This is WhiteBeard's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following WhiteBeard's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
Well into the slide show, the photo of the large hill ~5 mi (8km) north of Unalakleet on the western coast of the Bering’s Norton Sound is interesting if you read that photo’s caption and take a look at the northern Norton Sound area on U Bremen’s ASMER2 chart. From considerably south of Unalakleet (63°52N -160°47′W), to the NE corner of Norton Sound and then extending well west beyond Nome (64°30′N - 165°23′W) there appears to be little ice. Virtually always, the Iditarod's route is on the anchored near shore ice that seems to be absent this year. The land mask for charts from satellites instruments (and ASMER2 uses the highest pixel resolution I believe) excludes most shore fast ice as land, so there's little notice of this very unusual condition. At least without paws literally on the ground instead of the sea ice.
Toggle Commented Mar 10, 2014 on Another ice extreme at Arctic Sea Ice
While not yet daylight here, the Kulluk is again under the tow of the Aiviq, the vessel Shell purpose built to operate with the drill rig. The current plan is to move her some 30 miles north to a sheltered inlet on Kodiak Island.
Toggle Commented Jan 7, 2013 on Shell drill spill? at Arctic Sea Ice
Kate, Jan 03, 00:26 In 2008, Shell, for $2.1 billion, won 275 blocks (in 4 “prospects”), of the 5,354 Chuchki Sea blocks offered in US federal lease sale 193. That sale area was estimated to contain between 4 and 77 billion barrels of oil equivalent. That’s were lots of that sum went. I can’t remember, and am too lazy to look-up the details, but have a hazy recollection that Shell’s leases to the east in the Beaufort Sea were purchased from other holders, as the much of that area’s federal leases were auctioned several decades ago. That’s also in the $4.5 billion. Shell did quite a bit more seismic work in ’09 and ’10 during and mobilized drilling fleets in those years as well as went through several court challenges between 2008 and 2-12. Personally, I think the past burn of a billion or so $$ (only a guess) with no result lead Shell to a hurried effort in 2012 of putting into effect all the details required. They were months behind their announced schedule, primarily due readying the large ice going barge that was built to transport sections of the Prudhoe and adjacent oil fields processing facility, then sat for many years in San Diego. It was stationed this fall between the drill rigs with spill response gear, as part of Shell’s drilling permit requirement. There was considerable off shore exploratory drilling along the Beaufort Sea coast of the Arctic Ocean both east and west from Prudhoe Bay in the 80’s and the ~160 m long, 15,000 dw ton drilling ship Noble Discoverer operated this summer in the Beaufort at a location north the western boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Shell’s drilling permits require 2 drill platforms, each acting as the other’s relief-well driller if one experiences a rig disabling a blow-out. The permits also require drilling at “hydrocarbon zone” dept to end by 4-6 weeks before ice formation. The Noble Discovered was towed into Seward at the end of November due to propeller vibrations, then held for several weeks by the Coast Guard to correct what that regulatory entity said were “pretty serious crew safety and pollution-prevention system” problems, observed when the CG conducted an normal investigation of the ship’s towing incident and apparently missed (?) by the pre-drilling inspection on her departure from Seattle.
Toggle Commented Jan 3, 2013 on Shell drill spill? at Arctic Sea Ice
Travis Fisher, September 21, 16:32, and the graphics hot shots here, There is a sea ice skeptic article out today at The Register: (1) the antarctic sea ice extent this year is over +2 sigma, partly balancing low artic ice I would look for (1) to be the new skeptic go-to point for the near future. Complete agree with Travis and see good evidence of the last sentence occurring, though without the “partial balancing” qualification. I believe a seasonal (suggest April – October and the corresponding SH months ) graph of the trends in Arctic and Antarctic sea ice plotted together would be highly useful in countering this rhetorical bumf. A line graph I’d think. Suggest full legend w/data source on graphic and and Neven hosting (trading on this blog’s growing rep) if he’s willing, so a simple link grab is all that's needed to propagate. A graph that’s honest in conveying the trend in both hemispheres, when it is material, to help educate on changing albedo impacts, not simply torpedo the Antarctica red-herring. Tamino’s graphs just up are excellent, but I’d think one focused on when there’s solar gain rather than annual average or yearly max or min, and in actual units rather than anomalies like the one Cryosphere Today stopped updating would be most useful.
Toggle Commented Sep 21, 2012 on (not so) Cool vids at Arctic Sea Ice
Jtstewart, September 14, 03:16 Hourly photos from another ship in the Arctic Ocean, the USCGC Healy, are available here The thumb nails are coded by day-time and clicking by a thumb nail, clicking on the image to get full screen, and another click on the image to get an enlargement that can be scrolled. At the top of the image is data on UTC time, position, etc. Note particularly the latitude. The Healy has been a bit west of north of Barrow for quite a while and between 75ºN and 83ºN. A good visual impression over time and a larger area of the ice in another part of the Arctic is there to be had. A quick geographic orientation is available here, as is more data: The PIO officer’s blog entry for the 15th has some interesting observations on the refreezing process. I am always leery of Greenpeace and similar sources (as well as those targeted at a general audience). Not that what they report isn’t true (as Bistardi - in another thread here - and his tribe have no apparent compunction in doing), but that it’s selective. Stroeve I pay close attention to, but the bulk of the post is from Greenpeace and I take that into account. Back at the start of record extremes being broken, Watts used the NSIDC charts of the Arctic Ocean that identify areas mariners may find ice, to claim more ice than NSIDC and others reported is the same sort of thing. There is, as likely as not, a bit more ice dibs and dabs than is “officially” counted. Note the ongoing effort that the scientists are making to get the facts right and to report measurements over time using consistent observation methods. The advocates, though not in any way comparable in veracity, tend to leave out inconvenient info. Through the effort of Neven (and many commenters here), who can all bask in the glow of accomplishment during the post melt phase of the yearly cycle, you’ve come to a good place to learn.
From her aloft cam's hourly images, the USCG’s Healy left Unalaska, perhaps better known as Dutch Harbor, between 22:01 and 23:01 UTC on the 9th, having arrived between 00:01 and 01:01 on the 5th. The vessel’s PIO, ENS Erin Sheridan, bloged that the ship would take aboard “38 scientists that comprise the 1st mission science party” there. The Healy was out of Seattle on the 3rd, apparently having spent Jan until this month undergoing a refit. Well over a month ago she ventured out of the straight of Jaun de Fuca into the Pacific, but was back to showing Seattle from the camera after about 36 hrs. I make her position at 23:01 UTC as East of Nunivat Island (large one just off the mainland Bering Sea coast of SW Alaska) by a degree or two of Longitude heading north. Hourly camera shots at: Grumbine’s blog is: A poke in the ribs might yield more than the official agency statement of on ASMR-2. Or, it might not. I recall reading of some results not long ago, on water monitoring I think, based on its output. Fig 3 at this link is July 3 Arctic ice, but the “high resolution images” link didn’t load in the ~2 min I waited for it to do so.
Toggle Commented Aug 11, 2012 on Arctic summer storm open thread 1 at Arctic Sea Ice
Rob Dekker, June 28, 09:33 Do you know exactly which satellite data they used to compile this data set? The last paragraph under the “Methodology” link there is the statement that data used for, “SSE Release 6.0 were obtained from the NASA Science Mission Directorate's satellite and re-analysis research programs. .... Release 6.0 extends the temporal coverage ... to more than 22 years (e.g. July 1983 through June 2005)...” I would look at the methodology pdf linked below the précis. On thing; I did see that the data from the 4 ground stations I looked at were all ~20 or more years old (Barrow’s data is for 11 years ending in 1974). I hope you will stick around here at Neven's I’ve lurked fairly regularly since shortly after ASI arose as a Franken blog from a snooker table one dark and stormy night. I do leave links to ASI and particularly items from ASI Graphs (very handy, Nevin) at local media website when the subject of Arctic sea ice is subject to a storm of misinformation. Neven, June 28, 19:42 Never mind. “Hehe.”
crandles, June 24, 2012, 01:45 Quite true, “into the system” leaves a wedge for ambiguity. To be clear, I did not intend for “peak” to apply to the entire physical system, but instead to the input of solar radiation at the surface. The topic I alluded to in a comment up thread as being personally interesting is how the timing of insolation likely will impact the ice-water system. GofL, June 24, 2012, 01:49, Yes. Actually I’d looked there but was frustrated in trying to determine what was available by the common problem of acronym hash. People familiar with the data, using just the acronyms in the links on upper level web pages, as well as running into controlled passworded areas. What I found usable was in an practical application oriented topic area, not a sciencey one. But on going back, as I had intended (that is 1 of the 2 agencies that I think of as being the “usual suspects”), found what I was looking for. To all who have left pointers, thanks. I pasted June “Averaged Insolation Incident On a Horizontal Surface (kWh/m2/day)”, girded 1ºx1º, into Excel. The stuff used is at “Meteorology and Solar Energy”, then “Regional data subsets” which requires a case sensitive email registration to access. The 24 hr period June Arctic insolation, summed into 5º latitudinal bands: Latitude, Avg, Med, Max, Min (in w/m^2) 89º - 85º, 312, 314, 318, 312 84º - 80º, 284, 286, 311, 253 79º - 75º, 264, 261, 294, 232 74º - 70º, 255, 259, 283, 219 69º - 65º, 245, 242, 265, 225 89º - 70º, 279, 279 89º - 65º, 272, 270 Barring some further error on my part this is likely “napkin” close, although there are both methodological and source data issues. There are some substantial differences between adjacent cells scattered about, and that increases in occurrence moving to the south. I looked at 3x3 1º areas with surface observatories, Barrow and three Canadian, having the ground station approximately at their center. I had tried for an extremely rough cut at Arctic surface insolation and was more lucky than skilful in that first attempt, or would have been had I tried to do one based on surface obs, which I couldn’t find, anyway. This 2nd arrow shaved some fletching off that 1st one. Those observations are all over, varying by 25 or more w/m^2 from the average of the 1º latitude band in which they fall, and by about twice that between some touching cells. Local conditions likely skew things. All are located on the coast and some have nearby mountains. The 1º latitude bands have some surprising, to me at least, variance between adjacent ones, with values going up-down-up (or vice versa, if one is so disposed). A few adjacent ones show more than twice the change of the average step difference. The eastern and western hemispheres have a bit of difference. Rob Dekker, June 24, 10:41, That explains your Sahara v Arctic interest, I’d think. I’ve only been in the tropics in the winter (once around the equinox) and all times were just slightly over the line. Experiencing the difference between 23 and 65N is what what got this going. I did NOT do a great job in coming up with my 350-360 w/m^2 working estimate. That arrow was well outside any ring. It was hard to extract from that small section of the graph, but I really thought the actual would be nearer the range I posted. Perhaps some differences exist in the data sets used, but that’s only a guess that I’ll make do with for soothing a bruised ego. The June daily surface data (all for a 20–35 N swath): 320 w/m^2 average for the total Sahara Region, 15W–60E (the area used in the graph); 307 w/m^2 average for West Sahara, 15W–10E; 333 w/m^2 average for East Sahara, 10E–40E; 315 w/m^2 average for Saudi-Arabia, 40E–60E.
Rob on Decker, June 22, 08:57, Appreciate the replies and really am not upset. I’ve been around for quite a while and long have had a book mark with a thought balloon over a cartoon Garfield that nicely sums things. “I live like I type, fast and with lots of mistakes”. It’s quite true of me, except the fast part. The specific, limited point goes way back to a statement of Kevin’s, “there is a huge amount of insolation there [the Arctic], more than anywhere on the planet” to which I replied the “more than anywhere on the planet” bit is wrong. All that follows, for well more than a week now, is trying to find evidence. The Sahara paper is only relevant to sea ice in the “more than” context, though interesting in itself. Besides trying to get some actual numbers on arctic isolation around the solstice, for me, the bigger point has become trying to raise some consciousness, provoke a better understanding, about insolation during the polar summer. And, the numbers relate to another topic, the future year’s pattern of ice loss, that I may or may not take-up here sometime. Annual Insolation values aren’t difficult to find. Getting much evidence at monthly resolution, is proving to be difficult and I’m having to do some construction (which, by the way, is the local name of one of our 4 seasons; the other 3 are Early Winter, Winter, and Late Winter) rather than simply post a link to nicely packaged data. I’m working with the 2 Arctic locations I’ve been lead to, both of them having useful stuff but both require interpolation and checking for reasonableness. Fortunately others are pointing out the banana peals I’ve stepped on. From the Barrow and the Canadian Artic Archipelago I think I’ve worked out (with help) that June daily average surface insolation is, very roughly, 280w/m^2, with clear sky going to ~370 (Barrow). 09:30 I created another red herring I see. I should have skipped the table 1 references and just directed attention to Figure 2 of the paper. I skipped over the word peak, though I read the legend several the times. Sheeeesh. It shows daily average insolation value of 350-360 w/m^2 for June (actually for ~5 weeks centered on the solstice) by my eyeball. From the paper, [6] In the aforementioned formulations, the solar insolation, i.e. the downwelling solar flux averaged over the day.... That rarely occuring clear sky value for Barrow is actually slightly more that the Sahara’s (75º of longitude between 20º-35ºN) daily average. 09:42 Ya, but it shows a continental effect as well. The Prairie Provinces, most of the far north, and Ontario have higher insolation over a truly wide range of latitude than do more coastal areas. An insolbar (?) line runs NNE from the northwest tip of Baffin Island to the central Queen Elizabeths with greater then ~280 w/m^2 to the east. But to the west, the area of less than 280 extends at least some 5º further north, to somewhere in the Central Arctic Basin. Before going to sea, it proceeds above ~75º N. The greater than area to the east and north is noticeably narrower along its north/south axis than along the latitude axis. Messing around with angling the plate produces a greater that area much narrower still, and a new isolbar now running parallel to the eastern coast of Ellesmere Island, where none was before. I’m leery of a graphic that shows that pattern as much proof of the general conclusion that around the solstice, increasing latitude leads to increasing insolation. The angle of the sun above the horizon decreases. I've covered this earlier in this thread but the basic reasons why I think this offsets, in great part, the increase in photo period for “daily” insolation at Arctic latitudes at the surface. The low angle factors aren’t linear and change ever more rapidly as that angle nears zero. The core of my contention is based on this: Fig 6i-3 integrates the idea shown in Fig 6i-1 with the data from Fig 6i-2. Note that around the solstice, the 30th parallel has more surface insolation that the 60th and, at the pole, it’s only about 4 or 5 % greater than either. Optical depth of the atmosphere increases nonlinearly with the angle, becoming much larger at very acute angles. Low clouds are much more common then clear skies in the cold marine area of the Arctic. It adds up. There is a surge of energy, just past its peak, going into the Arctic system now. It’s just not as great as the longer photo period, that most everyone is familiar with, would suggest.
Rob, June 21, 11:34; G of L, 16:45, Well, I increased measurable the flux locally, from the visible red down into the IR, when I read your comments. Thanks. It brings the values into the reasonable range, though I’m a little surprised by a June average of only ~280 w/m^2. I would have expected just a bit more, especially for an area that normally still has almost all of its sea ice at this time of the year. While I’m at it, I should make use of the blush. The fooling around I did with the Canadian solar power site, didn’t really didn’t point to anything with respect to insolation level and latitude Ghoti, Thanks for replying with that Brazilian source. The first graphic, on slide 10, “Media da Radiacao Diaria, Mod. GL1.2 (W/m), Periodo: Dezembro 2003” indeed seems be for a Southern hemisphere solstice month. But it’s for a single year, and appears to be model output, apparently in a progress report on a measurement project. That’s not to disqualify the info which seem credible to me, but rather treat it with caution. This may be a good starting point in looking for insolation data. I’d say insolation caches haven’t had much processing for the general public, or at least much that I could find, and that mostly by clicking around NOAA and NASA sites only to pass “go” repeatedly. It’s at the level of being useful as input for someone seeking a processed commodity for further use in making something like the tool at the Enviro Canada site. That would be a person who knows more about the field than I, and has an affinity for alphabetic hash. I couldn’t find anything besides ReadeMe recipes and piles of ingredients (at least that’s what the links seemed to be when I sampled some that looked likely), but no “take-out”, much less any junk-food. Is this the Barrow graph you’re looking for? tDoger posted it on the 1st page of comments, with ASI blog citation history. Nice touch, that.
Nevin, June 21, 07:13 Ah, a little spicy and quite consistent with the data. Keeps the customers coming back for more.
Neven, June 17, 00:32 The areas of the planet that are now receiving the greatest amount of radiation at the surface are the ones near the Tropic of Cancer where the Sun is close to perpendicular to the surface, and as I noted, are deserts with few clouds and quite low water vapor levels. The phrase that I italicized when I quoted you is what’s still arguably wrong. I’ve no beef with the rest of that sentence; I think it stays below the language usage fence top as you almost invariably do. I wouldn't council any change in your blog, but would, instead, point it out to people as an exemplary example of how to run one. The Arctic is now experiencing very high levels of insolation, as high as any other part of the globe’s surface, or near enough not to matter much. My original comment, a bit of tongue-in-cheek, was intended to provoke thought on factors, really never mentioned that I’ve noticed and, perhaps, not so obvious to those residing at the end of palm lined drives, well away from the poles. It’s more than just photo period! On re-reading my comment, I see I’m guilty of overstatement in saying the surface insolation is relatively puny. Relatively doesn’t adequately qualify what I meant which is: punier than most probably think. On something of a roll and pleased with “puny” emerging from the rats nest of my mental process, I over reacted to what I think is people’s tendency to read a (using air quotes) “more that anything else” description, especially when following and amplifying a “it’s huge” type statement as “and it’s lots more”. The perception of what others actually think and understand is squishy, of course. To the point of fact I raised. After a limited amount of searching for seasonal isolation data at the planet’s surface I'm mostly frustrated. The best source of info to illustrate what was getting at is here: It includes the graph that Rlkittiwake @ June 17, 17:52 linked and is from a page sourced to U of British Columbia, Okanagan’s Dr. Michael Pidwirny as part of High School level text. The third graphic (fig 6i-3) integrates day length and geometric factors (fig 6i-1) for isolation. I don’t understand where the additional 30% in the last sentence of his 2nd paragraph comes from. Again, the increased surface area (fig 6i-1) that a “unit” of radiation impinges on offsets a good portion of increased photo period. Notice that the difference between 60º and the Pole is about 25 w/m^2 or ~5 %, and at the 3Oth parallel the difference is slightly less than at 60º. During quite a bit of the increased photo period, at the height of insolation, the Sun is near the horizon. “The dawn [does not] come up like thunder outer China 'crost the Bay!” rather it's like Sandburg’s fog that “comes on little cat feet”. At the Circle it will be on the horizon at midnight but only ~45º above it at noon. Further north it will above the horizon longer, but always nearer to it. Then throw in clouds and water vapor from a marine environment. Finally, at lest for now, as my fingers weaken and cramp from extended exercise, the ice covered Arctic is more that just the pole. The surface area between 70 and 80 degrees, where almost all of ice coverage is going by-by, has an area 3 times greater than that between 80º and the pole. Just as the weather and sea surface temps at various places go into an understanding of what’s occurring, so does insolation at different locations, longitudes, and intensities.
G of L, June 17, at 02:23 Have a link for the Brazil stuff? I spent some time with the Canadian site that you link. It shows an area receiving 6.7 kWh/m^2 (670 w/m^2 to get consistent units). That just isn’t creditable. In the Sahara the peak average day is ~390 and Barrow, at the latitude of the southern tip of area you noted, ~1% of the days reach ~370. (See my comment in reply to the Dodger.) Those other locations have issues, but seeing claims of values 70-80% greater and the bananas vs coconuts balloon forms over my head. That site is concerned with solar volcanic, and by varying the angle of a panel away from parallel to the surface, I could get a bit more than that the 670 value (actually I expanded the longitudinal area of greater than 670 w/m^2 and shifted it south). When I did that, the north end of Ellesmere Island, the part roughly above 80º N, also dropped down into the band labeled 560-670 w/m^2. That argues against the idea that insolation at the surface simply increases with latitude up to the Solstice and down again linearly after.
Dodger, June 17, at 19:25 Yup. About 365-370 W/M^2 on 3 days of out of ~300 starting June 5th over the period 2000 -2010 on the chart that Rob Dekker (and Neven?) posted here early on last year, during “spring training”, when century breaks were only still only approaching. Those 3 dates as well as another 43 days exceeded 350 wm^2 out the total. (33 of the 46 with more than 350 w/m^2 values were in the two years of 2004 and 2007. Those 2 years also have between them another 16 days missing due an early ice break-up.) Adding them all together yields about 20% of the dates around the solstice that made it up to a 350 wm^2 or greater. The chart is hard to extract all the date points needed to construct an average insolation for a date (besides being much work). But, by my eye, it’s clear the average day is between 250 and 300 wm^2 for the 4 weeks around the solstice. There’s a wide variance for a date between years, as well as the bulk of the high level days occurring earlier in June, markedly less variance with no day over 300 wm^2 in any year, save the rather cloudless 2004 and 2007, after the solstice. Now under NOAA, the observatory is at the base of the Point Barrow Spit and is dominated by the ocean. As the ice and snow melt it gets increasingly cloudy. If the atmosphere were similar to northern Africa’s, surface insolation would be similar, though for quite different reasons. The Sahara has some atmospheric attenuation factor of it own and not shared with the Arctic; it’s dusty. Shows in Table 1 peak surface insolation values, in M/m^2, averaged over the period 1979 – 1992, with (peak dates) of: Sahara-Whole Area: 377.07 (17 Jun) West Sahara: 364.29 (16 Jun) East Sahara: 380.37 (14 Jun) Saudi Arabia: 391.87 (21 Jun) Figure 2 gives a good picture of things. And, Figures 3(a), (b), (c) show the problem of extending one particular spatial or temporal point to a much larger area.
While the seasonal swing in arctic insolation is most defiantly into its most abundant phase, at the surface it is still relatively puny in absolute terms. Though the sun now is above the horizon continuously in all the areas (except quite a bit of Hudson Bay and a small per cent of Davis Strait) where sea ice is present, people should remember that it’s never very far from the horizon. For only a few noonish hours, at relatively lower polar latitudes, and during a month on either side of the solstice does a billed cap or wide brimmed hat provide relief from the sun-in-ones-eyes experience whenever gazing in its direction. The affect of that horizon hugging is to greatly increase the surface area that a given amount of radiation is disturbed over when compared to a location on the surface that’s perpendicular to the sun. Further, the effective optical depth, the of number atmospheric molecules between the Sun’s surface and the Earth’s, also is much greater and increases scattering from the GH gas effect on longer wave incoming radiation. The yearly averaged kWh/m^2 a plate set at the latitudinally optimum angle in the lower arctic or sub-arctic receives is less than half that of one set in a mid-latitude desert, and roughly three-quarters the energy of more humid and cloudy mid-latitude areas. Even at the narrow duration peak, it's only about 70-80% of the latter. It doesn’t get quite as torrid as some of the language being used to describe the Arctic’s irradiance at this time of year. Nevin, it really wasen't you I noticed being overly empurpled, though “there is a huge amount of insolation there, more than anywhere on the planet” is wrong. It was probably some English bred dogs who went mad and got carried away in the comments for the last post or two. ;)
Anthonywobrien, Though I haven’t looked at all the hourly images from the Healy, I did notice that on 2 the ship appeared to be backing through a channel of cubes they had just created. I’d suspect there is some old ice encountered every once in a while. What I also find interesting is the absence of pressure ridges, or instances of a pan stacked atop another one in the images I’ve seen. I may be more used to photos from the grounded ice like Neven posted on as we waited for the break-up in Barrow, but I thought they used to be more common offshore.
Toggle Commented Sep 2, 2011 on Through the eyes of Healy at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, thanks. That date gives me (and possibly others) a reference point. Cassandra, Neven and Sloth: Just nosing around on the net for a few minuets I found this link to the 2011 summer Healy mission. From memory of local press articles that I haven’t followed up on, NASA has flown drone instrumentation survey programs over the Arctic Ocean in several recent years. Don’t remember anything for 2011, but I could have just missed it.
Toggle Commented Sep 1, 2011 on Through the eyes of Healy at Arctic Sea Ice
Amazing. I was cutting and pasting some of these links yesterday with the thought of including them in a comment. Great minds and all ;) It “brought home” in another way what’s being discussed in more abstract terms here daily. Muchas gracias Diablo. And Nevin, many thanks for the overlay as it’s exactly what I would have done were I more able. What’s the date of the overlay? The only thing I can think to add is the link for the hourly list of images. Expanding them allows me to read the data line at the top of each one. A sampling From 8:00 Zulu on the 22nd should yield an understanding of the reality the satellite sensors are trying to resolve.
Toggle Commented Aug 31, 2011 on Through the eyes of Healy at Arctic Sea Ice
Charles Monnett is back at Ak Region BOEMRE tomorrow:
Toggle Commented Aug 25, 2011 on Arctic scientist suspended at Arctic Sea Ice
Charles Monnett is back at Ak Region BOEMRE tomorrow:
Here are 4 shots of the ice off Barrow on May 27th. They are from a photo feature that went up on the 30th at the Anchorage Daily News web site.
Toggle Commented Jul 1, 2011 on Barrow Break-up 3 at Arctic Sea Ice
What’s the source of the upper graphic? Prudhoe Bay/Deadhorse is more than 300 kilometers to the east of Barrow, not to the west.
Toggle Commented Jun 28, 2011 on Across the North Pole at Arctic Sea Ice
My understanding is another bill is in the works that puts a phased stop to the blender’s tax credit and seems to have enough bipartisan support for passage. Supposedly a number of nays on Coburn’s measure reflected his engineering of this vote as an act of political theater and one-upmanship.
1 reply
Toggle Commented Nov 29, 2010 on Quote of the day at Environmental Economics
1 reply
Doggy, The animation included in your post at 11:15 on Sep 17th intrigues me. What is the source? What is the color scale to surface temp metric? What is your explanation behind saying “It is not the rate of cooling in the Chukchi that is critical; it is the total amount of warm salt water delivered from the Pacific that matters for onset of freeze-up...” I’m reading your “critical” as predominate, and I’d like to know what portions can reasonably be assigned to factors in the system and why. With other things held constant, what are the relative effects of cooling rate and inflow? The Bearing inflow’s impact on “...end of winter ice thickness” seems quite reasonable in the sense that it should be ongoing. I did monitor quite often the E. Siberian-Chukchi-Beaufort Sea’s Surface temp anomaly as the ice front advanced south in 07, and have sporadically done so since. Your pointing-out that northbound joules are “in the pipe” is something I hadn’t considered. Much thanks, and (to use both the current and previous motifs) we’ll see how it plays. Nevin – Thanks, where concentration ~ fulsomeness. For the many others, a tip of my dirty ball cap. As I started with a request (and mostly kept in that vein), I’ll end with one. I’d be interested in what the posters (and lurkers) here are seeing “on the ground”, in their own daily circumstances, in terms of the overall climate change issue. I’m interested in observations of the people they contact, how the media “plays” things, etc. As far as I can tell, Neven’s managed to attract a group that, used as instruments, are likely well calibrated with good resolution.