This is Andre Koelewijn's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Andre Koelewijn's activity
Andre Koelewijn
Recent Activity
Wouldn't the following scenario be plausible: - hardly ice in the Arctic in September - a serious hurricane causes a lot of mixing of water over depth, resulting in a relatively warm and salty mixture in the top 50m - hardly ice formation in October, less than usual in November - as a result, less ice in March next year - no ice anymore in September - and when again a storm occurs, this spiral goes down rather fast and in a decade or two it's all done, except for some ice in the Hudson Bay in January-April.
Commented Mar 9, 2014 on PIOMAS March 2014 at Arctic Sea Ice
This makes me wonder what to expect about the timescale on which the Greenland ice sheet and the Antarctic ice sheet could melt. Current projections of sea level changes may prove to be (far) too optimistic as well... Ever thought of how many people now live at a level of no more than 10 metres above current mean sea level? And how 'organised' the required mass relocations can be?
Crandles, so what you say can be rephrased as: 'The freezing season is so long and so severe that reaching an ice thickness of, say, 20cm one or two months later does not really matter'?
Commented Aug 13, 2012 on ASI 2012 update 9: stormy weather at Arctic Sea Ice
Crandles, Superman, I agree that more open area after the melt season means that more heat loss will occur. But isn't that only until an ice sheet has formed, from than on, it will be the same, or not? In other words: suppose (A) you start with a very thin sheet of ice. An x amount of heat loss per unit of time, gradually decreasing as the ice thickness increases. And (B) you start with open water, which has to cool down first and freeze. That will take some time, time during which not an x amount, but an X amount (X>x) of heat loss will occur. Next, you'll get at situation (A), only later during the freeze season. Or not? Where do I get it wrong? Those 'few papers' are probably based on variations from year to year, which could be larger?
Commented Aug 12, 2012 on ASI 2012 update 9: stormy weather at Arctic Sea Ice
I'ld say the way you calculate the average is pretty conservative, going down only half of the scale of the previous steps at the minimum. Early May, I made a layman's guess of 2.4M for CT SIA minimum and 3.4M for SIE. Pretty bold figures, which I based on the general decline over the past decades and the notion that the continuing decline in volume according to the PIOMAS model should by now come in on the area and extent numbers: just too much thinned ice around in parts of the Arctic which used to have THICK multi-year ice. So where you, Neven, counted '2.7M' for my vote on 'less than 2.8M', it wasn't what I meant (obviously, you couldn't see). And that may count for more votes in that category. Looking at the present figures and forecast, that SIA number of 2.4M still seems achievable. A SIE of 3.4M on average for the whole of September is less likely, but who knows...
Commented Aug 11, 2012 on Polls August 2012 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob, I checked the NSIDC daily data: 2012, 08, 02, 6.23881, 2012, 08, 03, 6.06293, 2012, 08, 04, 6.06299, 2012, 08, 05, 5.87559, 2012, 08, 06, 5.81533, 2012, 08, 07, 5.67377, 2012, 08, 08, 5.47461, 2012, 08, 09, 5.23462, and as expected/feared earlier this week by someone else in one of the many posts: a 1M drop in a week. As far as I understood, this is unprecedented. (This is my first post - I have been following this blog for about two years now. Very informative.)
Commented Aug 11, 2012 on Arctic summer storm open thread 1 at Arctic Sea Ice
Andre Koelewijn is now following The Typepad Team
Aug 11, 2012