This is Clivepmitchell's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Clivepmitchell's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
<sarcasm> All is well. The Arctic extent loss is balanced by the Antarctic gain. </sarcasm> Antarctic extent currently second lowest.
For what it's worth, I studied thermodynamics/fluid mechanics, and taking potential effects of jet stream changes on global agriculture into account I fully expect civilization to be over within 10 years. To keep myself sane, I only read this blog and other sites on Saturdays. So until next week at the earliest, good-night!
Toggle Commented Oct 1, 2016 on PIOMAS September 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
viddaloo, Thanks for the reply, though I'm not sure what a "slowist" is. I agree with what you said (apart from 360C - but only because I haven't calculated it myself, yet). I had been assuming that sea ice would keep melting and absorbing excess heat down to zero volume then temperatures would skyrocket, producing more water vapour to dump heat onto Greenland. So measuring ice volume loss was a proxy for measuring net heat. (It averaged around 10^21J per annum for over 10 years). I'm now thinking that perhaps progress from a mostly ice/water to a mostly water/vapour condition will not be a sudden switchover, but rather a drawn-out scenario with some parts of the Arctic slowly melting ice and other parts exporting extreme heat via routes which avoid the remaining ice. In this way the Arctic could undergo fierce heating but still have random years of comparatively low ice volume loss. What I'm trying to say is that I can no longer regard PIOMAS sea ice volume minima alone as a reasonably reliable way of measuring Arctic net heating - too much is already being absorbed by evaporation in ice-free areas with no guarantee that this heat will end up in sea ice. Arctic heating is definitely not slowing down!
Toggle Commented Oct 1, 2016 on PIOMAS September 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thoughts in response to Rudmop's comments: Arctic sea ice is not a single system reacting as a unit to heating. The heating is not applied uniformly. The amount of ice in an area cannot drop below zero. If heat is applied to one area until the ice in that area is gone, further heating will result in rapid temperature rise but not further loss of ice unless the heat from the hot spot is transported to an area of remaining ice and transferred effectively. Conclusion: As sea ice thins and disappears in places, the link between heating and ice volume loss may weaken.
Toggle Commented Oct 1, 2016 on PIOMAS September 2016 at Arctic Sea Ice
Thanks, LRC. My confusion is the reason for measuring extent with a fixed cut-off at all as it appears to be wildly independent from both ice volume and exposed sea area and thus has little bearing on thermodynamic processes but more to do with localised weather.
Toggle Commented Jul 12, 2013 on PIOMAS July 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
I find ice extent confusing. If I fill my bath with near-freezing water and arrange ice cubes to evenly cover 16% of the surface, NSIDC would say it's 100% cover. If I put them in one slab, the coverage is 16%. If I cover 2% and evenly spread out the rest I have 2% cover. Same ice volume, same thickness, same area exposed to the sun. 2%-100% extent. I now copy CT images into a folder to make a manual "video" with picture viewer to give me a better idea of what's going on. Or not.
Toggle Commented Jul 8, 2013 on PIOMAS July 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
Clivepmitchell is now following The Typepad Team
Jul 8, 2013