This is HeisenIceBerg's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following HeisenIceBerg's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
HeisenIceBerg
Born and raised: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Currently: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Recent Activity
Ostepop, In regards to the possibility that in the future we may find natural relationships/cycles which can predict arctic sea ice, you are correct, but only because that is the nature of science. In science we do not rule out any possibilities for what we may discover in the future. For example, it's possible, though unlikely, that we may discover some previously unknown natural process which can completely explain the warming the planet has undergone since the industrial revolution independently of GHGs, thus meaning that our GHG emissions have actually had no effect. We may also discover that quantum mechanics is not just incomplete, as previous theories were, but is in fact outright wrong. Or we may discover that conservation of energy and momentum is not a universal law, but is rather just something which happens to occur in most situations, though that is colossally unlikely. Those things may all be increasingly unlikely, but it is the nature of science that we cannot completely rule them out. Thus, your statement is is basically irrelevant, and simply a cop out which anybody could use for any scientific argument. Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Jul 26, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 5: low times at Arctic Sea Ice
Ostepop, You will notice that looking at the same graph we can find multiple periods for the minimum, mean, and maximum during the record in which there was essentially no change. For the maximum the periods 1979-1990 (12 years), 1984-1993 (10 years), and 1991-2003 (13 years) have virtually no change within those periods, yet the long term trend is down. For the mean the periods 1979-1989 (11 years), 1984-1994 (11 years), and 1990-2001 (12 years) also have no notable change over them, yet the long term trend is down. For the minimum the periods 1979-1989 (11 years), 1985-1996 (12 years), and 1990-2001 (12 years) show no downward trend, yet just like for the maximum and mean, the long term trend is most certainly down. By your reasoning, scientists and the public back at the end of these example periods should have expected the annual extent values to flatten out and display no trend, yet those predictions would have been completely wrong. The fact that the period 2003- or 2004- 2013 (10 or 11 years) shows no trend in the maximum, 2005-2013 (9 years) shows no trend in the mean, and 2006- or 2007- 2013 (7 or 8 years) shows no trend in the minimum is not even remotely unique. In fact, as I wrote above, you can find longer isolated periods of no trend for the maximum, mean, and minimum, so we could have another 2 or 3 years of no trend and it still wouldn't be anything special. As an absolute minimum, there would need to be another 5 years of no trend, i.e., to 2018 inclusive, in addition to the recent periods I've denoted above before we could even begin to speculate a flattening of the trend. If this does occur then good on you for predicting it, but as of now there is no basis for what you are saying based on that data. The point is that it's quite easy to pick a relatively short time period within the record with a flat trend and no change. What you've done is cherry picking, plain and simple, just like the people who during the late 2000's, and still to this day, said that the planet has stopped warming because they cherry picked 1998 as a starting year. Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Jul 26, 2014 on ASI 2014 update 5: low times at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris, Ah, now I understand. Thanks for the clarifications. Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Apr 15, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
Steve Bloom, It appears my post with links was eaten. You can find links over on the ASIF in the Arctic Background board. Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Apr 14, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 - extra update at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris Reynolds, I remember reading your "Long Tail or Fast Crash?" and "March 2013 Status" blog posts back when you first posted them. Some of the conclusions that you made were based on the decline in thickness (as calculated by PIOMAS volume divided by CT area) being much faster in Winter than the incline in seasonal thinning, as you showed in this graph. When I first saw this, I realized that there was a problem with simply using the PIOMAS volume to compare winter and summer thickness loss, but for some reason I never got around to mentioning it. The problem is that PIOMAS is overestimating winter volume loss and underestimating summer volume loss. This was one of the findings when the measurements of CryoSat-2 were compared to those of ICESat. Neven's blog post on this contained a link to a BBC article in which Katharine Giles was quoted as saying, "The decline predicted by PIOMAS is slightly less in the autumn and slightly more in winter, but broadly speaking there's good agreement". Since summer volume has declined more and winter volume declined less than predicted by PIOMAS, the decline in winter thickness will be smaller and the increase in seasonal thinning will be greater than indicated in your graph. The NERC press release on the same subject also quoted Professor Christian Haas as saying, "While two years of CryoSat-2 data aren't indicative of a long-term change, the lower ice thickness and volume in February and March 2012, compared with same period in 2011, may have contributed to the record minimum ice extent during the 2012 autumn". The lower volume in winter 2012 as compared to winter 2011 is in contrast with PIOMAS indicating essentially the same volume during those two time periods. In other words, contrary to what PIOMAS shows, winter volume did not plateau. These differences may be small (I still need to check the actual paper), but they nonetheless have important implications for your conclusions about a potentially long tail. Much of your argument for a potentially log tail was based on winter volume potentially plateauing a bit, and decline in winter thickness playing a much greater role than an increase in seasonal thinning. The CryoSat-2 results seem to indicate that PIOMAS has gotten these details at least partially incorrect, i.e., winter volume is not plateauing, winter thickness is not declining as quickly, and seasonal thinning is increasing more quickly. This could greatly undermine your argument for a potentially long tail. Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Apr 14, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris Reynolds, Thanks, that's a very good point. I think that I'll start a thread on the ASIF where I'll take requests and post links, so that it's easier to keep track of. Would "Developers Corner" be the appropriate board to start that in? Regards, HeisenIceBerg
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 - extra update at Arctic Sea Ice
@All Just for the record, I would be more than happy to grab and share any publications which anybody wants to read but cannot access due to a pay wall. I don't know enough (about climate science, statistics, graphics, or just about anything else that you guys do amazing work with) to contribute much of anything in terms of analysis, but I would love to be able to contribute in other ways. If helping people get access to journal publications is what I can do, then I am open to any and all requests.
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 - extra update at Arctic Sea Ice
Chris Reynolds, Here's a copy of Thorndike et a. 1975. If for some reason you can't get it through this link, let me know and I'll try something else. https://www.dropbox.com/s/8v97j4q7ex4arjl/The%20thickness%20distribution%20of%20sea%20ice.pdf This is why still being a university student is great. I have free access to every single journal that I've come across.
Toggle Commented Apr 13, 2013 on PIOMAS April 2013 - extra update at Arctic Sea Ice
A-Team, you misinterpreted what Neven said. [quote]When A-Team is not improving masterpiece paintings, he makes great animations.[/quote] You applied the "not" to the wrong part of the sentence, interpreting it as "not improving", but it means "when you're not doing it". So what Neven means is that you are improving masterpiece paintings, but when you aren't, you make great animations.
Toggle Commented Apr 5, 2013 on On the move at Arctic Sea Ice
Wow. Amazing work as always A-Team. You really should start posting some of this stuff in the ASIF. Maybe make a thread just for your images and animations so that we can better archive it? Oh, and sorry about this stupid question, but I'm fairly new here, so I can't quite tell exactly what region that covers. You said it's the lower part of the Beaufort Gyre, but the little bit of land mask in the picture isn't quite enough for me to fully recognize where it is. Could you clarify?
Aside from the fracturing, there are two other significant things I notice in A-Team's animation. One, the movement of a large area of thicker ice into the Beaufort Sea and toward Alaska. Two, the fast transport of thicker ice toward and through Fram. These two things have combined to spread the thick ice out over a larger area and make it "longer" from left to right. My thoughts are that if we get similar melt in the Beaufort this year as we did last - the cracks filled with thinner ice may contribute to this - combined with the large transport through Fram, then we could lose a lot of thicker MYI this year.
HeisenIceBerg is now following The Typepad Team
Mar 27, 2013