This is Cincinnatus's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Cincinnatus's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Cincinnatus
Recent Activity
Neven, you wrote: "And/or you can give your opinion on how you view the MYI/FYI mix in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas that I've written about in this blog post, and what you think might happen to it and how." What I think will happen, as I said before, is that this year's melt will proceed to Wrangel Island and then stop. And there will be weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth in this blog, but the ice will not melt north of Wrangel. And come September (if you haven't banned me) I will come in here and jeer jeer jeer at you poor poor alarmists, let down by Gaia yet again, oh why, oh why, Et tu Gaia?!? (remember that?) [Thanks for reminding me to ban you. After you apologized for your massive stupidity wrt the ice age map, I thought there was hope and you would tone down the trolling, and I went to bed. To wake up this morning to more drivel and childish insults. I don't have time for this, and the serious commenters around here certainly don't. But I congratulate you on knowing exactly how everything is going to play out. The Arctic holds no secrets for you; N.] As for how/why, this relates to another thing you said in this blog post, Neven: "The only possible reason for the North Pole to be covered with first-year ice, is the Transpolar Drift Stream pushing the ice away from Siberia...". [Snipped the rest of the smear. There we go again, accusing scientists of fraud. You have no idea what you're talking about, but are obviously greatly bothered by the rapid rate of Arctic sea ice loss, and so you have to lie and misinform. A cowardly thing to do, hope your grandchildren never notice; N.] And that is the other "possible reason". See, there was more than one. Go ahead, banish me for speaking the reality, it's the alarmist way in this enlightened ultra-PC era of intolerance. Cincinnatus. [So long and thanks for all the tolerance. I'm sure we'll see you try and troll again under a different name if there's another rebound, but not if there isn't, of course; N.]
Toggle Commented May 11, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
I clicked on Jim's map -- in the lower left corner of the entire chart are some surface ice temperatures which currently read about 3C warmer than the normal. I'd like to give the thermodynamic interpretation of that in terms of ice melt. First, basic thermodynamics: take a block of ice, and apply heat until it is exactly at the melting point. Now apply heat until it is exactly melted -- note that the temperature does not change, but it took X amount of heat to melt it. Now let's apply that same amount of heat, X, to the freshly-melted water. You'll find at the conclusion that the water is now at about 70C -- that's how much heat it took to melt the block. So if the ice temperature is (as on Jim's chart) about -8C, then it will take 78C worth of heat to melt it. But that's true if the whole ice is at -8C -- in fact the ice is warmer at the base where it is at -1.7C at the ice-water interface. The actual variance from the "normal" of the ice temperature is not 3C but only 1.5C or even 1C because the temperature at the base is unchanged from the "normal" conditions. (this calculation assumes the same thickness of ice this time around as at the "normal") With 78C-worth of heat required to melt this ice, and a total 1.5C variance from the mean, the total difference in heat required is 2% -- that is, 98% of the heat required to melt this ice in "normal" times, is still required to melt this ice. And that's the total thermodynamic impact of the ice being 3C warmer than normal, at the air-ice interface. Don't say thanks or anything. [Thanks for an oversimplistic explanation coming straight out of your belly; N.]
Toggle Commented May 11, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip] Jim states: "If Cincinnatus had bothered to look at the graph I posted near the top of the thread it would have become immediately apparent to him that the sea ice in the Beaufort Sea is currently colder than the water upon which it is floating." However, my statement was: "The ocean in the vicinity of the ice pack is not "venting heat", rather, it is at the same temperature as the ice there, -1.7C or some such. That's called equilibrium." At the ice-water interface, the temperature of both ice & water is at the freezing point, which in ocean water is about -1.7C. That's basic thermodynamics, and my plainly stated point was about the water temperature only, not the ice temperature at the air-ice interface.
Toggle Commented May 11, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
I apologize for my misinterpretation of the animated chart above -- I thought the colors meant thickness in meters. In my defense, there is no label on the chart. [Now this is rare, a climate risk denier admitting a mistake and apologizing. But your defence is weak, all you had to was read the text preceding the animation or the text preceding the images in the blog post above this comment thread; N.]
Toggle Commented May 10, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
[snip spin] the animation directly above shows very little (if any) thickening of the MYI in the winter months - think about that. And what are those crazy straight-line boundaries between FTI and MYI in the vicinity of the pole? Think about that too.
Toggle Commented May 10, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
[Edit: I'm not setting an unfairly high bar at all. You disparage what Chris Reynolds writes and come up with nonsense, followed by more nonsense and no reply to my questions. Go to WUWT, where your nutty conspiracy theories, smear and lack of knowledge will be received as a brilliant contribution to the 'debate'; N.]
Toggle Commented May 10, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
...except that Chris's explanations are not, in fact, so excellent. Two points, one of which I've made before: (1) The standard "15% ice concentration" benchmark, in practice, is used as follows: Areas of sea ice are approximated into percentage bands like 10%-20%, 10%-30%, 30%-50%, etc -- see, for example, the LEGEND box on http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/ice.php?img=ice . The lowest figure of each band is the one used to determine if the *entire band* is considered above or below the "15% benchmark" - thus, 10%-20% and 10%-30% are considered to be below the benchmark, even though the average concentration of the 10%-30% is actually 20%. This statistical trick was used to establish the false record Arctic ice low of 2012, where large expanses of 20% ice (dispersed by an August storm) were deemed to be below 15%. (2) The ocean in the vicinity of the ice pack is not "venting heat", rather, it is at the same temperature as the ice there, -1.7C or some such. That's called equilibrium. This has been a public service posting.
Toggle Commented May 10, 2015 on 2014/2015 Winter analysis at Arctic Sea Ice
Yes I did say that, Jim, but mum turned to mummpphhh -- as in the Dilbert cartoon. I do indeed view the links you "helpfully provide", but much of it is old news. My field is that of large data where small sample sizes give false hints because of small numbers fluctuations. To me it is clear that all of "climate science" suffers from this debility because of the very short time frame which has been well-studied to date. The notion that there's anything unusual about today's Arctic waves is an example. The only identifiably exceptional modern-day aspect is that of the rising CO2 levels, which are still way below that of earlier epochs. Now, we may have our different opinions about CO2-temperature sensitivity, but one thing we agree on is that there's precious little that can be done about it, barring the catastrophic end of civilization. Given that, we should stop panicking and take measures to cope as the Dutch did with their sea walls. And hey, be pro-nuclear power -- it's CO2 neutral. Pick your wins.
Re the "giant waves", I must say that the implicit power of assumption here (that such waves are not in the normal range in the long run) is so thick that I could spread it on my bread. Yes, I know I should ignore the alarmism here, Neven, but it's a spectator sport like bullfighting -- hard not to watch.
[snip, more inventive insults needed + a long, hard look in the mirror; N.] Anyway, I'll be back in September for a few well-earned jeers. See you!
Toggle Commented Apr 22, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, you can put me down as a "Miocene optimum" kind of a guy. The warmest periods in the geologic past are called "optimums" (or "optima" for the Jims out there) because life positively thrived in those epochs. Given that there is no "runaway greenhouse effect" -- a false alarmist stance, now discredited -- then it stands to reason that some warming is all to the good. And this is my beef with alarmists -- that they don't deliver. Where's the warming? Trenberth was right -- it's a travesty. While I enjoy watching the Arctic ice wax & wane, I'm not an inmate at Arc-ham here. I'll stick more closely to the visiting rules (i.e., less visits) so as not to upset the inmates. Cheers. [Well, given that I'm the doctor here (and I'm probably going to send you away to another asylum where you fit better, Dr. Watts has plenty of room for your type of D-K), I'm putting you down as a climate risk denier, because you maintain that the rate of change towards "Miocene optimum" poses no risk whatsoever to society; N]
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Irrelevant strawman, Jim. My point was about thermal equilibrium in general, not about saline water specifically. I've notice strawmen are a popular tool of the inmates here. In future I won't reply to strawmen as they are easily identified by the reader.
Toggle Commented Apr 20, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Elementary thermodynamics: ice formation does not "warm" adjacent waters (zeroeth law: thermal equilibrium). The ice forms in a sub-freezing environment and the water molecule is at 0C immediately before, during, and after the freezing process. The enthalpy of freezing the water molecule is considerable (equivalent to heating the water to 70C after melting) but the "heat released" in freezing only dissipates into the sub-freezing environs (i.e., sub-zero air or ice). The released heat could help to keep adjacent water at 0C (so stalling additional freezing) but cannot warm it above that -- zeroeth law of thermodynamics.
Toggle Commented Apr 19, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Magma: because they can't distinguish Summer's melt ponds from open water.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2015 on CryoSat-2 sea ice thickness maps at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks Jim. Looking at the design of the mooring, it's released by the transponder below the instrumentation and so the assembly rises to the surface. This is a problem if the surface isn't clear of ice, because it could get stuck below ice floes. So one would like to grapple it prior to release, if possible. Maybe that isn't easily done, maybe that's the problem. OK, I'm all out of speculations now.
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
I am curious about why the Beaufort moored site has no data since 2011. I am guessing it's because no ship has been able to reach it since the 2012 melt. The operating procedure is to reach it via ship once a year and download its data. The working assumption is that it is reachable in that way. But looks like it isn't. So the Beaufort buoys have presumably been helicoptered in. Does anybody have the facts?
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Jim, Jim, read between the lines, man. Of course the buoys are designed for "multi-year ice for which the current IMB systems are designed", because nobody is going to pay for one-year buoys! The point is to find sites which will survive for many years, not to install them into old ice to begin with. How many are being installed in the Fram Strait, Jim, tell us.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
The buoys are fulfilling their intended purpose, Neven, which is to track changing ice thickness with the seasons. They aren't meant to track absolute thickness which requires a survey over a large surface expanse. The one "mooring" does that -- it's moored 45m deep and looks upwards at the ice from below, but its data can be retrieved by ship just once a year -- no data released after 2011. As for why they bother, I suppose it's good to check one's assumptions and refine the precision. I, for one, would have expected a greater seasonal variation but I have to wonder if the buoys aren't having a local effect on the ice into which they're installed because of temperature transmission through the instrument -- but I'd expect (and hope) that that was minimized by the design.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Hi all, while it is very much against my style to beat a dead horse, I will clarify on this one occasion. Kris (April 10, 2015 at 02:25) wrote: the Danish DMI are describing masses of 4+ meters thick ice 300 km North of Wrangle Island and in almost the entire Beaufort Sea. ... However, the Japanese ADS (Jaxa) plots are showing quite a different picture ... (Ghoti of Lod replied): Well the measurements from active buoys in the area in question are all showing around 2m or less. So I replied about "the area in question", being the Beaufort. Now Bill's point about the N-of-Greenland buoys do not apply even in a general sense because there is no 1st year ice up there, so buoys cannot be installed onto that even if that is the first choice of the scientists. Jim, I said they are "installed" onto 1st year ice, and so it was for 2014F -- just because it has since become 2nd year ice isn't relevant for when they put the buoy there. My point was all about Ghoti's reasonable idea that the Beaufort buoys were showing the true thickness of the Beaufort ice. My reply was to showcase that the buoys are preferentially installed onto the thinner ice there, and not the thicker ice, so that the average Beaufort ice thickness is certainly thicker than the average given by those few buoys. And that was my full point, despite the pile-ups that people here like to do for real or imagined infractions. On my side, I'll concede that I should have said 1.5m thick ice for installation, not 1m, but that was just my failure to be more precise. And on the note of "precision", which is a non-issue which KO has inflated into a large pink elephant, I'll say it is a word used by all citizens and scientists, and nobody has a problem with it in spite of what the ISO may have said. As I pointed out, that word was even used as part of the title cited by KO. And that is quite enough of Arc-ham foolishness for now.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
KO, you're in the ring by yourself, shadowboxing. I'm not there and never was. Enjoy yourself.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Jim, 2014D is sited N of Greenland, but this discussion is about the Beaufort Sae -- Kris set the topic and Ghoti responded to it, and I to him. KO, "precision" is an alias for "error bar", and that's how we use it. So the term was banned as reported in an article which uses that same term in its title? Ha ha.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Nope, bill f, you're on the wrong buoys. The Beaufort Sea buoys referenced by Ghoti are seen at his link, and if you click on the individuals buoys you'll see their deployment ice thickness which were 140cm for 2013F, 170cm for 2014F, 132cm for 2014I, 173cm for 2015A, and 160cm for 2015B. Also nice of Jim Hunt to confirm everything I said, although if that makes me (and therefore both of us) "some way from the truth" then maybe Jim can elaborate on how we are falling short.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Neven, click on Ghoti's link and then "introduction" at top for a discussion. The gauges are there to measure changing ice thickness, so (obviously) they'll be installed into flat planar ice so that the thickness is well-defined, and first-year ice is the best flat planar ice. Also thinner ice allows better precision of measurement. Any engineer will tell you the same.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Goati: Those buoys (gauges, actually) measure changing ice thickness. They are mounted into flat 1m ice (i.e., thin 1st year ice) so that measurements (of changing thickness) will be most accurate. Note that thicker ice is avoided when choosing a site for those gauges. There is one "moored" site there which measures actual ice thickness, but it has no data since 2011.
Toggle Commented Apr 10, 2015 on PIOMAS April 2015 at Arctic Sea Ice
Interesting links from Neven and Kris, following are two links and my comment: http://ocean.dmi.dk/anim/plots/ice.arc.1.png The above is the Danish Arctic ice thickness hindcast. Observe the Beaufort ice mass extending to Wrangel Island, the thickness is "4+" meters which has no upper limit, but it's model-driven only. Next we have: http://www.aari.ru/odata/_d0015.php?lang=1 This is from the Russians and is observation-based which is commendable but ice thickness is not given. The multi-year ice is seen to stretch toward Wrangel and Siberia. This is based on surface characteristics. Note how different the top link is from the ARCC "nowcast": http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/hycomARC/navo/arcticictnnowcast.gif Forecasts, hindcasts, and nowcasts are all we've got for ice thickness. My Cincinnatus-cast is about as good as theirs, but the point is that all will be revealed in the next 6 months. It's like the Nenana Ice competition with a larger playing field. Commenters on this site are faaa-a-a-ar too trusting of "official" maps; you'd be astonished at how they dance to make those up. Thumbs in the wind, guys, learn to think independently.
Toggle Commented Apr 2, 2015 on The Ns are calling the maximum at Arctic Sea Ice