Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - gerontocrat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 101
1
The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: June 19, 2019, 10:37:33 PM »
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jun/19/nuclear-weapons-pentagon-us-military-doctrine

"be afraid, be very afraid". But this time - not a joke.

I remember as a teenager in October 1962 with my brother pressing my ear against the living room door as my parents discussed where to run to as it looked like they were going to drop the bomb. We were less than 50 miles from London. Dad wanted us to run to Wales. Mother told him not to be daft. Better to be instantly fried than die horribly from radiation plus starvation and exposure.

A long preamble to....

Nuclear weapons: experts alarmed by new Pentagon 'war-fighting' doctrine

US joint chiefs of staff posted then removed paper that suggests nuclear weapons could ‘create conditions for decisive results’

Quote
The Pentagon believes using nuclear weapons could “create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability”, according to a new nuclear doctrine adopted by the US joint chiefs of staff last week.

The document, entitled Nuclear Operations, was published on 11 June, and was the first such doctrine paper for 14 years. Arms control experts say it marks a shift in US military thinking towards the idea of fighting and winning a nuclear war – which they believe is a highly dangerous mindset.

“Using nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability,” the joint chiefs’ document says. “Specifically, the use of a nuclear weapon will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and create conditions that affect how commanders will prevail in conflict.”

At the start of a chapter on nuclear planning and targeting, the document quotes a cold war theorist, Herman Kahn, as saying: “My guess is that nuclear weapons will be used sometime in the next hundred years, but that their use is much more likely to be small and limited than widespread and unconstrained.”

Kahn was a controversial figure. He argued that a nuclear war could be “winnable” and is reported to have provided part of the inspiration for Stanley Kubrick’s film Dr Strangelove.

The Nuclear Operations document was taken down from the Pentagon online site after a week, and is now only available through a restricted access electronic library. But before it was withdrawn it was downloaded by Steven Aftergood, who directs the project on government secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.

A spokesman for the joint chiefs of staff said the document was removed from the publicly accessible defence department website “because it was determined that this publication, as is with other joint staff publications, should be for official use only”.

In an emailed statement the spokesman did not say why the document was on the public website for the first week after publication.

Aftergood said the new document “is very much conceived as a war-fighting doctrine – not simply a deterrence doctrine, and that’s unsettling”.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2019, 09:37:51 PM »

Monoculture tree planing, especially in grasslands, has been shown to be carbon negative.
A natural forest maximises the use of sunlight.
Plantations do not.

A natural forest can be started by planting a mixture of trees known to be happy in that particular habitat. And that needs a study before rushing into planting. It probably takes a century or more afterwards to for it to reach its maximum fecundity and biodiversity. 1st image

In many places, e.g those with thin laterite soils, it is almost impossible to resurrect the forest. I flew over New Caledonia more than 25 years ago. The hills had lost their trees - deforestation by the colonial government. It is highly unlikely things have changed that much.
Much more recent image attached.

"We will just plant a load of trees". Nature just does not work like that.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 19, 2019, 09:00:05 PM »
Thanks, but I am only seeing one graph.

I look forward to the other three.

Cheers
Look again...

4
Glaciers / Re: Glaciers worldwide decline faster than ever
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:43:29 PM »
Typo, Tom:  "before 2030".
Their conclusion is in conflict with the recent From A Glacier's Perspective post on Varied Snowcover Extent Diagnostic of Glacier NP Glacier Climate Response - June 14, 2019
Quote
[That] Three of the glaciers that retain significant snowcover indicates these glaciers are not as vulnerable to warming and will continue to persist until 2050 at least.
(edit for grammar's sake)
Reminds me of "Mars Attacks" after the Martians have wiped out Congress. The President (Jack Nicholson)  addresses the Nation sort of like this..
"Yes, we've lost Congress. But we've still got The Executive and The Judiciary... and two out of three ain't bad".

"No, we ain't gonna lose all the glaciers by 2030.. three might last 'til 2050". Whoopee.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:31:30 PM »
The Great Lakes covered in solar panels and wind turbines, the price of the future?

No, you hugely, hugely overestimate the amount of land required for a 100% RE future.  Some wind turbines not too far from major population centers (minimize transmission costs while minimizing aesthetic objections).  And no floating solar installation on large bodies of water subject to major storms and major ice events.
One thing that Musk has got about right.

Quote
“If you wanted to power the entire United States with solar panels, it would take a fairly small corner of Nevada or Texas or Utah; you only need about 100 miles by 100 miles of solar panels to power the entire United States,” Musk said at at the event in Rhode Island. “The batteries you need to store the energy, so you have 24/7 power, is 1 mile by 1 mile. One square-mile.”

One of many visualisations that have failed to kick this misconception into the bin is attached

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: June 19, 2019, 07:22:19 PM »
I am not trying to discredit PIOMAS, but it's important to understand it's limitations and I'm not there yet.

PIOMAS is known to be:

1.  Not very accurate,

and

2.  Better than anything else we've got.
At the beginning of the month I posted some thickness graphs (PIOMAS volume divided by NSIDC Area) of some individual seas. It showed clearly that in at least some of the smaller seas as  summer advanced, the data started to look somewhat dodgy. But that when that starts to happen at least it does tell you that the sea is nearly kaput of ice.

So here are 4 thickness graphs.
The Chukchi - a fair sized sea that melts in a fairly orderly way.
The Greenland Sea - really messy,. so dependent on quantity and nature of what arrives from the Fram Strait
Baffin Bay Note the 2000 Average line. That I do NOT understand

High Arctic Seas- the 7 central seas as in Tealight's High Arctic**.

**Still a long way to go to melt out.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 19, 2019, 05:51:25 PM »
There are guys on this forum and in many places in the world trying to make a go of commercial farming that produces food and increases the organic (which includes CO2) and microbial content of the soil.

Agro-Industry (e.g. Bayer/Monsanto) are, if anything, an even more implacable opponent than the fossil fuel industry.

They could be, if allowed, more the real saviours of humanity's sorry arse than all the Gretas and Musks of the world, in my not very 'umble opinion.

8
Thickness - a simple calculation of PIOMAS volume divided by NSIDC Area.

Note how in 2017 thickness was (apparently**) very low but it did not result in a new minimum area or extent at the end of the season.

**apparently.  Have I got this right?
WHOOPS --- Thanks Oren - see his post beloiw
VOLUME:- We are told (and logic supports this) that as volume declines PIOMAS volume calculations get more prone to error - the freeboard amount, grid element by grid element, that is translated into thickness  becomes very small. This is then multiplied by a factor of around 10(?) to get the thickness of each element. The sensors have their limits. That is true

AREA: At maximum, concentration is over 90%, at minimum around 55%. Lots of thin dispersed ice to confuse the sensors.

I guess that means looking at longer trends (weeks rather than days) is more sensible.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 19, 2019, 02:16:28 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 18 June 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,202,234  km2
               
Total Area         
 8,202,234    km2      
-311,957    km2   <   2010's average.
-460,946    k   <   2018
-975,008    k   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change   -84    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -21    k   loss
Central Seas__   -42    k   loss
Other Seas___   -21    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -11    k   loss
Greenland____   -6    k   loss
Barents ______   -3    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    3    k   gain
CAA_________   -9    k   loss
East Siberian__    2    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -2    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -24    k   loss
Laptev_______   -11    k   loss
Chukchi______   -1    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    1    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -21    k   loss

Area loss 84 k, 22 K LESS than the 2010's average loss of 106 k on this day.
Total area 2nd lowest (again) (46 k less than 2016, and 281 k greater than 2012).
2012 is definitely the front runner as regards area now.

Other Stuff
GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +1.4 to +2.2 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and sometimes strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort/CAA and the Kara Seas.

We are in the period of maximum daily area loss that lasts until mid or late July.
After 2 days with daily area losses in the stratosphere, losses have quickly retreated to well below average in the last two days.

Daily extent losses have also been at or a bit below average - an average of 50k per day this month to date, but today a loss of 139k)

Meanwhile, volume in the first half of June dropped like a stone (see the PIOMAS thread)

Mixed messages from all over the place.
_______________________________________________________________

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2019)
« on: June 19, 2019, 12:33:37 PM »
As usual I have given my laptop a hernia by making it digest the PIOMAS data from Wipneus.
Firstly, the standard graphs and tables as I use for the JAXA extent data.

2019 Volume has taken a tumble in these two brief weeks.
2019 volume now less than 2018 by 1,324 km3 (7.6%).

Data that backs up numerous observations in the melting thread regarding the condition of the ice in the melting thread - e.g.s  highly mobile, fractured, disintegrating, rubble,dispersed.

Will it continue?

11
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: June 19, 2019, 10:06:17 AM »
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ as at 18 June 2019

Melt was strong and very much above average, near the maximum for the year. Precipitation was very low. Hence daily SMB had a very large mass loss increasing again the cumulative -ve SMB anomaly for Greenland.

My prediction that belongs to me is that today (Wednesday) will see a strong melt, and in the days after melt likely to moderate but perhaps still above average..
 
Precipitation in the next week is looking dry over most of Greenland apart from moderate precipitation in the NorthWest.

SMB mass loss to continue but at a lower rate?
_____________________________________________________
Note from DMI

When comparing melt with the surface mass balance under ”Daily change”, note that melting can occur without surface mass loss since the meltwater can refreeze in the underlying snow. Likewise, surface mass loss can occur without melting due to sublimation.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:59:34 AM »
JAXA Global Sea Ice Extent as at 18 June 2019 :      22,403,886 km2

In the last 2 weeks Arctic extent loss was well below average, and while Antarctic extent gain was up and down around the average. Extent has remained lowest, now for 70 days this year, 64 days in a row.

Extent is 242 k below 2017, 730 k below 2018.

- extent gain on this day 56 k, 7 k more than the the average gain of 49 k on this day,
- extent gain from minimum to date is 6.15 million km2, 1.24 million km2 (17%) less than the average gain of 7.11 milllion km2 by this day,
-on average 81.9% of extent gain done and 139 days to maximum, but before that there is a false maximum (in July) and a false minimum (in September) before the (usually) true maximum around the 4th of November.

The Perils of Projections
The last 10 years average remaining extent gain would give a maximum of 24.04 million km2,  402 k more than the record low maximum in 2016 and 2nd lowest in the satellite record.

Being a combination of two separate pieces of data volatility is often very high. Confidence in any projection is even lower than normal. However, the JAXA extent data so far does not point to a change to the usual pattern of a false maximum in July, a false min in Aug/Sep and a final max in early November.

13
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:33:01 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC Sea Ice Extent : 12,367,006 km2(June 18, 2019)

Extent gains more below than above average in the last week.
2019 remains lowest in the satellite record for the 68th day this year, extent now 296 k below 2017.

- Extent gain on this day 125k, 18 k more than the average gain of 107 k on this day.
- Extent gain from minimum is 9.942 million km2, 1.075 million km2 (10%) less than the average of 11.018 million km2 by this day,
- 68.9% of average extent gain done, with 90 days to average date of maximum (16 Sept).

The Perils of Projections
Remaining average freeze of last 10 years gives a max of 17.36 million km2, 0.71 million km2 less than 2017 (the record low maximum year).
______________________________________________________________________
I will only be posting occasional updates from now on unless something of note occurs.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 19, 2019, 08:16:38 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT :-  10,036,880 km2(June 18, 2019)

- Extent is 6th lowest in the satellite record.
- Extent loss on this day 68 k, 10 k MORE than the average loss on this day of 58 k.
- Extent loss from maximum 4,234 k, 126 k (3.1 %) greater than the average of 4,108 k loss from maximum by this day,
- On average 41.6% of the melting season done, with 87 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.
Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.26 million km2, 5th lowest in the satellite record, and 1.08 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2.
Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.38 million km2, 6th lowest, and 1.20 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +1.4 to +2.2 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and sometimes strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort/CAA and the Kara Seas.

A day of  above average extent loss in contrast to the series of daily extent losses that have been below average for the last 2 weeks. Melt remains only marginally above average. Average remaining melt data still points towards minimum well above 2012 and 2nd to 5th lowest. 2/5ths of the average melt in the season is now completed.

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 19, 2019, 12:41:12 AM »
Your ripples of impact are spreading far and wide...
It wasn't me, I đidn't do it!

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 18, 2019, 11:43:02 PM »
Where does the BEIGE pixel chart update?
The links are both there.

All the SMOS maps are here. The page updates daily by adding the new daily maps at the bottom - so you have to scroll to the bottom. The specific map I post is [date]_hvnorth_rfi_l1c.png

For the current chart I think you can go directly to it at https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/thin-ice-thickness/

17
The above graph is from The Polar Science Center,
The PIOMAS volume data, which most of us await with bated breath, is from The Polar Science Center.

The Graph says decadal volume loss of 3,800 km3.
The PIOMAS commentary to their monthly updates says decadal loss of 2,800 km3. The graph I made from the PIOMAS daily data agrees with that (attached)

Not a small difference.

1910 to 1978. Not a clue how they did it. Must have been some heroic assumptions used given the sparsity of data available. (Still somewhat problematical today - especially in summer).

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 18, 2019, 04:58:42 PM »
NSIDC sea ice extent is now the 7th lowest value for 6.17, with a value of 10.696 millions of kilometers squared. 2019 has greater sea ice extent for the date, than 2010, 2011, 2012, 2016, 2017, and 2018.

do you just repeat numbers that we can see ourselves or do you want to tell us something with it ? if you want to tell us something, then say it so we can check and/or oppose false assumptions. if you only want to make disconnected buzz-word-statements or stating the obvious, i sooner or later have to see to avoid seeing it ;)

So there is Rich saying this thread is only for book-keeping,
and
there is magnamentis saying as we can see it ourselves why post the numbers.

Some days I get a bit hacked off.

But there are a lot of people on this forum who don't have access to the numbers. So, to quote Dorothy Parker:-

Resumé

Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful;
Nooses give;
Gas smells awful;
You might as well live.

19
So sad that Australia was not so long ago ready to lead, we were once known as a great and generous nation. Where did we go so wrong.
Take heart NevB, at least the new South Australia Government is going for it - and its a Liberal Govt. And not just blah blah, lots of specific projects. Worth a good read.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australias-stunning-aim-to-be-net-100-per-cent-renewables-by-2030/
South Australia’s stunning aim to be “net” 100 per cent renewables by 2030


https://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-looks-to-evs-to-flatten-solar-duck-curve-55609/
South Australia looks to EVs to flatten solar duck curve
Quote
South Australia’s Liberal government is looking to go where its federal counterparts fear to tread, and will shortly unveil an electric vehicle strategy designed to lower emissions in transport and solve some of the key challenges of its  high renewables grid.

20
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: June 18, 2019, 03:17:16 PM »
What accounts for the surface mass increases along the western edge of the ice sheet? It can’t be from excess snow because we would see the anomaly extend inland. Could this be capturing the slide of the ice sheet towards the sea.
Not a clue. You could try asking DMI - including the guy who did that video about probabilities of a major melt this season.

It has been there a long time.(See attached map )

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 18, 2019, 02:21:04 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 17 June 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,286,213 km2
               
Total Area         
 8,286,213    km2      
-336,884    km2   <   2010's average.
-467,883    k   <   2018
-1,007,195    k   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change   -102    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -27    k   loss
Central Seas__   -55    k   loss
Other Seas___   -20    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -15    k   loss
Greenland____   -8    k   loss
Barents ______   -4    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    3    k   gain
CAA_________   -14    k   loss
East Siberian__   -9    k   loss
Central Arctic_   -9    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -25    k   loss
Laptev_______    0    k   gain
Chukchi______   -2    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    1    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -1    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -20    k   loss

Area loss 102 k, 18 K LESS than the 2010's average loss of 120 k on this day.
Total area 2nd lowest (again) (60 k less than 2016, and 280 k greater than 2012).
2012 is definitely the front runner as regards area now.

Other Stuff
GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +0.9 to +2.2 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort and the Kara Seas.

We are in the period of maximum daily area loss that lasts until mid or late July.
After 2 days with daily area losses in the stratosphere, losses have quickly retreated to below average.

(Daily extent losses have also been at or a bit below average - an average of 50k per day this month to date.)
_______________________________________________________________

22
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: June 18, 2019, 01:19:50 PM »
The scientists have invented a new toy for themselves - the cryoegg. I hope it doesn't get squashed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48638958
'Cryoegg' to explore under Greenland Ice Sheet
Quote
UK scientists head to Greenland this week to trial new sensors that can be placed under its 2km-thick ice sheet.

The instruments are designed to give researchers unique information on the way glaciers slide towards the ocean.

Dubbed "Cryoeggs", the devices will report back on the behaviour of the meltwaters that run beneath the ice.

This water acts to lubricate the flow of glaciers, and in a warmer world could increase the volume of ice discharged to the ocean.

This would push up global sea levels - potentially by as much as 7m, if all the ice on Greenland were to melt.

Scientists want to understand how fast the process could unfold.

"Our models have done a fantastic job so far in building a picture of what might happen, but they've essentially been working blind because we have so little data from the bed of the Greenland ice sheet," said Dr Liz Bagshaw from Cardiff University.

"We have some measurements from cabled instruments and from the bottom of boreholes, but we don't have enough data to figure out what's going on across the whole of the ice sheet, to determine how much of that 7m might end up in the ocean," she told BBC News.

23
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:42:53 AM »
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ as at 17 June 2019

Melt was stronger and very much above average, near the maximum for the year. Precipitation was very low. Hence daily SMB had a very large mass loss increasing again the cumulative -ve SMB anomaly for Greenland.

The weekly update of accumulated SMB is out today. It shows the mass loss anomaly over the entirety of Greenland apart from a narrow coastal fringe in the SE.

a[/b]My prediction that belongs to me is that Tuesday and perhaps Wednesday will see a strong melt, and in the days after melt likely to moderate but perhaps still above average..
 
Precipitation in the next week is looking dry over most of Greenland apart from moderate precipitation in the NorthWest.

SMB mass loss to continue but at a lower rate?
_____________________________________________________
Note from DMI

When comparing with the surface mass balance under ”Daily change”, that melting can occur without surface mass loss since the meltwater can refreeze in the underlying snow. Likewise, surface mass loss can occur without melting due to sublimation.
[/quote]

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:01:19 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT :-  10,105,376 km2(June 17, 2019)

- Extent is 5th lowest in the satellite record.
- Extent loss on this day 44 k, 16 k less than the average loss on this day of 60 k.
- Extent loss from maximum 4.166 k, 115 k (2.8 %) greater than the average of 4,051 k loss from maximum by this day,
- On average 41.0% of the melting season done, with 88 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.
Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.28 million km2, 6th lowest in the satellite record, and 1.10 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2.
Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.40 million km2, 6th lowest, and 1.22 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +0.9 to +2.2 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort and the Kara Seas.

Another day to add to the series of daily extent losses that have been below average for the last 2 weeks. Melt is now only marginally above average. Average remaining melt data still points towards minimum well above 2012 and 2nd to 5th lowest. 2/5ths of the average melt in the season is now completed.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northern Sea Route thread
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:52:10 PM »
When will the Russian Arctic be open for traffic?

Mind you, the LNG tankers might start coming out of Yamal before it is really open.
But that load of frozen fish might have to wait.

Might not be long.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:41:46 PM »
Can the ability to change vote be added?

I voted Aug 1 to 15 thinking about the Parry Channel. Mostly still pretty solidly blocked.
Now I am thinking about small vessels able to creep along close to the Canadian shore. Ice looking much less solid - July 16 to 31 would be my vote for that.

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:21:29 PM »
Storage is regulable energy source with EROEI below 1.
Surely EROEI is all about how much of the energy contained within fossil fuels ends up as available  for productive work?

The nuclear fusion reactor up in the sky is going to burn its 600 million tonnes of hydrogen per second no matter what. Only one billionth of the energy produced by the sun reaches the earth. What a lousy EROEI.

If the energy coming in is from the sun directly (solar) or indirectly (wind) then EROEI is irrelevant. Any extra energy captured by a battery or other storage system is a gift.

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 17, 2019, 07:51:28 PM »
Additional regulable or at least stable energy source is also an option.
Adding storage increases the utility of a renewable energy source. When the renewable energy facility produces energy in excess of demand that energy can be saved instead of lost, and used in periods when demand is greater than supply, thus reducing the energy required from alternative energy generation sources.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2019, 05:50:53 PM »
Apples & Pears?


I think this is a worst-case scenario on all these different fronts. Sufficient for BOE? Highly unlikely. But Tealight's area projection shows an average projected area minimum of 3M KM^2 and a "low" scenario of 2MKM^2 and I could easily see either happening or something between the two, which would still beat any year's minimum in the satellite record.

....very bad...... But probably not sub-2M KM^2 bad (which is still, a THIRD lower than the previous record).
NSIDC Area (5 day average) minimum in 2012 was just over 2 million km2.
NSIDC Extent (5 day average) minimum in 2012 was just under 3.4 million km2.

So is Tealight projecting around 3 million km2 AREA, i.e. 2nd lowest but well above 2012,
or is Tealight projecting around 3 million km2 EXTENT, i.e.  lowest and well below 2012.

I think we need to know

30
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 17, 2019, 05:34:59 PM »

Who would use solar over wind in the polar region?

My understanding is that at least some oil, gas and mining operations in the far North use solar in the brief Arctic Summer. Importation of refined fossil fuel products is so expensive that it makes financial sense.

31
Consequences / Re: Water wars
« on: June 17, 2019, 05:24:42 PM »
Violence is increasing

https://packages.trust.org/running-dry/index.html
Competing for water on a thirsty planet

Quote
Around the world, fresh water is fast becoming a dangerously scarce resource, driving a surge in fights to secure supplies and fears over rising numbers of deaths in water conflicts.
In the 1990s, conflicts driven by water scarcity led to about 350 deaths, in places from Yemen to Nigeria, according to the chronology based on news reports and other sources.

But in the last five years, at least 3,000 people - and perhaps more than 10 times that many, if estimates of refugee deaths by Medicins Sans Frontieres are included - have died in clashes related to water in a huge range of countries, it noted.

"We see conflicts over water, unfortunately, almost everywhere around the world now as competition grows over the scarce resource," said Peter Gleick, co-founder of the California-based Pacific Institute.

"If you look at the number of conflicts over water in the past few decades, it's going up exponentially."

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 02:40:25 PM »
Tealight's graphs show Albedo Warming Potential graphs still chasing 2016 for 2nd place.
One of the reasons I am still plonking for 2nd place area and extent minimum this year (at 4 million km2 JAXA daily extent minimum so a lot above 2012).

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2019, 02:26:13 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 15 June 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,388,648 km2
               
Total Area         
 8,388,648    km2      
-340,397    km2   <   2010's average.
-438,961    k   <   2018
-1,017,309    k   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change   -122    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -25    k   loss
Central Seas__   -82    k   loss
Other Seas___   -15    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -17    k   loss
Greenland____   -8    k   loss
Barents ______    0    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -3    k   loss
CAA_________   -8    k   loss
East Siberian__   -13    k   loss
Central Arctic_   -30    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -19    k   loss
Laptev_______   -6    k   loss
Chukchi______   -3    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -0    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___   -15    k   loss

Area loss 122 k, 6 K more than the 2010's average loss of 116 k on this day.
Total area 2nd lowest (again) (45 k less than 2016, and 274 k greater than 2012).
2012 is definitely the front runner as regards area now.

Other Stuff
GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +1.3 to +2.3 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort and the Kara Seas.

We are in the period of maximum daily area loss that lasts until mid or late July.
_______________________________________________________________
Interesting times over the next few days? I still think that for myself from now on I will only call Arctic Ice lowest when JAXA extent and NSIDC extent and NSIDC area all show it.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northern Sea Route thread
« on: June 17, 2019, 01:46:01 PM »
From P-maker on the "Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD" thread.
Quote
Since frozen fish is also some kind of food, I decided to put this piece of news here:

https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/shipping-company-maersk-return-arctic-northern-sea-route-summer

Apparently, the World's largest container carrier - Maersk - is about to enter negotiations with Russia's Atomflot about escort along a possible new Northern Sea Route. It seems likely that frozen fish from newly open Arctic waters may be one of the selling points...

While frozen fish may be a significant commodity for this particular venture, I don't think  is a significant part of the long-term equation under consideration by MAERSK.

It's more about MAERSK being more convinced about the viability of the Russian Arctic Sea Route at least for a few months of the year, especially as Russia's commitment to very large icebreakers is a reality, not blah blah (note well, US of A).

Shipping Company Maersk to Return to Arctic Northern Sea Route This Summer
Quote
Maersk’s position on the economic potential of shipping cargo along Russia’s Northern Sea Route (NSR) continues to evolve. While the company, the largest shipping operator in the world, as recently as last month discounted its interest in operating along the route it now confirms to HNN that it is currently exploring the possibility of offering a service on the route in cooperation with Russia’s Atomflot.

Maersk sent the first-ever container ship along the route last summer in what the company then called a “one-off trial voyage.” Following that trial the shipping operator categorically denied any commercial interest in the route and stated that it did not see the NSR as an alternative to its usual routes and that new services were planned according to customer demands and trading patterns.

It appears that these demands and patterns have now changed. In conversations with HNN the company stated that it “has experienced a growing demand for transport of goods from the Far East to West Russia, which we are currently exploring the possibility of offering together with Atomflot.”

While Maersk declined to provide additional details, Russian shipping industry sources and news reports confirm that the company does in fact plan to begin offering a seasonal service this summer with several trips along the NSR.

According to the company’s CEO Søren Skou, who spoke to reporters at last week’s International Economic Forum (IEF) in St. Petersburg, Maersk is exploring the possibility of cargo deliveries between ports of the Far East and St. Petersburg during third quarter of 2019. “Basically it will be Russian goods that will be shipped from the east of the country to the west and vice versa, for example, frozen fish or imported goods from China,” he explained to reporters at the IEF, according to Russian news reports. A Maersk spokesperson said she was unable to provide confirmation of these plans.

Shipping experts emphasize the significant nature of this development. “If true, it would certainly be a departure from Maersk’s long-held public position that the NSR is not a viable east-west alternative to the Suez,” explains Ryan Uljua, Senior Fellow at The Arctic Institute.
____________________________________________________________
ps: The US of A does not have any warships with polar capability. (The coastguard icebreakers are very lightly armed). Indeed the new LNG tankers being built for Russia have far greater icebreaking capability and hull strength. I believe modern warships depend on missile defence systems, not hull strength.

35
https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current as at 16th June

North America snow melt quite impressive in June.

I wish there were Eurasia graphs from Environment Canada that excluded the Himalayas/Tibetan Plateau as snow there is still massively above normal mass, completely distorting the reality in the high Arctic latitudes.

If wishes were horses.... but wait, is that the sound of a herd of horses thundering into me back garden?
___________________________________________
Click on gif to play (plays 5 times)

36
The rest / Re: Do you think Hvaldimir is really a Russian spy?
« on: June 17, 2019, 12:02:21 PM »
Did the label say "If found, please return to......."

37
The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:59:56 AM »
I can't find the emergency exit ivica. I'm trapped.

I've found it. Some fool has gone and locked it.

38
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:34:21 AM »

Understanding the Permafrost–Hydrate System and Associated Methane Releases in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf Natalia Shakhova 1,2,*, Igor Semiletov 1,3,4,5 and Evgeny Chuvilin

It is a very forceful paper in some ways, they raise questions about sampling methods of a couple papers and the early dismissal of outliers in another paper.

It seems that Shakhova and Semiletov have been banging their heads against the brick wall of consensus science for a long time. There seems to be little acceptance of the existence of vast quantities of CH4 under e.g. the ESAS or that large quantities could be released into the atmosphere from these shallow waters once warming compromises the frozen lid of gas hydrates.

Perhaps it is because if it happened as far as AGW is concerned all bets would be off.

39
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: June 17, 2019, 08:02:54 AM »
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ as at 16 June 2019

Melt was stronger and very much above average, another maximum for the year. Precipitation was low. Hence SMB had a large mass loss increasing again the -ve SMB anomaly for Greenland.

[/b]My prediction that belongs to me is that today and Tuesday will see a strong melt, and in the days after melt likely to moderate but perhaps still above average..

Precipitation in the next week is looking very dry over most of Greenland apart from moderate precipitation in the NorthWest.

SMB mass loss to continue but at a lower rate?
_____________________________________________________
Note from DMI

When comparing with the surface mass balance under ”Daily change”, that melting can occur without surface mass loss since the meltwater can refreeze in the underlying snow. Likewise, surface mass loss can occur without melting due to sublimation.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 17, 2019, 07:20:10 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC EXTENT :-  10,148,907 km2(June 16, 2019)

- Extent is 5th lowest in the satellite record.
- Extent loss on this day 38 k, 31 k less than the average loss on this day of 69 k.
- Extent loss from maximum 4.122 k, 132 k (3 %) greater than the average of 3,990 k loss from maximum by this day,
- On average 40.4% of the melting season done, with 89 days to average date of minimum (13 September).

The Perils of Projections.
Average remaining melt would give a minimum of 4.26 million km2, 5th lowest in the satellite record, and 1.01 million km2 above the 2012 low of 3.18 million km2.
Looking at the last 5 years average remaining melt gives a result of 4.38 million km2, 6th lowest, 1.21 million km2 above 2012.

Other Stuff

GFS showing more logical temperature anomalies at +1.3 to +2.3 degrees celsius. The images suggest high +ve anomalies at various times along most of  the coastal fringes of the entire coastal fringe of the Arctic Ocean, except for contrasting and strong -ve anomalies for most of the time on land and sea by and in the Beaufort and the Kara Seas.

Daily extent loss has been below average for the last 2 weeks. Melt is now only marginally above average. Average remaining melt data still points towards minimum well above 2012 and 2nd to 5th lowest. 2/5ths of the average melt in the season is now completed.

41
The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: June 16, 2019, 09:22:12 PM »
  .. I'll just set my pipe down .. I'm awaiting my 10th prosecution for using and sharing this wonderful herb with the sick and dying .. things change ... b.c.
One of the many books I have lost was an Encyclopedia of Herbs from the 1920's- a great big book with all the medicinal benefits and warnings included. It was know as the Herbalists' Bible amongst the cognoscenti of the subject.

It included a very long chapter on the herb, its various names and varying qualities depending on where and how grown.

The book also mentioned that the US Treasury collected 5 million bucks a year from import taxes on the aforesaid herb. That's a lot of moolah in today's money.

Things certainly do "progress", not necessarily for the better.

42
The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: June 16, 2019, 09:15:17 PM »
Imagine that...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-48625734
Quote
Scotland's crannogs are older than Stonehenge

Crannogs were fortified settlements constructed on artificial islands in lochs.

It was thought they were first built in the Iron Age, a period that began around 800 BC.

But four Western Isles sites have been radiocarbon dated to about 3640-3360 BC in the Neolithic period - before the erection of Stonehenge's stone circle.

The prehistoric monument in Wiltshire is one of Britain's best-known Neolithic features. Stonehenge's stone circle was erected in the late Neolithic period, about 2500 BC.

Another famous Neolithic site is Skara Brae, a village in Orkney inhabited between 3200 BC and 2200 BC.

Archaeologists Dr Duncan Garrow, of University of Reading, and Dr Fraser Sturt, from the University of Southampton, investigated four crannog artificial islands in the Isle of Lewis in the Western Isles.

At one of the sites well-preserved Neolithic pottery had previously been found on the loch bed by Chris Murray, a former Royal Navy diver who lives in Lewis.

The archaeologists' investigation included making underwater surveys and carrying out excavations at the sites to obtain "conclusive evidence of artificial islet construction during the Neolithic".

Four crannogs in the Western Isles were found to date to the Neolithic period
The archaeologists, whose research has been published in the journal Antiquity, said the crannogs represented "a monumental effort" through the piling up of boulders on the loch bed, and in the case of a site in Loch Bhorgastail the building of a stone causeway.

They said it was possible other Scottish crannogs, and similar sites in Ireland, were also Neolithic.

Previously it was thought crannogs were built and re-used over a period of 2,500 years from the Iron Age to the post-medieval period.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: June 16, 2019, 08:32:05 PM »
Every day the USA has a few more climate refugees - not immigrants,  citizens of the USA.

A street in Charleston? is zoned  for demolition and to be returned to wetland. The houseowners are being paid off and leaving.

In New Jersey the government is still trying to get houseowners to move as where they live cannot be protected from the next surge.

Some farmers and residents along the USA's great rivers have been flooded out once too often and for too long. They are abandoning the land - i.e. they are climate refugees.

This is the here and now, not some Armageddon in the future.

It will get worse before it gets better. It will only get better if people get off the fence and DO something about it.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 16, 2019, 08:00:31 PM »
First, you fill in the 1980s missing data days by averaging the previous day and the next day's data. Then the way is clear.

Linear interpolation is the way to go in CO2 missing days as well, they've become rather sparse normally, but still there might be some missing weeks..
The penny dropped on how to do it almost all at once instead of plonking in the formula empty cell by empty cell .

make a copy of the data sheet.
In the copy look at each cell of the original data.
   If zero or blank, do the interpolation.
   If there is data, copy that into the copy.
Clean up any odd bits.
Then copy your copy sheet back into the original sheet as numbers (not with formulas).

- and the wobbles have gone

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?
« on: June 16, 2019, 06:33:35 PM »
ps: If you fancy having a go for yourselves you may wish to consult

The International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Waters
The Code acknowledges that polar water operation may impose additional demands
on ships, their systems and operation beyond the existing requirements of the International
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974, the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto
as amended by the 1997 Protocol, and other relevant binding IMO instruments.

http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/polar/Documents/POLAR%20CODE%20TEXT%20AS%20ADOPTED.pdf

Pesky bureaucrats - enemies of the people!!

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2019?
« on: June 16, 2019, 06:22:59 PM »
Some background data - maps

1. Geography,
2. Bathymetry.

Will the US Secretary of the Navy carry out his promise to pollute the NW Passage with his presence this summer ?

To do so he will need a big boat 'cos he is a big-shot and so will need the Parry Channel open - unless PUTIN sends some icebreakers to do it for him if nature is unwilling.  At the moment the Parry Channel is solid with ice (image from JASMES site using JAXA MSR2 data attached). This is in contrast with many other parts of the CAA.

Question
The Parry Channel is pretty deep apart from a 100 metre or so bit where the channel narrows in the Barrow Strait. Do we know id there are any sub-surface currents flowing (in either direction) through it?

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 16, 2019, 06:10:11 PM »

IMO this is by far the best substitute for what you were looking for and for several reasons

try out the various features including large and very large image.

AFAIK the source is the same as well, hence no significant change of result between platforms to be expected

https://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/daily/polar/index.html?date=&prod=SIC&area=NP&sensor=MOD
Super-duper. Yet another bookmark on the laptop.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 16, 2019, 04:32:46 PM »
in all the years that I've been watching the ice in the Arctic, the CAA has always seemed to me to be totally "out of it", i.e. not really part of the Arcic Sea Ice proper. It doesn't really move, it doesn't take part in any exciting developments, it sometimes melts enough to allow cruise ships to sail through - but to give it any major linchpin significance in crash-predictions seems to me to be totally spurious.
I agree.

I made a set of graphs looking at how the various seas are transforming from icy deserts to open water seas. The CAA is one of a few seas where one would think that global warming has passed it by.


49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 16, 2019, 04:25:45 PM »
I looked and found

https://www.meereisportal.de/en/seaicemonitoring/sea-ice-observations-from-satellite-measurements/current-sea-ice-maps/

Gerontocrat, I very much appreciate such links. Is there a way to collect them and make them permanently and easily accessible here in the forum, maybe vía a dedicated thread?
I have a forest of environment bookmarks kept on google to solve my problem.

I did open an Arctic Background Data thread. Perhaps these links could be parked there from time to time. But it's Sunday, and time for me to be a lazy slob.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 16, 2019, 04:03:18 PM »
No JAXA data, so here is the NSIDC Global daily (NOT 5 day) extent.

Note the 1980's wobbles, caused by NSIDC only posting data once every 2 days until the late 1980's. Even using a cleverer average formula (combining sum and countif) will not fix it. Never mind, the message is still clear.

I am not writing off more than 18 million km2 area as a late October / early November maximum, though each day seems to make a really low maximum more probable on both measures.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 101