjoy it in whole, such a fair and straight one. Thanks for writing it!

Why sure, that nose-diving line is wow alright, yes? Except me, i'd be more "wow" if it wouldn't end up something like that line, this season. But anyhow, "we'll see" and all.

A "skeptical" check requires rationality. Rationality in our here case, as rightfully mentioned by you, means acknowledging that we have preconditioning that has occured already; it's quite a big deal / scale and can not be ignored. Thus, a sceptic would find some rational way to demonstrate how/why such preconditioning would not nesessarily result in "ASIF catastrophism", if to put it using your term. I like the term btw, the irony... Anyhow, ignoring said preconditioning is therefore not sceptical, see. It's merely dumb. That's all it is.

Worshipping linear trend church will do no good, i'm plenty sure. I mean, even simplest check of sure-deal historical data of any kind - be it Earth glacials, or sea level, or temperature, what have you - shows how things have changed in all kinds of non-linear matter, whatever time scale you pick. Why things would suddenly start to work "strictly linearly" now? It's easy to go check this kind of data out, and worth an extra look for "linear church" fellow in particular, i'd say...

And about 2012's freaky GAC - it sure was that, but since then, plenty things got substantially more melt-encouraging. Like GHG air content, big drop in multi-year ice, etc. So now, it'd take way less than 2012's GAC to repeat the same amount of melt. Especially with cleaner air this time, due to big-time reductions in fuel burning around the globe at the time, and its implications to clouds, precipitation, near-vertical surfaces' wettening / melt, etc as discussed above in the topic.

So if we'd want a bottom line for now? "All bets are off" i'd say. We're entering unknown waters now in terms of this melt season. Pun, sadly, intended.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 08:43:39 PM »
Indeed F. Tnioli, and very well explained, good post.

To your point Phoenix, yes it's true that early losses in peripheral seas such as Okhotsk, Hudson and Baffin are less meaningful than the same losses in the Inner Basin.
But this wasn't his point. This is your point - this one about "less meaningful than". What he said - was "almost meaningless". The two are much different IMO. I objected to his point, and i still think my objection holds true. But your point, in contrast, i entirely agree with. Less meaningful indeed; but still plenty meaningful overall. What you think?

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 01:08:43 PM »
... Huge leads in places where we know 2019 gets to zero or close to it are almost meaningless, especially in peripheral locations like Baffin and Hudson.
...
Incorrect. Unusually faster melt in peripheral locations can often indicate faster melt in high Arctic, which would happen later in a melt season. Whenever cause(s) which resulted in much faster peripheral melt early in a season would largely persist through the whole melting season, and we have a number of such indeed, for 2020.

... Baffin, Hudson, Laptev and  Kara combined are ~ 500k km2 ahead of 2019 and is offset by Bering being ~ 60K behind 2019. Knowing where 2019 ends, we know that 2019 is going to catch up at least 400K in these seas. The current 100k lead is vapor.
....
My bold. I believe that the two statements i enhanced with bold text - can not be true simultaneously. Those seas are either 500k km2 ahead - or 100k ahead. I am surprised to see such "wordplay" in this topic. I think it has no place here.

...
On the whole, 2020 has work to do to put itself in position to be a favorite to surpass 2019.
My italic. On the following graph, we can see how 2012 did ~1800k of such "work" between 23rd May (at which date 2020's line ends on this graph) and September minimum. See, by 23/05, 2012 was ~1000k higher than 2019, but at the minimum 2012 was ~800k lower than 2019. Which number - 1800k - dwarves numbers you gave, and in my opinion, proves your whole point wrong:



So, 2012 is one good "hindsight" about how much melt work a season can do. One can easily see how much lower-than-2019 this melting season can end up, if it'll just do "same amount of melt work" 2012 did, while "starting" from today's much lower than 2012's extent (and thus, roughly, also much lower-than-2012's area).

Given those facts, can you please elaborate what was, exactly, the meaning of your statement i quoted (the one in italic right above)? How, exactly, this statement helps us understand this melting season? What's its "meaning", exactly?

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 17, 2020, 11:34:34 AM »
Hardly any rain here (20 mm in 2 months, while average is 120 mm for 2 months) as well and lots of sunshine in March-April-May (basically since the lockdowns started). No proof of the lockdown-aerosol reduction effects, but I think there could be something to it. I have never seen so far, so clearly from our montaintop, I could see other mountains 2-300 kms away. Air was very clear and cloudless during the lockdowns. This is of course only anecdotal evidence but still...
Thanks for sharing it. From such small bits, bigger picture forms.

And it's not anecdotal. "Anecdotal" means: "evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony". What you just said does not qualify to be "anecdotal", because it was not collected in "casual or informal manner" as relevant to the essense of your testimony. There is nothing "casual" nor "informal" about reporting specific range for visibility at a specific location, which you did; nor about specific amount of precipitation (20mm) as compared to usual average (120mm) for specific length of time (2 months).

Similar thing happens where i am at this time, too. I've never seen such a bright blue sky here during some 20+ years i am regularly present in the area. Now i see it almost every day, as even rainy days here - now often happen without complete (full) cloud cover during the day, instead being partially cloudy days (of which we had 20 out of 30 days of April here, which is above average for the month).

P.S. Plenty sun, too (now this is anecdotal alright) - bothers me personally as my main PC is right next to a SW window. Means i gotta bump up brightness / contrast of my display during those evening-sunshine hours, and then i gotta drop 'em down to low once sun sets. Problem is, sometimes i forget, and then it strains me eyes. Can i lawsuit 'em ones responsible for the whole pandemic / lockdown / clearer skies situation for extra bits of that eye damage i get as a result? Yeah. Figures. :D

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 16, 2020, 09:44:22 PM »

...
Is this normal? ...

Perhaps the reduced aerosols are contributing to the reduced cloud cover more than would be expected.  I don't know much about the specifics there but maybe the relationship between aerosol density and cloud formation isn't linear or continuous.
Alright you bozos, i'm sorta back. Must comment on this one!

There is no "perhaps" about it - it's a certainty. Most collegues do not expect the effect as they are not well familiar with papers akin to one i linked in this topic few pages above - about how aerosols affect athmosphere, and clouds in particular. One with plenty links to other ones, i mean.

Long story short, the "big" thing in the room about aerosols-affecting-clouds - is simple: the more microscopic solid particles inside clouds - the more condensation locations are available; so, same amount of water vapour which particular cloud contains - ends up condensating into more droplets (than without aerosols present). More droplets from same amount of vapour means smaller droplets. Smaller droplets means less precipitation occurs = i.e., more of the cloud remains in the air.

Of course, many other things also happen, but i'm quite sure the above mechanism is much more powerful than all other processes caused by reduction in aerosols.

As my remark above in the topic mentions, instruments confirm Arctic-wide overall aerosol reduction. It's so significant it can easily be eye-balled by comparing things like SO4 levels across CAB for same dates of this and previous years.

So - yes, sure, we have, and we will continue to have during this melting season, way less clouds - overall - than normal, unless something exceptionally strong would bring in much more water vapour into the Arctic than during previous years, of course. But then again, that would probably mean helluva lot extra heat coming in as well. Which, combined - heat and water vapour - would mean GACs going through, which summer-time spells doom for the ice no less than sunny skies.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16