Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« Last post by gerontocrat on November 19, 2019, 03:24:52 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 18 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 7,835,941 km2
Total Area         
 7,835,941    km2      
-507,716    km2   <   2010's average.
-740,086    km2   <   2018
-1,119,482    km2   <   2000's average.
Total Area Change    24    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    5    k   gain
Central Seas__    10    k   gain
Other Seas___    8    k   gain
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    1    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    13    k   gain
Greenland____   -7    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    21    k   gain
CAA_________    5    k   gain
East Siberian__    16    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -21    k   loss
Kara_________   -12    k   loss
Laptev_______   -13    k   loss
Chukchi______    12    k   gain
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    10    k   gain

Daily gain 24 k, 47 k LESS than the 2010's average of 71 k.

Area gain well below average, for the 7th day.
- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 508 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 740 k
- 2019 Area less than 2012 by 353 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 882 km2

2019 area 2nd lowest in the satellite record. 2016 is the year to watch - low area gains for a bit longer (see graph).
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +4.1  to +2.7 celsius over the next 5 days, - generally strong +ve anomaly over most of the Arctic Ocean, but gradually getting colder.
Will daily gains stay below average? NSIDC daily extent gains up and down like a yo-yo, and on this day changed from very low to very high.

The Chukchi big bite now looks its started a sudden freeze now the wind has changed.
In contrast, area losses on the Atlantic Front from strong winds from the North Atlantic.

...geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

With such extreme rain events i'm very worried that one of the worst side effects will be the collapse of major dams due to overrun..  Two collapsed this past year a small one in tx and a mid-sized one in Nebraska... another was hit by two bargest that floated away in a flood...  the largest oldest one in the country in Montana is a slurry dam... the worst kind... Sea power is awesome and I've often posted videos on the dozen ways you can produce it... Whatever you do here also has to withstand Dorian long-duration winds and will need a vulnerable grid distribution from there of course.

I too was all for Geothermal... Having watched the eruption last year and to learn they frack the ground and inject chemicals, not water was a surprise
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« Last post by TerryM on November 19, 2019, 03:16:41 PM »
Yea I'm in Canada but at about the same latitude as the California/Oregon border. A little north of that border, but not by much.
No new snow last night and grass showing everywhere. Only the best insulated roofs are snow covered.
I don't think I've experienced a week since 2004 when I couldn't see grass - but my balcony faces south. :)
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« Last post by binntho on November 19, 2019, 03:10:04 PM »
I also think that Greenland has an impact on the sea ice.

But perhaps not as expected! The wind direction is mostly from the Atlantic and in over the ice. As the incoming air gets pushed up, it loses most of it's water vapor as precipitation, which releases a significant amount of latent heat. Once the air plummets back on down on the other side, it's temperature will have increased.

This is of course the famous Foehn effect, and can often be seen clearly in e.g. Nullschool animations when circumstances are right.
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« Last post by Klondike Kat on November 19, 2019, 03:07:59 PM »
Let me also point out that, while I think it probable that hundreds of millions, if not billions, will die of Global Warming in the next hundred years, I have always had a skepticism that I would reach the Beatles 64. First because nuclear war would destroy civilization. Then because the Millennium Bug would destroy civilization (I was a faithful reader of Gary North). Then because Peak Oil would destroy civilization. I have a couple years and change left, and so far I have a perfect score. Zero. A quarter would have an 87.5% chance of doing a better job and couldn't do any worse. But abortion has killed hundreds of millions of babies in my lifetime. I must make my vote on present realities, if necessary (and it is) choosing the lesser evil.
I think it is interesting to consider that bogeymen always exist in western society because of the lack of visible external threats. Humans have evolved to respond to constant threats. So whether they exist or not, we are hardwired to fear the millennium bug, peak oil, etc. Not so much females it seems -- perhaps because they typically were not the ones who dealt with external threats -- but among males, the paranoia is strong, and I am certainly no exception. When the DMI ran away back in 2016, I was convinced the world would be over by now. It is nice to be wrong!

Both these posts exemplify the potential for paranoia and fear.  The possiblity that a catastrophe could occur in the near (or not to distant) future does hit a nerve with many people.  Some of the above examples show that.  One could even add the Population Bomb and Saddam Hussain's WMDs.  Politicians know this quite well, and will use this fear to enact particular legislation or garner support for a particular activity.  The bottom line is that whenever there is a perceived threat, actions occur to deter that threat.  Actions are currently occurred to stem AGW, just not as fast as some would like.  I firmly believe that these actions would accelerate if/when the threat manifests itself more fully or imminently.  People tend to respond in proportion to the perceived threat.  Hence, one could argue that Tom has the more valid argument due to the current manifestation of his concern.
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« Last post by Tor Bejnar on November 19, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »
Did you ever read Maugham's 'The Razor's Edge'? One of the strong themes is that religious studies, even retreating to a frigid Himalayan Peak to seek enlightenment is all an exercise in futility.
The secret is that there is no secret.
I haven't read that book.  I went to the Himalayan foot hills not to seek enlightenment, but to practice the lack of secrets, and thoroughly enjoyed my time with Buddhist monks, nuns and practitioners.  (I had the opportunity to hold the (a?) famous yeti skull (probably this one), but declined as I didn't 'believe' in it.  But I did get to view it closely.)

Of course, arguing on these fine threads Neven makes available can be seen as being "all an exercise in futility."
Love you!
No such thing as ultra safe nuclear .
Imagine if a nutbar got hold of one of your small ultra safe nuclear devices and dumped it into the local drinking water source . Or blew one up with diesel and chicken shite.
Nuclear is inherently unsafe to life.
The more nuclear proliferation the more unsafe it becomes .
Because Mankind can not be trusted.

Solar, wind, geothermal and hydro power are the answers.

been against nuclear power for the longest time... even have a note against it.  The fallout from fission fires should be enough to clearly stress how bad things are... Yet, as I add it up... in the heat of collapse needing to smelt iron an aluminum or to produce the vital eq we need to en-tomb these reactors....  We are looking at an all hands on deck situation where all these other energies and then some still could not garentee our survival and do all we need to do to clean up this world over 300yrs. to come.  Fukushima proved nuclear power could not be shut down without constant cooling and we will certainly not shut down and decommition all plants before the SHIF. 

I'd have to argue that a reactor 1/50th the size of your A-typical power plant (a much smaller event obviously should one take place...) as a garentee failsafe backup would be unwise to ignor given this planets long history of horific sun-blocking events not to mention 1930s mid-west dust storms, Sahara dust storms... TRUST ME I WANT ALL THE SOLAR I CAN GET AND THEN SOME... Warehouses full of unused batteries....  but we are talking last ditch/bitter end survival with the world falling apart around us... We have to clean it up and to clean up the world we will need a lot of energy... 
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« Last post by TerryM on November 19, 2019, 03:01:54 PM »
California (and elsewhere?)

So it is not an "EV problem" problem. i.e. 100% off-topic

It's a "PG&E have screwed up big-time" problem. Gave away the maintenance / system development money in dividends / share buybacks / management bonuses?  Sounds familiar?

Damn it, the computer ate my reply. :-[

I'd posted a few days ago about other major utilities suffering from the same problems as PG&E, so it's more of a systemic problem rather than a PG&E problem.

The rapid rollout of EV's is simply tossing gasoline (or is it lithium) onto the fire, so something less than 100% off-topic.

It's 9:00 AM here and I need some sleep.
Have Funn Guys (& Gal)
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« Last post by Tor Bejnar on November 19, 2019, 02:48:52 PM »
Note that without the highs of 2008 & 2012 electrical use has been ~flat since 2004
If 2012 is a 'high', you'd also have to remove the highs of 2006 and 2007, too.  But even then the chart would show a slight decline in recent years.  Removing 'anomalous' highs without any reason is probably 'cherry picking'.  [Blueberry Sal's bucket had three berries in it:  how many berries did she pick?]

California grid electricity use was apparently less in 2018 than in 2004 and 2005 (get rid of all those intervening 'high' years!), even with the EVs so far added (and population growth).  Please admit that, Terry!  This is not to say there cannot be other concerns about California's electricity future.
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« Last post by Sigmetnow on November 19, 2019, 02:47:40 PM »
Quiet enough for you? ;)
Tesla quietly updates its 3rd-slowest sedan to be quicker than the Ferrari Testarossa

Tesla’s word of mouth strategy in focus: Why Elon Musk’s owner-based initiative works
“Tesla’s word-of-mouth strategy helps spread information, but if this product didn’t have a fundamental effect in consumers, it wouldn’t really matter. I’m confident that if banks or media had someone looking at this problem from the consumer side, we would never see a note about alleged ‘demand problems’ again. Tesla has never had a demand problem and data shows that they won’t face one. But they might face an information gap, particularly with how media misinforms consumers,” the economist said.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 [9] 10