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 - liefde

Pages: [1]
1
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 14, 2019, 10:11:19 PM »
well, 'just' plant more trees;

if every 'worker' in the usa/ europe plants 1 tree per day we have reforested the world in 2 years.
You'll have a lot of trees younger than 2 years. Pretty useless as far as CO2 sequestration goes. And who's going to 'create' the seeds and plants for that effort out of thin air? Where do you think those young shoots come from?
Besides, the deleting of about a million per day will only continue and grow in number (because those planted trees take up room intended for crops or housing, or what have you, and nobody has room to plant those trees anyway. If every person would need to plant 1 tree per day, where do you want to put them?
Seriously, grow a clue.

2
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: May 13, 2019, 12:22:43 AM »
I'm pretty confident that the major things happening before 2030 will be the ones that are directly caused by humans instead of climate related.
Most likely. There are a couple of facts heavily being overlooked;

We've been deleting about a million trees per hour 24/7/365 ever since the early 1970s. Not replenished, not replaced. That's a forcing to be reckoned with. There are currently 300+ billion (yes, nine zeros) fewer trees than there were when I was born. This is a simple fact of being human. As long as humans are not back to 2 billion in total, we're gonna be deleting too many trees to even come close to a sustainable state.
This fact alone kills organic life at a rate we can't fix. I'd not be surprised if most insects will be gone by 2027. The human bred bumblebees will probably prevail a while longer, but the mere fact that others are gone will impact all food-chains on the planet, including that in the ocean.
Plantlife doesn't like too much heat. It stops growing.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: September Predictions Challenge
« on: August 12, 2018, 11:39:08 PM »
JAXA ASI September daily minimum: Between 3.5 and 4.0 million km^2, Very High
NSIDC SIE September average: Between 4.25 and 4.75 million km^2, Very High

Purely based on a climatic heli-view, based on good friend Jörg (Kachelmann)'s model input.
And with Aug. 16th ECMWF HD predictions taking another pull at the NH, with Greenland and Svalbard meltwater getting warmer than ever, and SST anomalies of all oceanic surroundings at record high for August, thick new heat blankets of CH4 at surface level all over EurAsia. The energy has to go somewhere.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 12, 2018, 11:17:53 PM »
Attached is an animation of the (North) Greenland Sea comparing 2018 with 2013 which has the lowest extent for end of July. Sea Ice looks rapidly melting, and more of the fast ice has become mobile.
Do you offer a permanent link for the Greenland Extent png ?

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:52:40 AM »
Have we any idea what is forcing the warm air?  Is it the tropics?  The Gulf Stream?

I smell another change happening and I can't figure out what the proximate cause is.
The dramatic and non-stop rise in CO2, CH4, Halocarbons, N2O. How anyone still questions that is beyond me.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:41:00 AM »
A quick glance says that is a model study.  Care to demonstrate any skill at all in the models?
Assuming you can read; Care to read it again?

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:32:40 AM »
A scenario of year-round ice-free Arctic can only be reached (IMO) by further a northward reach of the warm ocean currents.
I keep reading this dreamy misconception everywhere. People seem to be forgetting about the fact that the quantity of heat energy required to melt 1kg of ice (of just below freezing) to 1kg of water (of just above freezing) would raise the temperature of that same 1 kg of water to 80 degrees Celsius. This means that as soon as ice is gone, and there is heat energy (i.e. Sunlight), the oceans will be very hot at the surface (provided that surface T will also keep on rising as it does) all around the Arctic circle. It already is super anomalously warm, by the way. So when the sun is gone at the polar caps, all it needs is a little flow from warmer lower ocean currents to keep it from freezing up, and/or surface winds blowing the warmer (sun-heated) waters Northwards. Considering all the additional feedbacks, I'd say year round ice free poles could be a reality around 2035 at the very latest.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 12:09:54 AM »
warming we are feeling now is mostly from GHG emissions from decades ago. GHGs are like a lid on a pot; as the lid gets thicker the stuff in the pot gets warmer, but it takes some time...in this case probably 20-30 years. The warming we have seen so far is primarily from emissions up to 1990, so about 350 ppm.
Actually, no, that's not true; http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/12/124002;jsessionid=BC6F9B408139804AB3587C183EE22AAC.c1.iopscience.cld.iop.org

Maximum warming occurs a median of 10.1 years after the CO2 emission event and has a median value of 2.2 mK GtC−1.

10
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:16:20 PM »
Quote
Using current estimates of climate sensitivity, that would lead to a global temperature increase of 0.15 degrees C.
If the global, annual temperature is increased by .15C, how much will be the local, monthly temperature increase in the arctic?
As it stands, current models (predominantly GFS) use precisely double global T for everything North of 80 degrees. So global increase of .15C would mean Arctic Circle increase of .30C. And as such that would be exponentially significant with more T rise, as +80N is partly *cause* of the feedbacks. A global rise of 2 degrees C, would mean another +4 C for +80N, and so forth.

11
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:07:55 PM »
In the article, they note that the loss of sea ice is not irreversible, provided we stop warming the planet
This was before they knew about the ~9 year lag of T peak after release. Now, we just learned that 2017 showed 2% more CO2 emissions than the year before that. It isn't slowing down, i.e. global T is going to continue to rise for at least the coming 9 years..

12
Consequences / Re: Ice-free Arctic
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:00:16 PM »
I have stopped worrying about the subsea methane bomb - and decided waiting for news from paleo climatologists,
How can the changes observed more recently in a three decade period be conclusive?
Dr. Shakhova: For the permafrost, three decades is not a huge period of time, because the processes, the consequences of which we are studying right now and have to deal with, started long long ago. This was triggered by natural warming associated with replacement of the cold climate epoch with the warm interglacial period and followed by permafrost inundation by sea water. Scientists agree that submerged permafrost would eventually start degrading, but how soon and at what pace this degradation would occur became the major point of disagreement between them.
It was suggested by some scientists that subsea permafrost would keep its integrity for millennia, which means that in the areas submerged less than 1000 years ago (as we investigated in our study) it should not have occurred yet. Our study proved that not only has it already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started.
It is most likely that we are now dealing with the consequences of when natural warming is enhanced with anthropogenic warming and together they are accelerating the pace of natural processes. This appears to be continuing the processes of permafrost degradation at levels that we have never observed before."
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline

13
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 08, 2018, 11:24:04 AM »
" ... If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years,  ..."

Of the thirteen citations provided, which ones support this claim ?
Are you seriously trying to pick that bit out to downplay the dangers?
It's not a "claim". And most likely an underestimate of the actual number.
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/custom/lpr2016/
This analysis looked at 3,700 different species of birds, fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles - about 6% of the total number of vertebrate species in the world.

"We're confident that the method we are using is the best method to present an overall estimate of population decline. It's entirely possible that species that aren't being monitored as effectively may be doing much worse - but I'd be very surprised if they were doing much better than we observed."

By the way, the normally warm North sea just suffered a hit: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/05/mass-die-off-of-sea-creatures-follows-freezing-uk-weather

And this site's death list, even though it's collected for religious tinfoil hat purposes, is all true as well: http://www.end-times-prophecy.org/animal-deaths-birds-fish-end-times.html
Extreme weather will take a lot of life and biodiversity down with it. Simply because it does not have enough time to migrate, move or adapt. And because its patterns are gone. Birds may migrate South during winter, only to find a polar vortex ruined their lunch.

14
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:26:39 AM »
And, adding to all that: We have to consider the very real possibility that when shit starts hitting fans, lunatic 'leaders' with 'power' will want to go use nuclear weaponry, because they're going to assume, at some point, it doesn't matter much any longer. A lot of humans will respond with that state of mind. A nuclear winter will be the end of the groups trying to survive in bunkers.


15
Consequences / Re: Near Term Human Extinction
« on: March 08, 2018, 12:09:12 AM »
Only an crackpot would believe in 6K warming till 2028. But what am I saying, also only a crackpot would believe in extinction of the entire human race till 2030. My friend, get horror movies that do not falsely pretend factuality, there are good ones with better visual effects than a doomsday prophet who lost his marbles.
Do you still stand by this ridiculously optimistic view, plinius?

If a 76% decline of insects was observed in 27 years in German nature reserves, the ‘decline’ would reach 100% in 35.5 years (conservatively, ignoring ecosystem collapse feedbacks). Meaning *all* insects in these nature reserves could be gone by 2027. Oh, and plants are in decline too. These are all assuming linear decline rates, while all we observe is exponential rates of change. That’s not good for human survival prospects.

If 60 percent of the world’s fish, birds, mammals, amphibians and reptiles have disappeared in the last 45 years, wouldn’t the remaining 40% also disappear in the coming 30 years? We’re not significantly changing that course of events, are we? And wouldn’t we, humans, then be part of those remaining 40%? If not: What bees do we expect pollinate our crops? Are we going to create sufficient artificial biospheres in time for it to actually function as a stable fake-earth, a replacement habitat? Do we know enough to get the details right? Where are we getting the resources and funding for that? Who gets to go inside that fake-earth when wet-bulb temperatures or radiation levels become too high? We can’t shut down all our nuclear facilities in time for it not to cause extinction level dosages worldwide, can we? There’s no miracle cure for thyroid cancer, or protection of the water-column against cesium-137 and iodine-131. So, you may well be able to hide and survive a little longer, but not more than a couple of years until the cancer kicks in.

We have built a life of growth and prosperity, with ridiculous energy usage patterns, based on finite (and soon-to-max-out) resources with no equal replacement in sight. This is uncharted territory, and the fact that generations have experienced the fossil-fueled upswing holds no predictive power over our future. Just because growth has been thematic does not mean it will always be there. The failure of most people to treat this possibility seriously is disheartening, because it prevents meaningful planning for a different future. We can all hope for new technologies to help us. But this problem is too big to rely on hope alone, and in any case, no practical technology can keep growth going indefinitely.

Let's, optimistically, assume we'll have a year round ice-free Arctic (ignoring Greenland) in 2024, which seems entirely plausible considering what the jet-streams seem to be doing lately. Do you have any idea what that will do to sub-sea permafrost?
It adds up. And, according to Semiletov and Shakhova:
"For the permafrost, the past three decades is not a huge period of time, because the processes, the consequences of which we are studying right now and have to deal with, started long long ago. This was triggered by natural warming associated with replacement of the cold climate epoch with the warm interglacial period and followed by permafrost inundation by sea water. Scientists agree that submerged permafrost would eventually start degrading, but how soon and at what pace this degradation would occur became the major point of disagreement between them.
It was suggested by some scientists that subsea permafrost would keep its integrity for millennia, which means that in the areas submerged less than 1000 years ago (as we investigated in our study) it should not have occurred yet. Our study proved that not only has it already occurred, but it has been progressing to higher rates, which have almost doubled since this degradation started.
It is most likely that we are now dealing with the consequences of when natural warming is enhanced with anthropogenic warming, and together they are accelerating the pace of natural processes. This appears to be continuing the processes of permafrost degradation at levels that we have never observed before."

You do realize that methane has 34 x the CO2 equivalent GWP over a 100 year span? We're already at 1840 ppb total column CH4. This used to never be higher than 800 ppb for the past 800000 years. This is a new IR bounce blanket trapping even more heat than CO2 and H2O are already doing.
Either way, assuming it takes about 2 years more before enough CH4 has left the clathrates and other frozen carbon storage locations to make enough of an impact, we could reach +4Celsius above baseline around ~2027. That's not going to bring equilibrium for cold spots anywhere on the planet. It basically means stormy warm moist weather everywhere, too little water in the ground and only artificially grown crops remaining. Trying to feed 8 billion humans is not going to work, in 2027.

References:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0185809
https://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_640529_en.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a6098/are-plants-around-the-world-really-dying/
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/all_publications/lpr_2016/
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-global-co2-emissions-set-to-rise-2-percent-in-2017-following-three-year-plateau
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/future-technology-cannot-rescue-mankind-climate-change-global-warming-a8187806.html
https://www.unilad.co.uk/news/mass-extinction-event-under-way-threatening-survival-of-human-race/
http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/203-subsea-permafrost-on-east-siberian-arctic-shelf-now-in-accelerated-decline

https://theecologist.org/2016/nov/18/debate-over-earths-sixth-great-extinction-has-arrived
https://un-denial.com/2017/11/28/on-winning-the-game/
https://medium.com/@FeunFooPermaKra/the-collapse-of-global-civilization-has-begun-b527c649754c
https://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/2017/11/21/brace-for-impact/
https://brooklynculturejammers.com/2018/02/25/extinction-news-blah-blah/

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 17, 2018, 10:04:02 PM »
NASA knows that 1980-2010 is not the baseline, they use it for political reasons.
Hmm.. I doubt it. The bad thing is, if even that baseline shows anomalies 8 years later, it proves in how much trouble we are, since that means nothing more or less than exponential rise.
Which is exactly what it reveals.
Climate Reanalyzer, for one, uses a 1979-2000 climate baseline (for their 2m T anomaly maps), derived from the reanalysis of the NCEP Climate Forecast System (CFSR/CFSV2). This baseline is chosen over the more typical 1981-2010 climate normal for the simple reason that it better approximates historical climatology. 

17
Consequences / Re: Apes love fire -> fire makes profit -> fire kills apes.
« on: February 17, 2018, 09:58:46 PM »
the cancer apes have 400+ nuclear reactors that can easily be upgraded to eliminate safety concerns. (. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world-today.aspx ).
Easily upgraded if
1) there's enough money
2) there's enough time (takes at least 5-10 years).
Both are a bit of an issue right now..

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 17, 2018, 09:55:20 PM »
Impact yes, large no.  The loss of floating ice has no impact on sea level promptly. It has secondary impacts that feed back loops that will contribute.
Depends on the size of the floating ice, and where it floats to. If it's an Antarctic floater, a really big one, it can melt fast if it floats Northwards, and it will give a measurable SLR result worldwide.

19
The rest / Re: A must read
« on: February 17, 2018, 05:32:50 PM »
Terry,

A coup is not required to form a police state.
At some point the insane self-entitlement of the (stupid) wealthy is going to show its true face. Afraid to have to share some of their wealth with the exploited poor of the world. At some point maintaining global extreme disparity is going to crash. I think we're almost there. Herds of starving poor people forcing big airplanes to drop them off somewhere rich, where armies of police and military will have to try and contain the bloodshed of the herds of hungry poor that no longer see a future with purpose, they'll storm the barricades, governments will force police to use rights to hurt and taser at free will. And then that scene will be copied by all the trigger-happy violent deluded wealthy pricks that think they have it so hard because they make only $1000 a month, with 3 meat-eating dogs and 2 guns. And then all bets are off. With a bit of luck extreme weather and extreme heat will take some of the strength out of them, but police state is part of the deal. It starts with governments attempting to keep the walls of wealth up, keeping outsiders out, keeping the slavery up, so the peanuts, coffee and chocolate can keep coming in, but the humans can't. Then those humans give up. Stop working. The End. ;)

20
The rest / Re: A must read
« on: February 17, 2018, 05:23:01 PM »
May I also jump in with some Must Read sites, or at least some of the posts on them are way above what many wouldn't dare write about;
https://un-denial.com/welcome/
https://jult.net/
http://witsendnj.blogspot.nl/

Then there's ex-MicroSoft employee Jamen Shively with some interesting honest ideas for 'a future':

Be warned though, all of the above are not suitable for those suffering true depression or similar mental conditions.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 17, 2018, 05:08:10 PM »

^ This is certainly not going to help.

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: February 17, 2018, 04:10:32 PM »
Is it just me or do 2017 and 2018 seem to have their "breathing" synchronized? ie if you kinda squint your eyes, they expand and contract roughly at the same times. I would have thought that would be uncorrelated on daily or weekly time scales.
I thought I was the only one seeing that. It seems there's at least some kind of new equilibrium that sort of came to life around October 2016. The interesting detail around that shift is that it started precisely when the QBO went off-base: https://twitter.com/splillo/status/818959727036104705/photo/1 Perhaps the jetstreams and ocean currents have changed to a new state, or the next stepping stone to an ice-free planet.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 17, 2018, 03:42:37 PM »
<snip>

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: October 10, 2017, 11:54:32 AM »
The chart also shows a distinct cooling of summer months (May thru August), beginning in 2013.
Yes, this is due to the global rise of water vapor (and other greenhouse gases). Seasonal changes are going to diminish within the blanket of GHGs. At some point, and we don't know when, it even reaches a level of equalization because of the shielding effects. Less heat is getting in, but the heat energy that does get in, stays there and spreads out evenly globally, regardless of lower layer content. This is best seen with this correlation: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10155019017687201&l=59fe6bcf60

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 30, 2017, 11:59:16 PM »
Cold spikes like the current one are not uncommon. The temperature will reach peak cold soon and then shoot back up.
In fact, as of a week from now, starting around Wednesday, yet another +1.8C heat-anomalous period is predicted to further destroy remaining ice.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 09:17:04 PM »
Most of the Arctic is still strongly stratified. The warm salty Atlantic layer is below several hundred meters of cold fresh water in most of the Arctic ocean and is hundreds of meters thick. The Arctic does not resemble Antarctica. There's a vast difference in the marine and atmospheric dynamics of a polar ocean versus a polar continent. Please, folks, don't make stuff up when you haven't gone to the trouble to read up on the basic science of the oceans and the atmosphere.
The ESAS is only around 50 meters deep, and a pretty huge driver, especially considering http://arctic.ru/climate/20170809/655109.html.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 04:07:03 PM »
DMI SST anomaly maps for August 11th 2012, 2016 and 2017. Its clear that 2017 doesn't have the same oomph on the Atlantic side of the Arctic as 2016, and it's not nearly as red in the Siberian sector as it was in 2012:
Sure but water flows and mixes with the deep. 90% of the total volume of ocean is found below the thermocline in the deep oceans. It's not just SSTs that are record high when you take the average of the entire globe (and might now be mildly showing in the North), it's also lower depth currents that will cause ice to thin fast(er). Note that both vertical and horizontal mixing has worryingly increased almost everywhere the past 2 decades. Enhanced thermocline mixing is one of the reasons why temperature, sharpness and depth of the equatorial Pacific thermocline (critical to the development of El Ninõ and Southern Oscillation) have changed a lot, and which is why we don't see much of a La Niña this year.
My gut feeling still says we'll go below 2012 this year, if only because of that.

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 12, 2017, 01:09:38 AM »
That's very interesting Rob.  I guess what is more interesting is that the cold caused by that significant snow didn't have a bigger effect.

To me it looks like the whole pack is at risk of one significant storm sweeping in through the Beaufort, Chuchki and ESS and overwhelming anything retained by the snow anomaly.

Quite right, Neil.
It looks like the snow anomaly cooled things down, but not enough to prevent major reduction of Arctic sea ice. While in other years it would. The only fair reason I can come up with is that the ice this year is really thinner than in prior years, which adds credibility to PIOMAS' ice thickness estimates.
And don't forget ocean temperatures are a huge driver now. SSTs alone have been record high this year, almost everywhere on the planet.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 24, 2017, 05:05:44 PM »
In forecast mode (using 1992-2011 data), for 2012, my method still predicts 3.83, essentially the same as in hindcast mode (3.82). The final extent was 3.62, so a reasonable prediction.
In forecast mode (using 1992-2006 data), for 2007, my method predicts 5.06, slightly higher than the 4.77 prediction in hindcast mode, but still predicting a record low. The final was 4.29 which is quite a bit lower than either forecast or hindcast mode predictions.
So, the first (for 2007) showed .48 lower actual, the second (2012) .20 lower actual. Let's assume your forecasts aren't including methane and some other positive feedbacks with exponential forcing character for melting that should be included now rather than in 5 years, like with the IPCC, I think it's fair to say your prediction for 2017 could be about ~.8 off actual.
Taking that on board, for 2017, you predict 3.85 M km^2 NSIDC 'area' in September. I say that may well end up being no more than 3 M km^2 area in September.

Look at global SST's again, using the newer more accurate satellites, for July 23rd in 2016;

and 2017:

Note how the El Niño effects have barely, if at all, "disappeared". If anything, sea surface temps have gone more dense in heat overall, in the Mediterranean too. Looking at this global scale doesn't make it really clear, but heat has moved about 100km polewards, on both sides. This heat will exchange with surface air, move around, and ultimately melt ice.
Thickness and volume will, in my view, derived from first-hand work near Шпицберген 2 months ago, reach an absolute record low this year. And, like I wrote earlier, my 51 years on this planet tell me we've seen Peak Ice globally. For trustworthy predictions, I think we need to look at total energy in atmo. The energy has to be and go somewhere, when it's not radiated out to space. (Adding 4 Hiroshima bombs per second is not something to ignore.)

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 23, 2017, 02:16:02 PM »
The CAA is just waiting on the least little push before it starts flowing south.
Or warm water starts pushing North. Ocean SSTs are warmer than ever at the edges of the poles. It's going to melt from below and since the sun is appearing there too, it doesn't have a chance. We may see extent stabilize (although I also doubt that it will), but volume, thickness, is going to drop to record lows, way below 2012, I don't think anyone expects otherwise.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 22, 2017, 09:02:03 PM »
Both NSIDC and IJIS extent have moved into 2nd place. And the graphic below indicates that at least NSIDC may/will even take 1st place from 2011 (which started to flatten out the last week of July), and stay there until the first week in August, when the GAC took 2012 on its major downward excursion.
What good is extent if thickness is incomparable to 2012?
http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/files/2017/07/sit_PIOMAS_mask_June17.gif
What's left over is very thin. 95% of 2 meter ice is gone now, 99% of the 3, 4 and 5 meter thick ice too.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 21, 2017, 10:26:49 AM »
If this all melts out as history would indicate it will, the "false" positive perceived by PIOMAS will result in a relative anomalous drop compared to 2012, as that is the only region holding 2017's #s out of the gutter they had previously been relegated within. Accounting for this, an area/extent record also seems much more plausible when you consider that the current state of 2017 vs. 2012 may be overestimated in 2012's favor.
Indeed, I would advise to note the differences in global (and in particular polar edges of) oceanic temperature anomalies between 2016 and 2017:


Note how on the Antarctic side the large refrigerators have pretty much been dissolved in warmer waters. It's quite clear that, not only is there not much of a La Niña to speak of, the heat is much more evenly spread globally now, compared to 2016. We can assume this also applies for depth, as is usually proven by coral reefs, for which troubles move North, and from that we should expect heat from below this year. Ocean currents aren't helping to keep it cool, heat is penetrating towards the poles.

The fact that heat is much more evenly spread out makes me say we've seen Peak Ice, globally (~July 9th 2017). I'm not expecting sudden cooling spikes, as we've had sometimes in previous years, at least not coming from heat-exchange with the oceans. We can't count on a solar minimum, like many crazies presume. The minimum ahead is not very low, 'peaks' around 2019-2020, besides, it's estimated that another solar minimum equivalent to the Dalton and Maunder minima would cause 0.09°C and 0.26°C cooling, respectively, so that's not gonna work against the forcing of GHGs and feedbacks.

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: July 21, 2017, 09:30:48 AM »
Put ice in a mixer: After the first second or so you'll have big chunks, a real broken up mess. Like 2016. Start the mixer again, and after a while you'll get something smooth an seemingly much more coherent. Like 2017. That's where you make Daiquiri from. But the ice is not really in better shape than the chunky pieces, though it certainly has a higher compactness and a better look. I think we are in Daiquiri times and there's still a lot to happen this season.
Exactly. And some seem to be forgetting the fact that the earth has been heating at a rate of 250 trillion Joules per second. 250 trillion Joules per second is equivalent to detonating four Hiroshima atomic bombs per second, or two entire hurricane Sandy's per second. 90% of those 250 trillion J/s go into the ocean. All this heat has to go somewhere, it's not radiating outwards (that's what's already included in this calculation). The ice melting shouldn't surprise us at all.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 19, 2017, 11:18:02 AM »
2016 was hottest or second hottest on record across the arctic from Sep to  Dec and in the top  5 from June - Aug.  This year is unlikely to be anywhere near that hot and I would expect  the October peak to be much closer to  normal than last year.
Have you taken into consideration how there has not been any growth to speak of in 2017? There has not been one month of 'normal' ice since about mid September 2016. So if 2017 would have to pick up in being cold enough for new ice, it sure is taking long..
Seen this latest graphing by Gavin? https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/887522165196820480/photo/1

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 18, 2017, 09:04:42 PM »
It's not unlikely that we've seen peak ice extent globally for this year, but with inter-annual variability in both Arctic and Antarctic ice I'm pretty sure it'll go higher than that at some point in the next few years.

Let's see: if 9th July 2017 still stands unbeaten by 01/01/2020, I will donate €20 to a charity of your choice. If it is beaten before then, however, I would like you to give €20 to http://www.ippf.org/. Sound fair?
OK, sounds fair ;-) I hope you're right, but I'm trying to be realistic. The fat years are over, if you ask me.
Together with aforementioned PAC2017, coming weekend in the Arctic it's anomaly-time:


And even worse next week in the Antarctic;

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 18, 2017, 03:31:14 PM »
greatdying2,
Quote
Troubling low concentration areas appearing on the Atlantic side, according to both Bremen AMSR2 and Wipneus' NSIDC maps
Just a tad to the East of that big hole NE of Greenland, the SST are highly anomalous; https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/primary/waves/overlay=sea_surface_temp/orthographic=-12.20,79.42,3000/loc=5.210,77.748
15.5C there now (South-West of Spitsbergen), so one could guess these holes are from underwater currents that derive from there, and are flowing upwards and setting off the meltdown. Note how the winds (thus waves) are also pretty strong towards the pole there..

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 18, 2017, 12:18:11 PM »


Isn't it safe to assume we have already seen Global Peak Ice then?
Any of you here predict the extent shows October growth the way it did before 2016? I have serious doubts about that, mainly looking at SST for the last couple of months, set next to previous years. That just cannot be good for ice globally. Plus the brick that broke off Larsen C (and drifts into melthood) will not do much good either, wasn't even there in 2016.
I seriously think we've just experienced Peak Ice. Isn't it strange how this isn't even headline news then? Think about it:
There will never be more ice on the planet, ever again, in human existence, than there was on the 9th of July 2017.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: July 14, 2017, 12:43:21 AM »
It really amazes me, that even some Veterans have Hopium for a Rebound Year.
Yes, it's almost irrational. With the brick loose from Larsen C I really think this was it; We'll *never* see higher extent globally anymore in our lives, or in human existence, even. That's a harsh realization, but it's a valid one. It's had its last chance a couple of days ago, but you can all see the pattern now;
https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/sea-ice-extent-area/grf/nsidc_global_extent_byyear_b.png
This was really it, guys.
It's bye bye to the ice-caps. There's no recovery plan that'll work or fix it in time. And knowing the relation of upcoming meltdown (pun intended) to the addition of excess CH4, it also means the countdown can begin within our generations. We'll be living with uninhabitable zones that have too high wet-bulb temperatures much sooner than expected.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (February)
« on: February 09, 2017, 10:07:41 AM »
Well, this is terrifying. [...]
You may want to consider adding a legend with the graph, because the thin line at the bottom seems to indicate a lower record anomaly exists, which I doubt is true, making the graph less impactful than it should be. Or just remove that thin line.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: Ice free predictions and their uncertainty
« on: December 07, 2016, 01:15:11 PM »
The first ice free September will be predictable about 2 months before it happens.
Really? Nobody in early September 2016 would have predicted the absurd low appearing in November globally;


Taking that into account, there's really no saying when it will happen. It could be July 2017 with a little (bad) luck.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: December 07, 2016, 12:47:27 PM »


It's the (new) CCI Reanalyzer, GFS 2m T anomalies of +30 C here and there in the Arctic Dec. 9th..
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wxrmaps/#GFS-025deg.WORLD-CED.T2_anom

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 22, 2016, 12:25:33 PM »
Chiming in here with a few facts I did not see mention often;

- An icey object floating will melt faster per m2 when its size is smaller, obviously, a logical result of having a larger contact ratio with (unfrozen) water. This is a problem, especially for polar ice-surface refreeze ('negative') energy requirements.

- Following that, looking at this:

we clearly see that even the Antarctic seas now have +3C SST anomalies to suffer from (with a 1961-1990 base). This has its direct impact on sea ice area and extent of course. (Last year this was not the case; The seas around the Antarctic were at or below the 1961-1990 base.) As long as that's visible, we will see more melt than we would like to see.

Although not much of it is known, aside from the warmer oceans and undercurrents, I also think the big change in the thus-far stable QBO phases plays a big role here;
showing Sam Lilo's work here to make it clearer
It's unclear what is the source there, and it may not even be a warming globe or greenhouse effects for all of these, but it surely influences the distribution of air around the different layers in the atmosphere.

I don't think the global melting of ice in the same year is a coincidence there. You can even see the 2016 deviation in Wipneus' GSIA graph just about takes off when the QBO was done going out of phase, around mid May.

Pages: [1]