This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Recent Activity
I saw that Kris. I noticed that some of the ice had already made it to the shore and was melting heavily. It's certainly going to be interesting if it does flow that way as it will open up way more ice to heavy melting. Even if it does bump up the Extent figures for a few weeks.
Somehow I'm guessing "melt pond" does not quite fit the description. http://obuoy.datatransport.org/monitor#buoy12/camera Looking at the location, that is significant melt. Annoying that CT Today keeps dropping a day or 5.
Many years of experimentation, supporting users, developing software and architecting systems. I may be a PM now but I was not always... You're very welcome though....
I'm still having the same login issue from time to time. First time I just press F5. If that does not work I log in again. If that still does not give a dialog I press F5 again. I haven't had to do more than that but I have had to do a double login with F5 afterwards. Hope it helps.
Chris, From the ASCAT Product guide. http://www.eumetsat.int/website/wcm/idc/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dDocName=PDF_ASCAT_PRODUCT_GUIDE&RevisionSelectionMethod=LatestReleased&Rendition=Web Based on these properties, and on available in situ validation sea ice data, models describing the scatterometer sea ice backscatter signatures have been developed, which point at one key sea ice characteristic driving the backscatter response: sea ice age. So you see, everything is modelled. It's impossible to do anything else. Reading through the ASCAT information online I read that "The antennae extend on either side of the instrument, resulting in a double swath of observations, each about 500 Km wide separated by a gap of about 360 Km" That gap has to be closed. ASCAT was originally designed to measure wind speed over the sea. It has been put to many other things, but not without assumptions. I'm assuming (yes I assume too), that the information Dr David Barber was working on in 2009, to look for his old ice, was heavily influenced by ASCAT data. His deduction was that newer ice would form between floes of old rotten ice and would change the freeboard (and therefore the backscatter), of the ice over time to mimic old ice. This is all very theoretical and very hard to prove. However my point was one very specific point. The first year ice growth of 2013 was insufficient to replace the MYI volume and FYI volume lost in the 2012 melt season. If the instruments and models which use that instrument input, insist that the impossible did happen, then it is time to go back and find out why the models and the instruments believe in miracles. Science should not. That's the point I'm trying to make. I recall that when Cryosat2 was being calibrated, they used a 3 way approach. Satellite data, aircraft overflights and physical teams on the ground with drills and measures. As I recall they had some difficulty calibrating Cryosat2 data and, if I recall a side comment recently, these data are not to be taken "too" literally. Which all points to the difficulty of measuring the actual volume of ice in the Arctic. Which, to my mind, will lead to some quite startling surprises from time to time.
Looking at tile r04c04.2015209 on the Arctic Mosaic, through the clouds, I'm certain I see a large area of mainly open water in a triangle shape pointing at the centre of the Arctic. It looks like it's part of a general section of disorganised and partially open ice which stretches back to the Laptev. Hard to see with all that cloud. I had to use the 250m view and still had to zoom way in to try and see it.
Glad that I pointed out the feeling that Did had been turned into Do... I'm sure a retraction will be given on page 99 in 4pt Wingdings... I like a lot of Telegraph articles but I won't even use their Climate Change articles for toilet paper. I might get rectal poisoning. Of course you have to know the UK press to be able to make that judgement...
"Volume's back down now"! Now you see this is why I'm suspicious of PIOMAS figures. Extent is still high. Area is still above the top 4 melt years, therefore volume should be up. OK there was extensive melt in the high volume areas, but not that extensive. So I wonder, all over again. How did we get these PIOMAS figures for growth and loss. I can't add it all up unless there are thickness reports and thinning reports which I haven't seen.
I read the telegraph article. The overriding impression was two things. 1. Putting words in his mouth 2. Did was replaced with Do However now the impression has been set that our eminent climate scientists are totally gaga and live in a world of their own. Job done. So whilst the Volume continues to decline this year, it can be buried with controversy about the people who predicted the decline. Therefore it can be dismissed as incorrect, to be corrected when some "unbiased" person with all the correct qualifications "member of whattsupwiththat" comes up with a "reasonable" explanation as to why the figures are in opposition to the "known" fact that ice is recovering. It's why I want to see the ice finally vanish in real terms. Because those who don't want to get it (Andy, it's not can't or don't understand; it's don't care or don't want to), finally see the reality of the situation. Of course we'll have to sit through the same old BS the following winter as the "Ice recovers at a pace never seen before". It will take 2 or 3 summers of no ice to get the message through. I feel sorry for Dr Wadhams. He should have known better but then who cannot say that from time to time.
In the meantime Global CO2 has peaked at 400.99ppm 2.51ppm higher than May 2014. The ESS and the Laptev have finally lost cloud cover which seems to have dropped over the Beaufort and ice continues to melt. More watching to do. More interesting things to happen, hopefully.
I remember watching Dr Katharine Giles death in the news. I did a bit of digging as the press were going their mile about her being a Climate Scientist. There is a real problem with Cyclists in London not understanding how a truck goes round corners. As a prior holder of a HGV license I know that the front wheels have to go a long way past the junction before the truck starts to turn. If they cyclist is sitting alongside the truck (they do that a lot) and is not looking at the indicators, they wind up in the killing zone of the back wheels before they know where they are and the driver is looking for pedestrians, not cyclists under their rear wheels. Horrible accidents happen a lot like that. But then again I'm not in a shooting gallery with the press and big business, I haven't seen 3 colleagues die suddenly in a short period and I'm not being alternately pandered to by the press and hung out to dry by the press. Just because you're paranoid does not mean they are NOT out to get you.... I'm supportive of Dr Wadhams because of what he has to go through on a daily basis simply because people are too stubborn or too stupid to learn what they are doing to their environment...
On another point, Peter Wadhams has made himself vulnerable by his increasingly outspoken attitude and entries like his Search prediction. In the political world if you find your opponent lying on the ground dying, you finish them off with a few good kicks... I'll need a lot of persuasion that this is not what is going on.
Chris, 5 or 6 years ago I might have agreed with you. But so much is my complete distrust of the reporting of Climate Change and Climate Science in the UK press that I no longer trust them even if He seems to be going of his trolley... If I read that in the Guardian I'll believe it because much as I completely dislike their politics, I very much admire their unwavering and direct stance on their Climate Science and Climate Change reporting. Notably if I search for Wadhams and Guardian, all I see is "Ice free in two years".... Says enough for me. The Times is Business linked, the Torygraph is anti any initiative which has Climate in it and the DM is howling at the moon....
On another note it seems like the western Arctic is cooling again but the Northern Sea Route is, essentially, open for navigation right now. It's funny really because there is no huge melt ponding or any other sign but the continued melt around the NSR and North of Svalbard seems to be setting itself up for a 2005 style melt back. If this is matched in the Beaufort, then things could be very interesting indeed. There are 6 weeks left now. I wonder how things will end up.
Ahhh, the Daily Manipulate.... Let's be Very Clear here because this is important to all of us at one point at another. The DM headlines scream "Have three climate change scientists been ASSASSINATED? The astonishing claim made by a Cambridge professor" Now we have the word ASSASINATED in bold and we have the word claim in small text.... Then they say "Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces" Ok so what did the DM actually report? Amongst a huge amount of dross and pictures and background there are three sentences from Peter Wadhams. "It's just very odd coincidence that something like that should happen in such a brief period of time," "They [the deaths] were accidents as far as anybody was able to tell but the fact they were clustered like that looked so weird." "I thought if it was somebody assassinating them could it be one of our people doing it and that would be even more frightening. I thought it would be better not to touch this with a barge pole." OK so he says as far as anyone can tell they were accidents but it just looked weird because it was in such a brief period of time. He, himself, was in an incident where a truck nearly ran him off the road and then he speculates that "IF it was somebody assassinating" What I have read so far is someone talking openly and honestly about situations in their personal and work life which caused them to reflect. Knowing that their work is opposed by very powerful and very rich people who could be seriously financially hurt by the work of these scientists. We talk about "just a few years" as if it means nothing. To those who control energy it is literally trillions of $ WW1 was started over less. Anyway, back to the story. It's a typical DM sting article which screams one thing in the title and simply does not back it up with any credible evidence in the article itself. I don't read the DM any more specifically for this issue. In fact if I see a DM article in the Google News portal I'll search for another one in any other newspaper before I read it because I assume that it will, either subtly or not subtly at all, lie to me. Almost all DM articles on climate change actually contradict the title in the body of the article. Some even totally change the entire meaning of the article. So whilst the science is the main deal here. What is the point in the science and the foreknowledge if the majority of the world believes you are lying to them and do nothing about it?????
Yes Chris I noticed after I posted that 10/11/12 were much closer to the area I was talking about. To me it's the same thing. The locations of all these buoys are supposed to be in very high thickness areas and they are melting faster than most. But, thanks for the correction.
Hmm, F5 to get the posting box. Just authenticating refreshed a page without the posting box. I know I go on about the anatomy of a denier from time to time and the signs of how to detect them. But this one is a classic right our of Deniers 101. PIOMAS is a Model. Just like all the Climate Models. It takes inputs and base data and then makes "assumptions". The DM likes to trash the Climate models on the grounds that.... Erm.... They're just models and therefore can't be trusted. Of course when it "Appears" to be going in the direction they want, then, apparently, a Model is OK. It's looking like the top cap will be ripped off the ballon and all the hot air is going to rush out leaving a big saggy deflated argument. But, of course, I thought that in 2006 as well at this stage and look where that ended up. If, as I expect, we get a solid melt this year with extensive melt in the high density pack area; Expect PIOMAS to become a "Model" again and "Highly unreliable". Such is the life of a Denier of Climate science...
Bremen maps are showing that the Northern Sea Route will open in the next few days to a week, depending on weather. The NW passage is now showing almost 50% concentration over most of the ice. Could be melt ponds but doesn't look like it won't open now. More interestingly is what is happening off Banks Island and the Canadian/Alaskan coast. I'm assuming the massive change to 50% concentration is partly driven by melt ponds, but a quick look at o-Buoy9 tells the tale of what is going on. One of the more interesting seasons. A quick check of the DMI SST tells another interesting story. Whilst the Anomaly is a good indication, because it only goes to 4+ it is not a very good guide of just how hot it is there. Last time I saw temps of Arctic water at 12C+, was 2012. Where the ice is melting, DMI is showing 12C, or more, water temps. That is not a coincidence and I don't believe it's melt ponds. More interesting viewing again in the next week. Barrow is clear skies again and the temp is climbing.... Given the water temps I'm guessing that we really will see the outcome of Dr Barbers view on rotten ice. If it's that warm and the ice is really rotten, but showing on all reports as solid, then it won't be long for this world.
I remember Gavin writing that. Lest we forget, the current solar cycle started with the lowest minimum seen for 100 years and the cycle itself was approximately half that of the last cycle. Yet. During the last solar cycle there was only one year which equalled 1998 in Global Heat. If you look at the cycle 22/23/24 chart, we see http://www.lunarplanner.com/SolarCycles.html That cycle 22 _might_ have explained the heatwaves of 88/89. But the start to cycle 23 does not explain 98. Neither does it explain the tie with 2005 and 98. Nor does the cycle 24 output explain how 2014 became the new warmest year on record. Nor the current happenings in the Arctic. http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr2/arctic_AMSR2_visual.png All in a low cycle year. Should we experience another maunder minimum in the next 15 years, Atmospheric CO2 will already have overwhelmed any cooling response it may have. On the current trajectory, we will be at 430ppm to 440ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and that's without a sudden decrease in Ocean CO2 uptake. And if we don't see the minimum? Perhaps dress code will become much more interesting. Although I'll be almost too old to appreciate it....
Or, on the other hand, the ice could just melt in the most unexpected place Can't get on the Bremen site on my work PC, that 8084 port just gets blocked. However the melt off Banks Island is a bit dramatic one day to the next and looking at the mosaic which is still building, it's not going to be improved tomorrow. I'm glad CT is back up again as I think tomorrow is going to see a bigger departure towards the lower years of the post 2007 era... I must admit I'm wondering which trend we will be returning to? The overall trend or the post 2007 trend?? The next 6 weeks will tell us that.
Of course we do have to remember that the state of the MYI at the beginning of 2015 is somewhat different to the MYI state at the beginning of 2012. Which should, if all things are even, produce a different result with similar input...
Toggle Commented Jul 19, 2015 on Junction June 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Personally when talk of "rebound" or "Pause" or anything else is going on about the Arctic Ice, I tend to go back to this link pop it up to normal size then run it from left to right. http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timeseries.jpg I think it would be better to rename "rebound" to "Return to the long term trend". Because, as this chart shows, that is exactly what it is doing. Also another salient point to note with this chart is that the trend is from 1979 to 2008 and the anomaly is measured from that trend. Were the trend to be 1979 to 2000, then the result would be a hell of a lot more alarming... That tape also, very clearly, shows 2012 as the outlier it really is. Another thing I like to note with that anomaly chart is where it enters -1 and where it exits it again for the year. This, to me, is important because that is where the majority of the energy is sucked up by the sun. Notably there is a clear departure from previous years/decades at 2007 and onwards. I shall be watching it again this year. But I won't be expecting much, I will be willing to be surprised.
Toggle Commented Jul 18, 2015 on Junction June 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
It's getting more and more of that heat now. The Bremen maps show continuing melt despite the cloud cover and a tendency to an early Northern Sea root being open fairly soon. Much more interesting season this year storms or not...
Toggle Commented Jul 17, 2015 on Junction June 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
"I disagree. The above is true only if society remains very static, i.e. there is no major effect from global warming." My take is that the above is only true WHEN there is major effect from global warming. That is the only way the Ostriches will get their heads out of the sand and looking around "I think it is much more likely that the people in power int he future will rewrite history to benefit themselves." In my scenario, the people in power will have been put in power by the truly frightened Ostriches and will not be slaves to the status quo. Just ask the Greeks right now. They've been like Turkeys voting for Christmas every year and finally they voted to end it. Only to find that it's Dec 24th and their PM is a Turkey voting them all for Christmas... I try not to underestimate the perversity of Democratic Politics...
Toggle Commented Jul 15, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Funny place the Arctic. As I recall "the data" didn't support any of the crashes. However the "retrospective data" supported every miss with an expected higher melt. Whilst I don't think that 2015 will be the year that we see the crash I do firmly believe that we will see it within my lifetime. Over what will, eventually, be seen as something like a 100 year record of events; being wrong by 3 - 5 years is not going to seem like so much of a big issue in, say, 50 years from now. As I referred to on Jim's blog recently, what I "quaintly" refer to as "The climate trials" is my estimate of how the people will react to the massive impact of atmospheric warming inertia in a future blighted by Global Climate Change. We are, as a species, depressingly predictable as to our actions in trying to find someone to blame for our own lack of foresight. When this bout of navel gazing, introspection and blame levelling happens; people like Dr Wadhams and Dr Barber are going to come out of it best. Because those who are doing the blaming will be insulated, by time, from the political shenanigans of today and, armed with 20:20 hindsight, will see every fault and every mistake which has ruined the world they live in. They will not be kind. Something worth thinking about. Those who stand up today and say "This is the world you are condemning our descendants to", will be the hero's of the hour. Not the pariah's and the ignored.... As is more likely to happen today. Food for thought.
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2015 on PIOMAS July 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice