This is dominik lenné's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following dominik lenné's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
dominik lenné
Berlin, Germany
Recent Activity
Hello, from somewhere i got the idea to connect the atmospheric warming "hiatus" to the heat necessary to melt the 8000 km³ of perennial ice lost during the last 20 years or so. The calculations can be found here: http://remarksandobservations.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/global-warming-hiatus-it-might-be-the-ice/ What do You think of that?
Toggle Commented Nov 15, 2013 on The 'hiatus' and the Arctic at Arctic Sea Ice
4.5 e6 km² - correctig myself as I got it wrong, which data source is the reference.
Question to Neven: jaxa, dmi.dk and norsex deliver quite different values for the same year. Which will be the reference for our guesses in the end?
5.0 e6 km² PIOMAS volume looks a little bit better than 2011. Practically all SIE curves look a little bit better than 2011. Supposing continuous weather change tending to more melting - which I did not check - I just take the 2011 value. Jaxa leads to 4.6 or so, dmi.dk yields 5.0 or so, norsex 5.4 or so, so I jump right in the middle and take five.
With all this westerly highs we might approach another appalling summer with northerly winds in western/central europe - brrr - don't like climate change if it turns out this way.
Toggle Commented Jun 1, 2013 on If this is real... at Arctic Sea Ice
Looking at the PIOMAS volume anomaly curve, one sees three distinct downward peaks in the last 3 springs/summers. The last 3 years, the volume development over the year was definitely and consistently different from the mean. This could be another indication of a new state of the weather system, although those are at most semi-stable. The coming summer will corroborate - or weaken - the assumption of a new weather state. My personal guess is 0.6 probability for a corroboration.
Toggle Commented May 20, 2013 on The Four Charts That Really Matter at Arctic Sea Ice
Concerning the map: my favorite is the Goode approach, an equal area projection minimizing the distortions at the price of cutting the map up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goode_homolosine_projection
This Cryosat data release story is absolutely sensational, a true scoop!
Found the problem - a ")" at the end included in the URL. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6i.html is correct.
Toggle Commented Jan 20, 2013 on 2013 Open thread #1 at Arctic Sea Ice
@bouke van der spoel: your link to physical geography seems not to work - could you repost it?
Toggle Commented Jan 20, 2013 on 2013 Open thread #1 at Arctic Sea Ice
@SATire: Most of "Spiegel"- commenters (and everywhere in the world) just can't deal with uncertainty. They didn't learn it. They have no feeling to weight the importance of this or that kind of news. They are lost and resort to dumb boldness, just to reinstall their feeling of self security. To blame are partly the media, which prefer clear and dramatic news over subtle and sound analysis and, after all, are made by journalists who themselves all too often didn't learn do deal with uncertainty. But fortunately the dumb-bold type - though often dominating the comment columns of newspaper websites - seem to be a minority.
Toggle Commented Jan 20, 2013 on 2013 Open thread #1 at Arctic Sea Ice
Not only sea ice but also snow cover development isn't reflected in numerical models: http://www.nature.com/news/arctic-snow-cover-shows-sharp-decline-1.11709: "Derksen says that scientists need to understand why the observed changes do not match up with the projections of widely used models. He found that the snow-cover projections generated by the climate models being used in the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change underestimate the extent of spring snowmelt in the Northern Hemisphere. 'Even if we’ve become a bit more willing to be aggressive with the scenarios we use to drive these models, it still doesn’t seem to be enough to describe what we’re observing,' says Sharp."
Thinking about it, I had to give my original blog post an overhaul. As often, things are more complex than they appear at first sight: The snow data are “extent” – data which means, that they contain 10 – 15 % snow free area (not 100% sure about this point). The albedo of land is bigger than that of water (ca. 0.2 vs. ca. 0.1,http://www.climatedata.info/Forcing/Forcing/albedo.html). Contrary to intuition, the mean solar irradiation in mid summer in those areas, where the main snow melting difference occurs (around the 60° N) is lower than on the polar sea around the north pole!(http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/01/sea-ice-insolation) The data for other months than June are not given in my source, probably in the paywalled original paper, so they might look less crassy. On the other hand, the capacity of heat absorbtion of land is smaller than that of sea surface, which will direct the absorbed energy earlier into atmosphere instead of the water body. Also, the speed of recent summer snow loss seems to be higher than that of sea ice.(http://www.livescience.com/26091-arctic-snow-cover-decline.html)
This is all quite heavily OT, but anyway: With cap&trade vs. carbon tax, there are pros and cons for each. Predictability: there are statistical ups and downs of energy price anyway, which make planning for industry difficult. On first look, a thoroughly planned rising carbon tax gives more predictability. But c&t can act stabilizing on economy, as with low demand, the certificate price will drop also. Ease of implementation: carbon tax wins, but: noone knows which tax path yields which emissions reduction path. With c&t, reduction is well-defined. At the end of the day, these are details of lesser importance. Hansens proposition is perfectly tailored for the notoriously state hating US. If it is necessary to make enough GOP diehards to embark on climate saving, it's the best.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php shows consistently warmer winters the last years which cost us 5 - 10% freeze rate.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2013 on PIOMAS January 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
@Aaron: You spoke of freshwater lenses under the ice (supposedly MYI). Where they melt water from the last summer, staying at place, or river influx (then only at the fringes)? Just for my understanding. @crandles: Yeah, wasn't aware melt is mainly radiation driven and then those absorbtion effects kick in. "Um the freeze rate determines the maximum, which seems a strange thing to call a baseline." The idea behind is that a stationary minimum summer thickness for a given sort of year supposed to repeat itself a number of times is where winter freeze-up and summer melt-down equal. Both depend on summer minimum thickness. So I called this "baseline of the thickness oscillation". If there is no summer thickness of course a "baseline" makes no sense. The absorbtion increase of thin ice neutralizes somehow the stabilizing effect of fast freezing and make the temperature dependency of summer ice thickness much more hefty.
Toggle Commented Jan 9, 2013 on Looking for winter weirdness 5 at Arctic Sea Ice
The thickness growth rate of thin ice - with all other conditions kept constant - is bigger than that of thick ice. The effect of 10 cm ice more or less is most pronounced if the ice is thin; the thickness-freeze-rate-relation of thick ice is much weaker. So the effect of a late freeze start on maximum thickness is diminished by this, but not cancelled out. The thickness-freeze-rate-dependency is stabilizing the ice sheet. (Also, it is one function, which determines the baseline of the thickness oscillation. The other is melt rate, which has a weak thickness dependency, afaik.)
Toggle Commented Jan 7, 2013 on Looking for winter weirdness 5 at Arctic Sea Ice
There is not only a spring- and summer- snow cover feedback from less snow. More snow _on the ice_ in winter will decrease ice thickness growth rate, as it will prevent the heat from below to escape to the atomsphere.
Toggle Commented Jan 7, 2013 on Looking for winter weirdness 5 at Arctic Sea Ice
I can't help but I dislike the attribuition of any event, be it a storm or a winter, may it have soandso many people killed, be they as improbable as it may be, to global warming. It all sounds sensational and interesting, but under the bottom line I only trust statistics. There have been harsh and early winters before in Russia, e.g. the one that helped keep the German Army 1941 from taking Moscow.
Toggle Commented Dec 29, 2012 on Looking for winter weirdness 4 at Arctic Sea Ice
I drew a little bit of Flak because of the somewhat megalomanic proposition with the mass-produced thickness sensors. I was of course well aware that an outsider project of such size, which may or may not work out, has no real chance. AFAICS the 70s-Sandia-penetrator project was a ballistic penetrator with deceleration sensors radioing its data up during or after impact - not a soft landing automatic station meant to remain stationary for months. It may have a lot of problems hard to solve but surely not deceleration on impact, as Peter Ellis so sarcastically suggested. Could be an interesting interdisciplinary development project of higher level science, engineering and manufacturing technology students... So, and now I give You a break with this.
Toggle Commented Dec 26, 2012 on The real AR5 bombshell at Arctic Sea Ice
Concerning volume: If it's not taken by IPCC (I did not read the draft and also, there will surely be modifications) then for the simple reason, that it cannot be measured directly and so any data have a pretty wide uncertainty bar and are open to attack. A very unsatisfactory situation for years now. I propose herewith to invent cheap mass produced air droppable floating ice probes, which drill automatically a sensor stick through the ice and keep track and transmit ice & snow thickness, salinity, temperature, radiation balance. Then spray the ice sheet with thousands of them. In the end cheaper than cryosat, and very lsmall error bars at least pointwise. A few million Euros - one single cleanroom lab for semiconductor processing costs several times this amount.
Toggle Commented Dec 24, 2012 on The real AR5 bombshell at Arctic Sea Ice
@Boa05att: Yes, this is what has not been done in Fukushima, where the risk of a big earthquake had been calculated as once in 1000 years or so, which seem small at first glance , but yielding 1/30 within nominal reactor lifetime, which is very big, taking into account the potential (and then real) damage.
Toggle Commented Dec 22, 2012 on The real AR5 bombshell at Arctic Sea Ice
The IPCC statement might be correct, say: still not completely false - but a note on the recent deviation is the least to expect. Then, how about ice volume? We wait for the first model to get the accelerated melting right in the middle of its probability field. The interesting question is, where the main differences lie between models and reality. Models failed, but where exactly? Is it ocean currents? Is it atmospheric heat transport? Is it pressure distribution, cloud cover and insolation? Is it thicker snow cover with subsequent slowing down of winter ice thickness growth rate? So many questions and no comprehensive emission certificate system in sight...
Toggle Commented Dec 22, 2012 on The real AR5 bombshell at Arctic Sea Ice
IMHO the fear of exponential growth is exaggerated, because although there are positive feedbacks, none of them will grow infinitely. E.G. albedo will never decrease below a certain value, and of course solar irradiation won't. Atmospheric heat transfer is limited by both circulation and heat transfer coefficients at the surface, and so on. As the mechanisms are complex and contradictive no simple function is distinct in its predictive capability and earns more trust than a linear or at most a quadratic. Only functions based on a - however simple - physical modelling are of any value. That said, I put my penny in with the value of sea level rise above now in the year 2050, supposed the quadratic holds for that time (which is of course questionable): delta_t = year - 2012 melt rate i Gt/y ~ 450 delta_t + 30 delta_t², integrated over 40 years = Delta_V = 450*40+30*40²=66000 Gt = 66 e3 km³, earths water area = A = 361 e6 km², sea level rise = Delta_V/A = 66/361 m = 0,18 m.
Toggle Commented Dec 11, 2012 on 2012 Greenland records at Arctic Sea Ice
One humble remark: I think one of the most important factors concerning melting is solar irradiation. So any reasoning on happening or not happening melting in a certain region should be based on irradiation history of the weeks passed. Unfortunately I dont have one. Dominik
Toggle Commented Jun 20, 2012 on Fringe fries at Arctic Sea Ice