This is Neven's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Neven's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
So would it be fair to say that neither annual average nor summer minimum are, in themselves inherently more useful if they aren't viewed within the extenuating context? Both can convey meaningful information relative to long-term trends? Yes, I would say that's fair. Of course, the summer minimum is most easily grasped by people, and can be illustrated with a satellite image. As for extent vs area: Area is 'better' most of the time, except when there are a lot of melt ponds. Especially now that the ice pack consists of smaller, thinner floes, that easily get pushed around by winds, causing the ice pack to disperse more than it used to. These holes in the ice pack are counted for area, but not for extent. But again, every source information is useful, as there are a lot of things we don't know. To some people that's a comfort, but to not have enough information when things are obviously changing so fast and on such a large scale, is the exact opposite of comfort, IMO.
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
As I've said several times, annual averages are a useful part of the puzzle, but they're not the entire puzzle. Just last year we've seen how certain information sometimes won't be conveyed by an annual average of extent. Extent was in record low territory for most of the year, and thus the annual average was low as well. One would assume that this meant that the minimum record was smashed to pieces, except it wasn't, because June, July an August were mostly cloudy, and so the extent decrease slowed down considerably and the 2016 melting season came in 2nd/3rd (depending on which data set you use). Now, that's the kind of information the annual average won't convey, and so you need to look at other sources of information as well. Or like I said in this blog post about the MASIE annual average that was abused by a climate risk denier to give the impression that nothing is going on in the Arctic: It's like measuring your weight every day from Jan 1st to Dec 31st. You're really overweight at the start of the year, then you stop eating for half a year and you get really thin and undernourished, followed by a junkfood binge after which you're overweight again. But then you take the average of all those daily weighings, and presto, your average weight is perfect! But, one might ask, how's your health? As far as that 'Javier' is concerned: I've discussed with him over at Paul Homewood's blog. You can get quite a long way with him, further than most climate risk deniers, but you lose him when the time comes to draw conclusions (that's when the dissonance takes over). There's not much to learn over on Climate etc., especially about Arctic sea ice. All Judith Curry cares about, is disinforming people and somehow get paid/attention for it.
Toggle Commented Feb 15, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Antarctic sea ice hits lowest minimum extent on record. Not so convenient if your argument has been that Arctic sea ice loss is fully compensated by Antarctic sea ice gains (which isn't true anyhow), or that Antarctic sea ice gains proved Global Warming was a hoax. ;-) I'd be surprised if this is the start of a new trend, as Antarctic sea ice is a pretty volatile measure, and this seems to have to do with ENSO. But if it is a new trend, that won't be good.
Toggle Commented Feb 13, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Someone over on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum has published some excellent PIOMAS vs CryoSat-2 maps. Here's one showing the difference between the two for January 2017:
Toggle Commented Feb 10, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Indeed, Wayne. Indeed.
Toggle Commented Feb 7, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
From Climate Central: The Winter of Blazing Discontent Continues in the Arctic A massive storm is swirling toward Europe. It’s a weather maker in itself, churning up waves as high as 46 feet and pressure dropping as low as is typical for a Category 4 hurricane as of Monday. The storm is to the southeast of Greenland and its massive comma shape has made for stunning satellite imagery. The storm is expected to weaken as it approaches Europe, but it will conspire with a high pressure system over the continent to send a stream of warm air into the Arctic through the Greenland Sea. Temperatures are forecast to reach the melting point in Svalbard, Norway, an island between the Greenland and Karas Seas. The North Pole could also approach the melting point on Thursday. It’s just the latest signal that the Arctic is in the middle of a profound change. Sea ice extent has dropped precipitously as has the amount of old ice, which is less prone to breakup. Beyond sea ice, Greenland’s ice sheet is also melting away and pushing sea levels higher, large fires are much more common and intense in boreal forests and other ecosystem changes are causing the earth to hyperventilate. Together, these all indicate that the Arctic is in crisis. It’s the most dramatic example of how carbon pollution is reshaping the planet and scientists are racing to understand what comes next.
Toggle Commented Feb 7, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Note that in the sentence in the article it states "all the Septembers", which should of course include 1981. The reason that I mentioned it is in case Neven wants to make a change to that sentence. I've squeezed in a 'nearly' in there. And corrected the typo (should be 80s). :-)
Toggle Commented Feb 6, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
It was a convoluted way of saying that only 2007 and 2016 saw a smaller increase than this year in January (all of them below 3000 km3), and so the gap between 2007+2016 and 2017 didn't get wider.
Toggle Commented Feb 5, 2017 on PIOMAS February 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center: Things just keep getting worse. After this year's trend line went well below all others last month, I... Continue reading
Posted Feb 5, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Where is everyone over the past three days, no posts. Is there a problem with the site? It is indeed mostly because of the Arctic Sea Ice Forum where it's easier to post images, and there are more thrads specific to different subjects. But things have always been quiet around here during the freezing season, although I think they would be a lot less quiet if it weren't for the ASIF, given that this freezing season is even more abnormal than last year's. Total annual volume loss in recent years according to PIOMAS (max-min between brackets): 2006: 16198 (25191-8993) 2007: 17345 (23803-6458) 2008: 18087 (25159-7072) 2009: 18235 (25074-6839) 2010: 19693 (24275-4582) 2011: 18375 (22677-4302) 2012: 19692 (23365-3673) 2013: 17940 (23332-5392) 2014: 16306 (23118-6812) 2015: 18698 (24394-5696) 2016: 18316 (22717-4401) PIOMAS is going to update in a few days. It will very likely still be lowest on record.
Toggle Commented Feb 1, 2017 on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
If we could at least agree on where we disagree perhaps that would be a good starting point. Or maybe it's just a good ending point that you agree to disagree, and that we all agree that emissions need to be reduced and then go negative asap.
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Yes, I saw that too. And other interesting stuff that has been in the pipeline for a while now: A Weekly Arctic Sea-Ice Thickness Data Record from merged CryoSat-2 and SMOS Satellite Data
Toggle Commented Jan 24, 2017 on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
Personally I think we all owe yet another big vote of thanks to Neven for providing a platform in which differing views can be discussed/debated in such a fashion. Where would this platform be if it weren't for these interesting, speculative and respectful conversations? Thanks back to all of you. I wasn't able to follow the whole discussion, let alone form an opinion about the subject, but one thing's for sure: We need to reduce emissions as fast as we can, and at the same time start drawing CO2 from the atmosphere. An old friend opened a new topic on the Forum to draw attention to a relatively new project, aimed at putting the carbon back in depleted soils while restoring ecosystems and building up biodiversity again: Ecosystem Restoration Cooperative I want to look into it this weekend to see how serious/thorough it is, but the first impression is good.
Toggle Commented Jan 20, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
One can clearly see the storm bringing in the heat, almost above freezing temperatures at the North Pole:
Toggle Commented Jan 19, 2017 on A new Arctic feedback (?) at Arctic Sea Ice
Quote from the latest PIOMAS update (10 days ago): There's just no end to this run we have had with anomalously warm temperatures, and storms blowing in from the Atlantic. As we speak, a very powerful winter storm is battering the ice pack on the Atlantic side of the Arctic,... Continue reading
Posted Jan 18, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
The storm has begun. 957 hPa atm.
Over on the ASIF, Wipneus reports that Global sea ice extent is now record low as well. That's the lowest value on record since satellites have started monitoring sea ice. And it's not over yet. It could go quite a bit lower.
I think part of the answer is clouds. Here's an interesting article someone mentioned at the ASIF recently: Clouds and Sea Ice: What Satellites Show About Arctic Climate Change "There's no cloud response in summer to melting sea ice, which means it is likely that clouds are not slowing down the Arctic climate change that is happening—clouds aren't really providing the expected stabilizing feedback," Taylor said. "The fact that you are melting sea ice and uncovering more ocean and the fact that clouds don't increase during summer means that they are not buffering or reducing the rate of the warming, which implies the Arctic could warm faster than climate models suggest." Clouds are a two-edged sword when it comes to climate change. They have both cooling and warming effects not just in the Arctic but across the entire planet. During the day, white and bright clouds reflect part of the sunlight hitting the planet back into space. At night, however, they act as a blanket that doesn't completely allow day-accumulated heat to escape into space. This "blanket" mechanism is evident in just about any place on Earth. "If you think about cold winter nights, normally the coldest ones we get have clear skies," Taylor said. "But if you have winter nights that actually have clouds, those tend to be a little warmer." In the Arctic, this warming effect of clouds could influence sea ice during fall and winter, when the sun disappears for months and darker skies overlie oceans and land that spent an entire summer absorbing sunlight. Although further research needs to be conducted, Taylor said the increased clouds he observed in the fall seasons could slow down the process of refreezing sea ice through the winter. Slow refreezing could translate into summers with less and thinner sea ice -- something NASA satellites have already detected. It's a feedback loop. "That's what my results imply," Taylor said. "More clouds in the fall may delay or slow down the refreezing of sea ice, and that can lead to a thinner or more susceptible ice pack that will melt more quickly when spring and summer come around." Taylor also said one thing that is becoming more evident, thanks in part to his research, is that sea ice isn't controlling cloud behavior in the Arctic as much as previously thought. His study shows that different meteorological conditions like temperature, humidity and winds may be influencing Arctic clouds almost 10 times more than sea ice.
Robertscribbler has a post up with lots more info: The Human World Has Never Experienced A Time When Global Sea Ice Was So Weak and Reduced
David, I'll mention it in the next PIOMAS update.
Sabbatical or not, records must be reported (like I did last year, here and here, albeit a month later). According to NSIDC data, the Global sea ice area record for lowest minimum has just been broken, as shown on this Wipneus graph (world famous now because of what happened after... Continue reading
Posted Jan 13, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Are D-Penquins interpretations assumed to be more acceptable? If so, by whom?? Stay out of this discussion and don't ask so many questions.
Toggle Commented Jan 13, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice
Another month has passed and so here is the updated Arctic sea ice volume graph as calculated by the Pan-Arctic Ice Ocean Modeling and Assimilation System (PIOMAS) at the Polar Science Center: 2016 has come to a close, and unfortunately the story hasn't improved. Due to a constant barrage of... Continue reading
Posted Jan 8, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
Here's a short blog post for all of you out there publishing in the scientific literature (you know who you are). There's little less than a week left to submit your papers to the various sessions organized at this year's EGU General Assembly. The first session I'd like to mention,... Continue reading
Posted Jan 5, 2017 at Arctic Sea Ice
D-Penquin, thanks for making the effort to change your name, much appreciated. And thanks also for your profile image which will remind us all of the importance of friendship. ;-) One thing I'd like to quote from your comment: Before solutions comes definition of the problems. I agree, but what you have done subsequently - no disrespect intended - is describe the consequence of the problem. Granted, AGW with its potential outcomes ranging from bad to catastrophic, is so large and complex that it may look like it's the problem. But, it actually is one of many consequences of a root cause that has to be tackled in parallel, if we want any solution to AGW to stand a chance of actually working. For a long time I have thought that the root cause of a variety of problems, from AGW to resource wars, from financial bubbles to deteriorating public health, was exponential economic growth as defined by neoclassical theory. You know, the absolute need for economies to grow forever (something classical economists warned against). I even wrote a Planet 3.0 guest article about it many moons ago, called Infinite Growth And The Crisis Cocktail. But then I realized it goes even deeper. As I wrote back in 2011: Now, of course there is nothing wrong with growth per se. It is an essential and universal part of nature. But normally things stop growing. Children stop growing when they reach adulthood, as do trees. Economic growth is a great thing when an economy needs to be developed, as we saw after World War II when Europe was in shambles. People needed housing and food, and putting economic growth on top of the agenda was the most efficient way to get all those things, fast. Developing nations such as India and China are doing the same as we speak. In principle there is nothing wrong with this kind of growth, but the idea that growth is always good and can be infinite is fallacious and dangerous. A thing that doesn’t stop growing, is cancer. Until it destroys its host, of course. After most basic needs were met in the developed world somewhere around the 60’s and 70’s of the last century exponential economic growth stopped being a means and became an end in itself. Why did it become an end in itself? That's the question I failed to ask at the time. Who benefited from this switch between means and end? Of course, it's what has now become known as the 1%, or the 0.1%, or the Super Rich. As long as everyone on this planet and even the planet itself has to dance to the tunes of the game the Super Rich are playing, everything will go down the same way it always has in the past when inequality became too big. There's a limit to everything, it seems, except to how much a person can own. Somehow, it's inconceivable that there's a lid on material and monetary possessions. A bit like the idea that the King was God's representative on Earth in olden days. Obviously, if we want to have any chance at solving the consequences of this systemic insatiability (and I say systemic, because I don't even think it's something the Super Rich want consciously, they're just playing along with the system, like we all do), if we want to have a chance at changing the current, all-dominating economic paradigms, we need to put a number on how much a person can own. Anything beyond this number needs to become a taboo, such as primitive tribes employed to promote social cohesion and increase chances of survival. Mind you, I'm not advocating communism, with everyone receiving 500 dollars per month for sweeping the pavement. I'm not talking about a forced equality, but rather about a fixed amount of inequality. The wealth cap could be as high as 100 million dollars, 500 million dollars, a billion dollars even. Whatever it is that people could agree upon. But there has to be a number. The sky is not the limit. That's the basic idea. If you go beyond basic, it becomes something filled with complexities, nuances, contradictions and impossibilities. As always with everything. So, to recap, I think it's interesting to think about and discuss what needs to be done to solve the AGW crisis, but in my opinion a cap on (extreme) wealth is an absolute prerequisite for creating the space and resources needed to solve AGW (and many other problems). I can't think about both things at the same time. And I don't have to. Maybe if I manage to reduce my (self-imposed) stress levels and increase my attention span, I could stir up an interest in the engineering solutions to AGW, which definitely are highly interesting. Either way, the purpose of this blog is to alert as many people as possible to the fact that there really is a problem. Here and now, not somewhere in the future, maybe. As for solutions, the wealth cap is the best I can offer. And I'm hoping to expand on it in the near future, because it's a fascinating subject with many angles.
Toggle Commented Jan 5, 2017 on Global warming 2016: Arctic spin at Arctic Sea Ice