This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
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.
I would have thought the biggest concern would have been the black carbon deposits from the bunker fuel of any older vessels being led through... Given that the largest engines use about 11 litres a second. The very latest engines have been designed to be reduced in smoke, carbon deposits and sulphur, but it won't always be the very latest ships.
Late to the party as always. I don't laugh at deniers, like jdallen and I have the same approach. Through patience and working with many people I have managed to change them from suspicion to absolute certainty that climate change is a human problem and that we need to do something sensible about it. Each approach depends on the person who I'm talking to. Some people just need to be given the right and correct information and allowed to compare it with the information they have been reading. I've found this quite common for Daily Mail readers in the UK, who don't normally look outside the bubble. For others it may come down to laying out the information and then working with them to help them try and destroy the case for climate change from a hard core scientific position. The second category often elicits the best response and also activists to help deal with climate change as they realise the scope of the problem and also how they were lied to. The US political system is also one of the hardest to deal with. The more direct the democracy and the higher the levels of liberty in the society, the more likely people are to be coerced by self interest even to the detriment of themselves in the long run. US politics are polarised and entrenched to a remarkable degree. More important is that when most of the rest of the world look on, when the US says "Left" the rest of the world sees a progressive right wing movment. When the US says Right, the rest of the world sees people who think that Ghengis Khan was just a misunderstood reformer.... On the Antarctic front I have a few things to say. If you want to include Antarctic, then you also have to deal with albedo and you have to include the ice mechanics of grounded ice and Glaciers, which means including Greenland. Because Antarctic sea ice always reduces to near 0, as already stated, Albedo at the highest point in Antarctic sea ice is pretty much 0 and the impact of the sun on the water is pretty much the same. So then we have to work out why the lower water is so warm and is undermining the landfast ice and the glaciers. Glaciers in Antarctica and in Greenland are speeding up discharge. Yes, both Antarctica and Greenland are creating new ice, but the net balance is always negative ice, year on year, now. As to the studies on Antarctic Ice? Then you have also to factor in this There is only _one_ ice mass measurement which is _not_ affected by the rising of the Antarctic continent. That is Grace. I do know that Grace has had calibration issues, but I have never heard that those issues extended to the difference between two measurements? Just the initial measurement. In my experience the only people who want to talk about Antarctica, in the same breath as Arctic ice, are either people who know nothing about the whole cryosphere balance.... Or..... People who want you to believe what they are saying in the face of evidence which contradicts them.... Now I'll finish with one small thing. Recently, here, I stated that Obama was not wrong to give Shell the license to drill in the Arctic. That he needed to fight the battles which needed fighting. In the long run, I was proved right. Obama, later, produced the strongest legislation, anywhere in the world, to try and curb US climate emissions. Followed shortly after by Shell shutting down their Arctic drilling operations as non viable. Thus Obama threw a non important (today), bone, to the GOP, immediately followed by strong and firm lead on emissions reduction with the other hand. US politics. Obama seems to have a much stronger handle on it than the climate lobby and does his work despite their displeasure and lack of support. It might be something to learn from????
Tor, It's not as if this was not predicted... Rotten ice it was christened and rotten ice it is.
Toggle Commented Oct 1, 2015 on 2015 minimum overview, part 1 at Arctic Sea Ice
AIG, Concentration is nothing more than the ratio of ice to open water. Any ice. Even 1" thick ice counts to concentration. I think if you look back people will have been referencing concentration in areas where it is already known that there is multi year ice. I.e. the more area of ice in a place which is MYI, means there is likely to be more MYI. Conversely if an area mapped to have MYI suddenly loses concentration, then it's a good bet that a lot of MYI has melted. Or blown away. That's the only relationship I can see. Concentration is not used as a "proxy" for ice age at all. As far as I know there are 5 ways in which MYI is mapped. Bore holes Aircraft direct radar depth measurement Submarine sonar soundings Ice Freeboard measured by Satellite Radar Backscatter measured by Satellite, where the different ages of ice give different signatures. There is one other measurement but it's so general as to not really be helpful with the ice pack and that's the GRACE satellites. Which are more helpful with Greenland and Antarctica. As this image shows..
Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I changed jobs Fri/Mon and had a long weekend of travel and home stuff. Still finding time to sort stuff out.
Toggle Commented Aug 25, 2015 on ASI 2015 update 6: one more high at Arctic Sea Ice
I notice that the press is full of the July temps being comprehensively higher than 98, finally putting to bed the whole denialist "pause" rubbish. Given that this is also not a huge outlier year as 98 was, we should see these temps as normal by 2020. It would be interesting to compare the 98 melt season with the 2015 melt season. Just to rub in what is going on and crush any last idiocy of a pause...
Toggle Commented Aug 21, 2015 on ASI 2015 update 6: one more high at Arctic Sea Ice
there are now some quite significant outlying areas which have resisted melting out. I'm guessing that a lot of the area final figures will depend on what they do. Whether we drop below 3m this year could heavily depend on these outlying areas and how long the melt season goes on. My main concern about this is that those figures for that outlying ice will belie the very real impact happening to the CAB and the CAA today when looked at as a statistic rather than as an indicator.
Toggle Commented Aug 15, 2015 on A wetter and warmer Arctic at Arctic Sea Ice
Like is quite useful although it gets abused. The alternative is loads of posts with +1 which gets messy real quick. I do understand the sentiment though, one of the reasons I no longer have a FB account is I couldn't find the "Acquaintance" button....
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
I don't know about the volume stats for 2005 but it was a real shock year. That was the year the ice retreated so far they discovered a new island.... It led to huge expectations in 2006. 2006 started very low in area and continued low until it suddenly stalled for a long time. Dashing at the end to not quite make it. This preconditioned 2007. As I recall it, most of it started in 2005. Although there was a lot in the press about a UK size chunk of ice which suddenly vanished in the Beaufort (or thereabouts), in October or November. Can't remember if it was 2004 or 2003 but it was before 2005. I think it was 2004 as I was in Sweden then and I recall printing out the Bremen maps at the time. Sorry I can't be more precise but I've searched for all the news articles on the late autumn loss since and can't find them.
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Gah, ignore that last bit. Typepad not wordpress. Must be a slow day and my brain has not caught up.
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
At the risk of going off topic. P-maker. I'm on record for stating the obvious here. 2 Billion lives forfeit. I don't know how to make it any more "serious" than that. As a person who makes their living in IT and also set's up forums and, from time to time, provides admin services to forums, I find one thing constant. If you want a life ban you have to work at it. In the case of this site it will be making ludicrous statements with no basis in fact, dismissing both evidence and very in depth scientific research with flippant remarks and generally making such a nuisance of yourself that you wind up standing on the outside shouting at yourself. Or go back to a place like WUWT and howl at the moon along with the other like minds. Whilst whacking this particular mole might be thought provoking, I've found, over the last 19 years of watching, discussing and contributing, that after about the first 500 times it just becomes boring drudge work. Neven, It is possible and a quick search elicits an article Which will do that. However, I must admit, that what the author calls I prefer to keep things simple does not fall into my lexicon of simple. Personally I'd go for the plugin every time unless it was unstable...
Toggle Commented Aug 6, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Unfortunately he wouldn't be on it either....
Toggle Commented Aug 5, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, CT anomaly rose from -1.58 to -1.64 in the last day. I didn't track the area number but it's down to 4.126m. Did I read you correctly earlier saying that CT lags by 3 days? If so we're in for some very interesting drops in the next few days. If things continue as they are, 2013 volume is going to be beaten before September. But, of course, it depends on the cyclone in the Beaufort. Although I'm much more interested in the melting and opening of the pack up towards 85N. I didn't see that coming from that direction. The Laptev is slow and stable but the Beaufort is liteally disintegrating. I wake up every morning, look at the Bremen map and think "how did that happen?".
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2015 on PIOMAS August 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
The Bremen concentration maps are showing significant open water half way from the Beaufort to 85n. The locations of the Obuoy's and what their camera's see seems to bear out what those maps are showing. This is the most interesting year I've watched yet. We have at least 4 weeks if not 5 weeks of melt to go, depending on how the weather turns. What will interest me most is what happens to that band of unmelted (thick?) ice which is now separated by mainly open water. Will it, as we saw in 2012, simply vanish under the bombardment of the heat and warming sea? Or will it remain to form a core of ice for the next season? I did notice that the outlying arm of ice which reached the shore vanished in 3 days. It just melted out.
Toggle Commented Aug 4, 2015 on ASI 2015 update 5: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi Hans, When you failed to log in did you try the miniscle "lost your password" link at the bottom of the failed login dialog? You should be able to use the email address you signed in with and it should send you the password change mail.
Toggle Commented Aug 2, 2015 on ASI 2015 update 5: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
If I recall correctly, once the melt ponds reach a certain depth, the satellite sensors can't discriminate them from open water. You can only tell when the temp drops and then freeze instantly as they are fresh water and not saline. I've been looking at the Obuoy sensors for a while now. 10,11 and 12 are the best indication. Some are clearly open water and some are clearly melt ponds but still quite large. Every year there is this sudden rapid change from open water to ice when the melt ponds freeze over. But they are a good indicator of where the melt will go if the temp rises again. I noted that most of the dramatic melting of the last solar cycle did not happen at the peak, but started 2 years after it. We're just dropping off the peak of this solar cycle. It's going to be interesting to watch what happens in the next 2-5 years.
@Chris, Yep I know. It all shows MYI. well it did until this week. And, yes, the ice in the Beaufort has been melting slowly, but I did note that the temperatures at the OBuoy sensors were showing virtually 0C temps. Not quite heroic melting temps like closer to the coast. But, anyway, I'd like to see how it ends up at the end of summer. @Neven. I have thought about that and my thought is that if the ice is really large MYI floes interspersed with FYI, then cracking events are much more likely because the freeboard of MYI is higher than FYI and so the floes move in the wind. Also any kind of wave action and the MYI floes are likely to totally destroy the FYI. Just a few thoughts on it. I notice that the Bremen concentration map is now showing 25% open water up to 85n. A week before 2012 showed the same. But, it's likely to be melt ponds. All the same, it's not good for the ice. It's moving faster than I expected. I did expect more of a 2006 pause and it's blown right through the 2014 stall. Another "interesting" year.
Sorry Chris I'm replying to your posts in order upwards. Yes I recognise that with hard fixed surfaces and fluid surfaces under the influence of the wind, that backscatter would be relatively simple to calculate. This was also thought to be correct for the calculations of sea ice and you state "Multi-year ice is more reflective for the ASCAT radar than first year ice." Given the observations of Dr Barber there needs to be some questions asked. Just like everything else, observations at this distance require a certain granularity. If the grid being observed is 50% MYI, does it calculate this as 100% MYI of a thinner value? After all we're calculating the density of reflected signals. Whatever the reason, the physically observed result is different from the projected result of the satellite signal. This will tend to produce erroneous results which end in unexpected results in the melt seasons when the non MYI, reported as MYI melts out. That's what I'm saying. What I was trying to do was use the 2012/2013 winter max to winter max divide, after the 2012 massive summer loss of MYI, as an indicator of the errors inherent in the system. However observation does the same. Apparently the Volume figures now say that most of the "gain" in recent years has gone. I'll wait for the PIOMAS reports for July/August to confirm. We have about 6 weeks of the melt season to go, more heat and a week's storm coming up. Plenty of time to keep observing and see what happens.
Chris it's not baseless. I've been writing software for 25 years now. There is a difference between mathematical interpretation of the reflection quality of the sea when under the impact of wind. And. The mathematical interpretation of the reflection quality of an "assumed" type of ice. We already know that pure ice reflections by radar of any kind cannot be trusted under the current ice conditions. This is a given since 2009 when the physical investigation of ice, which was defined by satellite as MYI, was in fact no such thing. The sea acts the same way under a set of conditions in each hemisphere depending on the heat and salinity. Ice, on the other hand, we are finding out, responds differently depending on the heat conditions in place. Both above and below the water. How could anyone possibly use a 1979 ice model to calculate MYI, then give results with a high certainty factor, when the ice itself is in a different state? This is what I'm saying when I say it's modelled. A model, by simple definition, uses input data plus observed, mathematical or science derived rules (or all 3), to produce a result. If one of your observations is changing and becoming less valid, then your results are going to have a larger error factor. That's what I'm saying. If you read this arcticle Where it says Arctic sea ice has duped satellites into reporting thick multiyear sea ice where in fact none exists, a new study by University of Manitoba researcher David Barber has found. In 2008 and 2009 satellite data showed a growth in Arctic sea ice extension leaving some to reckon global warming was reversing. But after sailing an ice breaker to the southern Beaufort Sea this past September Dr. Barber and his colleagues found something unexpected: thin, “rotten” ice can electromagnetically masquerade as thick, multiyear sea ice. If you watch the video Dr Barber states almost exactly the same situation in 2007,8,9 that we see today. He states that satellites calculated that 2008 had a modest recovery in Volume and 2009 continued that trend, based on area recovery and satellite reports of thick MYI. He states, explicitly, what I am saying now, that small floes of MYI, overlaid with FYI was being reported by satellites as MYI. In his full presentation at a conference he also showed that the small floes of MYI were also of poor constitution which would not impede an icebreaker. But that is not relevant to what I'm saying. Was it not, if I recall correctly, 2010, that saw the sudden and unexpected volume crash? Just one year after Dr Barber had basically said that the projected volume increases, identified by the Satellites, was, in fact, not there. As we look at the breakup of the northern Beaufort sea ice, we see that the, supposedly, predominantly MYI areas are breaking down into floes with approx. 50% of the area around them being open water. Almost exactly what Dr Barber predicted. That being the case, then the satellites overestimated the MYI in that area by approximately 50%. These are not my words. I just remember them and use them to challenge. I'm assuming that Dr Barber used ASCAT as one of his indicators of MYI he was going to observe. If I'm wrong, then I will stand corrected.
It's already beginning to close. We see something like this each year and each year it gets bigger and stays longer. The story is not the open water but the pattern which is producing more of it.
Toggle Commented Jul 30, 2015 on ASI 2015 update 5: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice
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. 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.