This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Recent Activity
Jim, what I did notice is that the gyre and successive melt years have almost totally broken up that solid 5+ year band of ice which effectively blocked 2012 from much further melt. Another year the same as 2012 again and the impact will be much higher.
Fish, if you take the CT SIA graph http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html Then remove all years but 2006/2012 and 2016, you see that 2012 was much higher are than 2006 at this time. They converged about day 148 and 2012 was on it's way to history about day 160. I know that ice conditions are totally different now than they were in 2006, but I do recall reading, somewhere which I can't find now, that the weather was influenced by the heat energy and moisture released by the exceptionally early low ice conditions. Which is why I'm cautious about what might happen this year. The arctic is currently running In around 5 year cycles. If you add one more year to that mix, 2011, you see that it very closely matches both 2006 and 2016 at this time. In 5 year cycles, 2006 preceded the 2007 loss, 2011 preceded the 2012 shock and 2016??? We shall have to wait for that next instalment..
Talking about wave action Neven, wasn't it DR Barber who was researching how far wave action could penetrate into loosely connected thin and broken pack as opposed to solid thick pack. To try and stay on topic, does anyone know of a study describing how this would impact the gyre with the storms we're currently seeing there? I.e. wave action on the open water that has already been created then penetrating further and further into the pack due to the inability of the pack to resist the wave action. Once it's all broken up, then the gyre can shift it around much more easily.
Toggle Commented Apr 22, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
Is it my faulty memory or do I really remember a discussion somewhere about how the CO2 impact would be felt in the Arctic more visibly in the winter than in the summer? In terms of raised winter temperatures which might be significantly more dramatic than the temperature raise in summer. Also that the damage done in winter would lead to increased summer melt regardless of whether the summer conditions were right for melt or not. Just something playing around the edges of my memory.
Toggle Commented Apr 19, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
The most glaring thing about the whole CO2 and Nino impact we are seeing today is that it only took 15 years to make the 97/8 Nino temperatures "normal". But also the knock on impact during that time were the 2005/7/ and 12 shock ice losses. This does not bode well for 2016 to 2031! Also if countries are "doing a VAG", namely simply lying because they can't/won't reduce emissions, then things are going to go off the rails pretty quickly. None of which bodes well for the next few melt seasons. Personally 2016 is beginning to shape up like 2006, where the exceptional melt early in the season was damped down by extensive moisture cover which halted the melt. Leading, of course, to 2007. But it's warmer again now so that's debatable.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
Wayne, every time I see this I think. "Wasn't the goal of Kyoto and Every Single Summit after it, meant to _reduce_ the increase in CO2" Maybe I got it wrong.
Toggle Commented Apr 17, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
Ah yes, must have done something wrong when I typed it into the spreadsheet. However it comes on top of a 2015 annual 3ppm rise. The annual rise in 1998 was 2.82 It seems that the growth continues even though the Nino is fading. I'm wondering what the year will bring at the end, because the 1990's, of the other super Nino, averaged 1.5ppm, the 2000's averaged 1.9ppm and, so far, the 2010's have averaged 2.3ppm. Which would explain to me why such a low solar output cycle could continue the decay of the arctic ice and provide the huge losses we have seen in area and volume in the 2010's and the 80N heat records we are seeing.
Toggle Commented Apr 16, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
Whilst I remember did anyone notice the Feb/Feb year on year CO2 growth for 2015/16 was 3.6ppm??? http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
Also it's quite clear from eyeballing the Bremen AMSR-2 maps that there is early onset and quite significant melting happening already. The Barrow mass balance site is showing some loss already and even snow loss at -10C. Although it does look like it's been affected by some ridging. The webcam is showing melt ponding in the -5C to -10C range due to the clear skies and strong sunlight. Whatever happens it's going to be an interesting year, but that interest is not going to be in any kind of rebound...
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2016 on Beaufort quick update at Arctic Sea Ice
I see you used cumulative in the original post but not down here. Apologies.
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2016 on Winter analysis addendum at Arctic Sea Ice
Just to add, if we look at 80N DMI temps, we are almost tracking to the trend line now.
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2016 on Winter analysis addendum at Arctic Sea Ice
I looked through the descriptions here and tried to understand it. Then I realised the word which was missing for me was Cumulative. This is a cumulative value. So on day1 the difference will be negligible. However after, say, 100 days with -10C (trend), the long term trend value will be 1000FDD at day 100. If, however, the 100 days have only racked up 600FDD, in the current year (-6C average), then the anomaly will be -400 Therefore, also, to see any real difference in the chart, it would take several days of colder, or normal, weather to break the trend. i.e. 7 days at -20C where the long term average was -10C, for those 7 days, will add an additional 70FDD, to day 107 and will reduce the anomaly to -330 (in this example), for day 107. Does that make sense? Looking at the current graph it is doing exactly that right now. Also it might be interesting, in a vague way, to calculate out the heat energy of those anomaly days in terms, perhaps, of the little tracker on the top right???
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2016 on Winter analysis addendum at Arctic Sea Ice
Bob, your point about the snow is very much to my own mind. Back in August 2000 I was working in Turin. I went home on Friday 13 Oct and my car swam, more than drove, to Milan to get the flight. When I came back on the Sunday, it took me 7.5 hours to make the return journey. I found out, later, that the entire 6 lane autostrada bridge had gone south 100m. But the key thing for me, at the time and later, was the impact of the freezing layer. Whilst the demarcation line between rain and snow had been rising in previous floods, this year it hit 3,500m. Also the extreme heat, the extreme moisture content and the extreme rainfall caused large amounts of landslips allowing huge volumes of boulders to enter the river causing extreme destruction. The analysis can be found here (pdf) http://tinyurl.com/j6hyefl There were many points in the analysis, but one here is to both our points. "A decisive factor of this event, which also makes the difference from some other previous floods (ref. [2], [3]), is the high temperature of atmosphere which has kept the freezing level at very high altitude: so that heavy precipitation over the mountain areas couldn’t be snow but have continually fed all the rivers of the basins." Food for thought. Given that it only took 15 years to bring average world temps up to the last El Nino High.... Doesn't spell anything good for freezing days, Ice conditions or summer extent or area figure...
Toggle Commented Apr 3, 2016 on Winter analysis addendum at Arctic Sea Ice
Interesting Bob, I notice that the average daily high temperatures there in June are 15C and that's as high as it gets. Changing to weekly view it seems to have been a 3 day warm spot starting on the 17th and dropping back on the 19th. Average hot temperatures for March should not be above 0 really. Hardly surprising the Ice is not growing...
Toggle Commented Mar 19, 2016 on PIOMAS March 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks Rob, my perseverance was unusually lacking...
Toggle Commented Mar 18, 2016 on PIOMAS March 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
John, the site doesn't seem to have historical data although I'm sure if you email them they will give it to you. However the last 8 years of so of watching has had a clear trend. Deploy in January with about 1M thickness and growth to around 1.5M before melt onset begins. This is the lowest I've seen it but it does not mean it's the lowest ever seen. It could have been lower in the record. However 2015 was a very early breakout. I don't remember if it was before 2004 (see graph) http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup/breakup_dates_history_2010.png But it was either before or very close...
Toggle Commented Mar 18, 2016 on PIOMAS March 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
I also note that the Barrow landfast ice seems to have just about stopped growing at 3/4 of a meter. Which is well below normal. Given the warm water upwelling there most of the winter I think we can expect a record early breakout. The snowfall about a week ago seems to also be insulating the ice and retarding more growth.
Toggle Commented Mar 17, 2016 on PIOMAS March 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
It took about 15 years for the 97/98 Nino temperatures to be locked into the normal temperatures. We also know that the heat between that Nino and 2013 did the massive damage to the Arctic ice. So if we take the 2015/16 Nino as the next step change, we can only expect to see total disaster between now and 2030... By then we should have exceeded the 1.5C on average and be pushing 2C on high years.... What this will do to the Arctic ice is not something nice to contemplate.
Toggle Commented Mar 17, 2016 on PIOMAS March 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Annual ice. A few years back one of the Swedish road creating trucks that makes the roads on the Baltic Ocean ice went straight through. Not that it hit the news outside of Sweden much, I just happened to be there. There has also been a marked change in the way that snowmobiles are used on lakes after many breakthrough accidents in the early or late season. Simple indications of a changing climate but, of course, people adjusted so others assumed it was no longer an issue. As in Global Warming wasn't or had stopped. It is somewhat surreal though that it was a heating fuel truck...
Jim, there is a technique to saying something when both parties are in dispute and one is inclined to censor. It is not immediately satisfying but it can make your point effectively. Whilst I love some conspiracy theories and believe that there is a kernel of truth in quite a few, the only conspiracy going on in the climate side is on the denial side, IMHO. So I find I can only take it in small doses these days. So if you'll excuse me I'll not go in for any mud wrestling on Prof Curry's site thanks...
Toggle Commented Feb 27, 2016 on Grasping at uncorrected straws at Arctic Sea Ice
Well it was posted. I hope that I got my point over.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2016 on Grasping at uncorrected straws at Arctic Sea Ice
I have succumbed to responding to Anthony's latest post which links the last one. Given my post above he may, or may not, choose to post it. We'll see. If he doesn't I can put the text here if you care to see it... I've saved the text in a word document.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2016 on Grasping at uncorrected straws at Arctic Sea Ice
Bill, Following on from your "doublethink" I am inclined to rename the majority of the drivel on WUWT from BS to DS. After all the biggest indicator of the kind of commenters on the site is a point I have posted there more than once. Namely that many of the commenters propose diametrically opposed reasons for their pet theory, to which everyone agrees that they could be right. If you took all the BS opinions on WUWT and subjected it to rigorous logical analysis, you would generally find that the net sum of all the hot air would be exactly nothing. Because they contradict each other so many times that they cancel each other out. It would not be so bad if were to self police by commenting when a conflicting opinion has been published. But, in fact, they do the opposite. Where if the opinion meets the political ideology of another poster who is proposing something totally opposite and incompatible, they agree that both "could" be right, when, in fact, one must certainly be wrong. So not BS. DS. Where the same old garbage is excreted out to the forum where it is consumed and excreted out in a different and conflicting form. I stopped commenting there a while back but I have made this same comment on inconsistency at least 3 times there. The lights are on, the music is at max, but nobody is home.
Toggle Commented Feb 26, 2016 on Grasping at uncorrected straws at Arctic Sea Ice
" And also let me know if a climate risk denier outlet reports this." Yeah right, I noticed Watts has an article stating that "Local Climate Models" are the next big thing in predictions.... I noticed that the CT interactive line dropped off the bottom again... This has to reflect in PIOMAS sometime right? I wondering how low it will finish the season. Some bit's I don't get. Barrow is COLD right now, -24C or so above the ice, yet there is this huge area of open water just offshore and it's not freezing up much. Also the shelf ice is simply not growing much. It's stuck around 0.5m and is growing incredibly slowly for the above ice air temp. I'm betting these are not the only records going to fall come spring and early summer.
Yes I get that Bill. But it is only in the last 4 years that I've seen any attempt at emission controls from the larger container ships. Even then the environmental control systems are designated as "optional", as they do decrease the fuel efficiency. It was quite interesting to note that the fuel efficiency, basing it on fuel consumed over time, per bhp, in comparison with, say, a 60mpg (imperial), car running at optimal mpg. The latest ship engines use approximately 1/5th the fuel per litre that cars do for the same (relative), bhp. Even so the largest container ships today burn more than 1m litres of fuel to run from Shanghai to Rotterdam, or to put it another way, around 300 thousand US Gallons. I would not put it past shipping companies to have soot and emission filters which can be put in or out of the exhaust gas train dependent on where they are in the world and how much fuel they want to save. That was just the point I was trying to make. That once we get shipping up there we introduce one of the very worst kind of polluters right into the environment itself.