This is NeilT's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following NeilT's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
NeilT
Recent Activity
It would have been nice to get a comparison for this chart. I didn't look hard enough earlier. http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/data/barrow_breakup/brw_fc_2011 The Barrow landfast ice was gone on June 24th. WAY below the average for the 2000's right up to 2011. In fact it was earlier than 2004. It would have been nice to know whether it was insolation or some other factor.
George, I watch it almost daily at this time of year. It had been 58F for a protracted period so not surprising. It's currently 43F with all that rain. 24th June is fairly early for the 2000 -2010 timeline. The breakup forecast has not been active for quite a while so hard to compare recent years but I think it's pretty early. http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_breakup/breakup_dates_history_2010.png
I must admit I'm looking at the so called "multi year" ice in the Barents and it's quite literally going to pieces. I remember Dr David Barber giving a speech about rotten ice and the impact it had on the ice around it. Such that the thin ice between the MYI created a bridge between floes of older ice and, over time, gave the impression that it was all solid MYI. Probably due to snow accretion and melting freezing. The ice would not be able to float lower once it was held fast between the older ice. Until it melted. I'm also wondering if these massive cracking events have their roots in the same thing. It's all surmise, but I don't see any other way for high levels of MYI to suddenly become islands of floes with open water in-between. Probably wrong, but there must be some explanation.
Right now there is massive melt ponding and significant open water over quite an area. Checking the Barrow website shows temperatures at 10C and checking the landfast monitoring station http://amaru.gina.alaska.edu/data/graph/mbs_barrow/BRW_MBS.jpg?graph=ProfileGraph shows the same plus the fact that the shallow land fast water is now at around 0C. So it's not going to be long as ice. As ever, it will depend on the weather and the insolation it provides.... That; is yet to be seen.
Toggle Commented Jun 20, 2015 on Melt Pond May 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris, is that the average for the entire month or is that the running 5 day average figure they post on the arctic seaice news page? I should have said #3.9M km2 +- 0.5M km2
Never if I recall correctly we are talking about the lowest 5 day running average (nsidc), value in September for Sea Ice Extent. If that's the case I'll go for 3.9 +- 0.5 Method. WAG/years of observation. Let's see how wrong I can be... Might as well start the ball rolling. I just had a look at the NSIDC Arctic page, haven't been there in quite a while. It seems that 2015 is -2sd below average for most of 2015 and May stands in 3rd place overall and the lowest in the post 2010 record. Worth a guess.
I'm wondering if this is correct... It doesn't look like it from the webcam. http://seaice.alaska.edu/gi/observatories/barrow_sealevel
I did forget to say though as I posted instead of editing, that the reason I want to see a sudden sharp decline in Arctic ice, with the attendant impact on weather etc, is that this is the only likely way to wake up the apathetic and make strides. Should this happen, then we could, just, possibly, see enough action to allow the ice to recover. If it takes another 20 to 30 years, we can forget it. By then it will be far, far, too late to take the action.
Denialists are easy to spot. They change to another argument as soon as you destroy the current one. Witness one idiot on WUWT stating "One inch per year of sea level rise. I can walk faster than that". When pointed out that he may be able to walk but where is he going to walk to as it is already owned. Who is he going to take it from as his own wealth and property will be valueless, inundated with the sea. Never acknowledged, just moving on to another angle of attack. A continuous game of whack a Mole. To my mind their biggest danger is in allowing the vast majority of the apathetic to believe there is no immediate danger to face. To my mind and my understanding the problem is systemic. We have a society where we talk about inalienable rights such as human rights or the right to personal liberty. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. We have chosen to give up our rights in order to form into communities. These communities, having taken our freedom, give back peace, stability, food, wealth and health. There is no Human "Right" here. There is a benefit of communal society from the sacrifice we have given. Implicit in this is the role of government. Which is where I see this problem as systemic. We gather together in our societies and give power and money to the society in the form of government so that they can tackle the big things which we, alone, cannot tackle. Roads, Sewers, clean water, power.. In short all the utilities which make our lives comfortable and possible. However Climate Change is something no single person can tackle. It requires fundamental changes in these utilities and the basic infrastructure we live within. That is the role of Government. That is where Government is falling down. That is the problem and that is who should be responsible. There is a saying from Robert Heinlein which I like to remember. "Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost" . Personally I have pretty much given up hope of any activity which will allow us to avoid the worst of the impact coming. I am firmly moving into mitigation of the impact in my personal and family life, rather than trying to influence people who already know what they have to do but refuse to act. I won't shut up though....
Oil and gas extraction in the Arctic has nothing to do with worthwhile goals such as alleviating poverty , Knausgaard said. “Norway is one of the richest countries in the world – it’s all about greed, and it’s a fucking disgrace.” Yes Norway is, per capita, one of the richest nations on earth. BUT, the wealth fund which that Oil grows, every year, is the countries pension. The rest should be self explanatory if you understand socialist countries. I expect the case to fail miserably. But I'm willing to be hugely surprised....
Toggle Commented May 19, 2015 on Bill McKibben nails it at Arctic Sea Ice
(if I wouldn't know better, I'd think you're concern trolling). Being a Conservative who not only believes in the reality of Climate change but also believes that it will be a total catastrophe to mankind as a whole on this planet is a trial sometimes.... :-) I've cut out the rest of the response 3 times now. It should be clear what I mean. If it isn't I'm not going to try to explain it. It just makes me even more tired and even more cranky.
Toggle Commented May 19, 2015 on Bill McKibben nails it at Arctic Sea Ice
OK let me first state that I don't think that drilling in the Arctic is a good idea. Now let me try and explain why I believe most of the posts above will not help in keeping it closed. A few years ago I commented on Joe Romm's site about their position on Obama and the climate. At the time they were hammering on that Obama would not use their terms such as "Climate Change" in his speeches. What I was trying to make climate activists understand was that the Republicans has so poisoned the debate on "Climate Change" that Obama was effectively crippled from using the term. This was in his first term when he was running up for re-election. What I tried to get people to understand, as was done here, partially, was to get people to recognise what Obama had achieved without using the lobbying term "Climate Change". So roll forward to the end of Obama's second term and we see some things. He lost the Fracking argument and had to let it go. But he won the Keystone XL argument. This is astute politicking. If we are going to use the gas anyway, then it might as well come from US producers who push the gains back into the US economy. Fracking turned the US from a net importer of natural gas to either neutral or a net exporter. The main issue is how the EPA is used to control the fall out. Again with drilling in the Arctic. Much has been said about the "catastrophe" waiting to happen. As if nothing was learned about the Horizon rig disaster. In the end, with the Horizon disaster, they had to drill into the well from the side and block it. Given the new licenses for Shell to drill in the Arctic, it is quite likely that the EPA will demand that shutdown bores are created before the main bore reaches oil. In this case, shutting down a disaster would be no more than either pumping into the venting bore or firing an explosive to close the bore. Not quite the uncontrolled and unmanageable situation that is stated above. Let's be totally frank with each other. So much CO2 has already been pumped into the atmosphere already that our liveable biosphere is already changed to one that will not be able to sustain a population of 7bn by 2100 without extreme genetic engineering of our food products and without massive efforts in desalination, sea defences and water management in temperate zones. That is a given. Add to that the fact that the population of the Earth, come 2100, should our current situation continue, won't be 7bn, it will be more like 10bn people mainly starving and thirsty. This is a given just on the CO2 currently emitted and if the people and the governments can't take that in and act on it, no amount of ranting about DEAD is going to change their outlook. Only cool rational presentation of the impacts and the consequences. I've turned around several lukewarmers and people who are suspicious of government like that. Now to look at Obama. So he's done more in his two terms than any summit, treaty or other mechanism out there, to reduce CO2 emissions. Yet what does he get for recognition? Hammered by the climate lobby because he won't use their words, won't do it their way, won't enact every bit of legislation the climate lobby want and won't do it the way the climate lobby want. Why doesn't he do that? Because the Majority of the people in the US don't want him to and the last time I looked, the US was supposed to be the latest and greatest in the self determination of the people. Even if that self determination is self destructive. Great. Think how effective the climate lobby would be if they were to work WITH Obama. If they stopped calling him an idiot every time he did something they didn't agree with and worked with him to lock up the carbon producers into a straitjacket which they could just make a profit in and produced less fossil fuels. Just think how effective it would have been for McKibben to stand up With Obama and say that whilst he deplores the opening up of Oil exploration in the Arctic, he recognises that Obama may have not choice but to do it. However that he holds the US administration wholly responsible for the decision and that the US administration needs to do everything possible to protect the environment of the Arctic during this drilling. That would have given Obama exactly the platform required to create EPA regulations so strict that Shell might just forgo the whole thing until Oil resources are so low that it has no choice. Perhaps it's time the climate lobby stopped pissing on the tent and got inside it pissing out. What I see is two presidential terms of lost opportunity for the climate lobby. They had a friend in the white house. Now an embattled friend who has to do deals with the Republicans just to make government function. Did the Climate lobby help him? What will the climate lobby do if a Tea party candidate takes the presidency? Then perhaps we will see this http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-tech/energy-production/frozen-fuel3.htm Go into production. Just look at those numbers and think 10C CO2 by 2100.... Because if that were viable it would make natural gas so cheap that nobody would even stand a chance of producing renewables and nobody would stop burning it until the sea was washing round their ankles. My position is, I think, what some above are trying to get at. Not every battle has to be one of destroying the administration. Obama has done a wonderful job of mitigation without challenging. If every other leader in the world were to do the same, the net impact would be more than the climate lobby actually, realistically, expect to see in reductions in the next 10 years. Food for thought.
Toggle Commented May 19, 2015 on Bill McKibben nails it at Arctic Sea Ice
Jim that interface is designed by people who simply don't want you to get the data unless you already know how to get the data. Having worked at ESOC I'm not highly surprised but as a mere mortal I think I'll stick to places who actually want mortals to view their output....
Toggle Commented Feb 8, 2015 on PIOMAS February 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
I see a definite warming trend this year around the periphery. I had a look at the Uni Bremen AMSR2 image I noticed the Baltic up north at the Arctic Circle. Normally this would ice be half way to Stockholm by now. Then I went to check out the current temp in Stockholm and the 14 day forecast. Currently it's 3C. Something which is not unknown, but not really that usual at thist time in January. -10 would be more common than 3c. Normally it should average out in January as -1 high and -5 low. In fact the 14 day forecast averages at 1.9 high and -1 low. This is a trend I've noticed in Stockholm over the last 10 years. The only exception being the two years at a 100 year solar minimum. I'm watching the Cryosphere Today figures right now. Area has crashed and is not growing. Another week or two and it will be in record low territory for the time of year. Of course it could just suddenly jump back up as it has done so many times before. But that's half the fun of watching the Arctic do what you expect, immediately followed by something totally unexpected...
Toggle Commented Jan 13, 2015 on PIOMAS January 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
It seems to me that incessant focusing on the Max extent figures does not show the whole picture. Surely the figures which are changing most right now are the onset of re-freeze, how late Max Extent arrives and how long the new ice is frozen. There will come a time when the max arctic extent is significantly less than it is today, but that will require increasing heat absorption in the ocean and a significant change in the cloud cover over winter. Both of which take time. Focusing on whether or not some coverage of ice reaches the same extent as it did 10 years ago, whilst ignoring the crash in overall volume and continuing trend of both extent and area losses at ice minimum, seems to me to be somewhat myopic at best and somewhat dishonest at worst.
Toggle Commented Dec 14, 2014 on PIOMAS December 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Vsaluki, it's already been done. Didn't you hear? When all the "questionable" records were removed, the temperature gradient went UP, not down. The study was part funded by the Koch brothers, no doubt convinced that they would, at lasts, get one single shred of real scientific evidence to make their claim that CO2 is not bad for the environment. The leader of the study, honest leader, had to step down from his previous assumption that the records were faulty and had to bless the work done by GISS and others. Judith Curry on the other hand had conniptions when her study did not produce the result she had staked her career on. She lambasted the project leader, called it all a fix and disowned her own work. All because the true and unbiased science did not fit her picture of the world. That is the difference between true science and the fairy stories being bandied about by the denialist crowd. So please take your observations about the GISS record set and fit them in whichever orifice hurts most. Because 1.5 billion temperature records, correctly analysed, do not lie.
Thanks for all the time you've put into this on my behalf already Chris. I can't think of any better way to explain it myself either and I'm consumed with discussions on the Scottish independence referendum at the moment. The Yes poll lost me €90 on my last pay which was paid in € into my UK account.... I'll check back in a while.
Toggle Commented Sep 8, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
Sorry Chris, this is not what I'm saying. "So what you are saying is that after 2012's September minimum the ice grew back by April 2013 to almost the same volume as in April 2012. Then with more second year ice after summer 2013, the April 2014 figure was still around the same." I'm saying that in the winter of 2012/13 the Area of the ice grew back to almost the same as it was when the 2012 melt season started. BUT. That Ice, of the same area, was not of the same consistency. It was 1mkm^2 more FYI than at the beginning of the 2012 melt season. So how could it be only 40kkm^3 less than 2012. Where did all that extra volume come from? It really is as simple as that. I don't understand. I'm willing to learn but I can't see any way that 1mkm^2 of FYI can create the same volume as 1mkm^2 of MYI. It doesn't make sense to me.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
KZ, Ghoti Of Lod said what I would have said. Nevis tends to melt back to almost no snow or ice each year. I've walked Nevis in an almost no ice year. In the last decade we reached a point where pretty much all snow and ice melted off Nevis. So this BBC story about "glaciation" is simply the BBC getting in the words they want there. The BBC has been developing a poor record on climate over the last decade. I was short because I believe that if you are going to come onto a board and start making statements, it is good form to actually check on what that forum holds and the information the people there are posting about. Chris Reynolds is quite right, there is significant evidence, in a large part aided by Chris, to completely void all the things you have said. If you want to talk about UK press articles I suggest you start and end at the Guardian. They have the best climate coverage in the UK press, bar none and dislike the politics of the paper as I do, I laud them for their very honest stance on the climate. I also have spent extensive time on WUWT and RC. I don't so much spend time on RC nowadays as my time is limited and there is more here than I can possibly cover in my free time. As for WUWT? I have pointed out to them their basic inconsistency over and over. Nobody is listening. If you read the post threads there are at least 3 competing theories for any one point in contention. All three are mutually exclusive and impossible to reconcile, yet, because they all agree on the same thing. Namely that AGW is a fake. They are willing to agree with each other. Nobody wants that kind of discussion here. There is much to learn and far too many things going on in the cryoshpere to spend any time on that kind of rubbish.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
That should have read "If that ice was even only 0.5m thicker"
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
Sorry I hope I'm not being dense here. But I said that over 1M sq km of extra ice melted out in 2012. Predominantly older MYI or > the 2.4m thickness you are stating here. If that ice was even only 0.5m thick that would mean 500,000 cubic km less ice volume than melting the same volume of FYI. So what are you saying? That the extra 460,000 cubic km of ice reported by PIOMAS for the high in 2013 (2013 was reported as 40kcukm less than 2013 at max), was created by extra thick FYI created by extra cold temperatures? Because as I remember it, it was late formation followed by over average warm temperatures followed by an early breakup in 2013. Not quite the conditions I would have expected to re-create the postulated half a million cubic km of ice lost by the loss of an additional 1m sqkm of MYI in 2012. I see what you are saying but I don't see how it relates to the sudden replacement of MYI, in one season, with FYI, to re-create almost the same volume start as 2012. It just doesn't work for me unless we are saying there were exceptionally cold conditions which created significantly thicker FYI than was seen in 2012. Your own statement was "And by May the thickness is 2.44m, similar to when PIOMAS and the simple model are run with 2012 profiles". If it's the same thickness to replace older thicker ice lost in 2012, then it's impossible for 2013 to have started with the same volume as 2012. Unless I'm missing something obvious?
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
"but now we can see new glaciers building up around Europe, even in Great Britain" There speaks the voice of an incurable myopic. I was in the highlands only one week ago. Grampians, Cairngorms, Lawyers Group, Beinn Mhor and south of the Nevis range. Glaciation? Well if green grass and bare stone is glaciation, there you have it. A few bits of snow in the north facing corries, but less than usual. Perhaps I got it wrong? Perhaps glaciation has struck in Wales? Or maybe London. Although I must admit a different kind of glaciation may strike in Westminster if the Scots vote Yes on September 18th.... Please go away and take your wet dreams with you.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on PIOMAS September 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
Granted, when you lose first year ice. However how can PIOMAS defend replacing thicker multi year ice with first year ice and then stating that it is virtually the same volume for virtually the same area. It defies logic.
Toggle Commented Sep 7, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
I must admit I'm having a problem with not challenging the PIOMAS data. One glaring point makes it for me and I'd like someone to explain to me how PIOMAS is able to do this. At the end of the winter in 2012, before spring, PIOMAS had a max value of 23.37M. Yet, after attaining a lowest ever value of 3.67M, and after a low start to 2013 with the area eventually reaching very slightly higher than 2012, we get a volume max at the end of winter in 2013 of 23.33M. Now this is not working for me. For 2012 to have a triple. Volume, extent and area record, then pretty much all of the FYI and some additional MYI must have been lost. We also know that extensive export of older MYI happened in 2012. It is possible to lose MYI rapidly. But, with similar area, it is not possible to regain MYI in one season. How does the model explain and justify this? Because if it's not getting that right, then it's overestimating the volume of ice remaining.
Toggle Commented Sep 6, 2014 on Ever sailed to 85N? at Arctic Sea Ice
That was my view too Werther. I wasn't thinking 2007 onwards. I'm comparing what I used to view from about 2000 up to 2007. I know that AMSR2 has higher resolution and there is significantly better imaging than there used to be. But We would simply never see so much clearly broken up and openly floating ice in the decades gone by. The ice dynamics changed but the way of quantifying it as to how the pack looks, works, melts or even affects the environment around it is lagging. Time, as Never keeps telling us, will tell. Doesn't help my itch to know though.
Toggle Commented Aug 10, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 7: late momentum at Arctic Sea Ice