|
Post by acidohm on Feb 15, 2016 20:19:34 GMT
Man, if I lived there id have one....classic and functional, brilliant combination!!
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 15, 2016 23:02:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 18, 2016 17:31:06 GMT
Well JAXA /IJIS managed to set a new high but has now begun another downturn. With a very hot forecast for the basin we can only hope cold over Bering will compensate........
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 22, 2016 9:41:50 GMT
Still bumping along the bottom with only Okhotsk trying to change things? Sadly any growth now will be peripheral ice and so not helpful to the pack ( by thickening ice or ridge/slabbing ice)
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 22, 2016 16:22:59 GMT
Still bumping along the bottom with only Okhotsk trying to change things? Sadly any growth now will be peripheral ice and so not helpful to the pack ( by thickening ice or ridge/slabbing ice) Still have about month of thickening to go in the central pack.
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 23, 2016 9:41:23 GMT
If we've been watching the pack motion over the past 6 weeks We will be fully aware of the fate of a large portion of that ice?
Those pesky storms we have been seeing, this side of the pond, all blasted there way into the basin leading to plenty of losses via Fram and a loading of the trans Arctic Drift just above Fram.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Feb 24, 2016 15:25:12 GMT
Although the sudden climate swings aren't a good analogue for human-induced climate change, the findings could be used to test and improve the global climate models, the researchers said. "The situation during the ice age, as we see it, was quite different," Rasmussen said. "We see the abrupt climate changes during the ice age basically as warming during a cold period. [This is] in contrast to the present situation, where a future abrupt climate change would be a cooling during a warm period," she said. www.yahoo.com/news/warm-blob-caused-wild-climate-swings-during-last-124125615.html
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 24, 2016 18:59:57 GMT
Although the sudden climate swings aren't a good analogue for human-induced climate change, the findings could be used to test and improve the global climate models, the researchers said. "The situation during the ice age, as we see it, was quite different," Rasmussen said. "We see the abrupt climate changes during the ice age basically as warming during a cold period. [This is] in contrast to the present situation, where a future abrupt climate change would be a cooling during a warm period," she said. www.yahoo.com/news/warm-blob-caused-wild-climate-swings-during-last-124125615.htmlKind of sounds like how it works. Warm spells during a cold period and cold spells during a warm period. I guess it stays that way until it switches and the warm spells during the cold period become longer than the cold spells, then we can say its a warm period punctuate by cold spells. Sheeesh! Golly though you have to hand it to science, they are beginning to believe in natural variation. Kind of a new revelation for them. Next is to figure out the causes. LOL!
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 28, 2016 12:11:21 GMT
Well after we just saw the warmest Arctic winter on record ( with the 'cold pole' shared between Okhotsk and Greenland?) i'd hazard a guess that in a warming world we should expect 'variance' but that the 'background' temps would be ever warmer?
We saw this in action over the last two Nina's within the so called 'pause' in warming over the end of the noughties/start of the 2010's. Both of them were recorded as the 'warmest' Nina's recorded.....
Sadly the background warming leads to 'feedback's' and the loss of Sea ice is one such 'feedback' with up to 25% of the warming since 07' being put down to the change from 'sea ice' to 'dark water'....
We also have the impacts that ice loss places on the Earth's energy budget with energy once occupied in melting ice all summer now looking for alternative 'work' when ice is absent ( this includes all the mountain glaciers that once used to keep incoming solar busy all summer doing melt work where now is bare, dark earth?).
If we lend any credence to the impacts on the Jet being driven by a 'warmer Arctic' ( lessening the heat difference twixt pole and equator) then we must surely have concerns about the evolution of a practically ice free basin for the length of time we now see Hudson 'ice free' each year?
CO2 changes may well have enabled the ball to get rolling but Mother N. is the one that will end up driving the show as She struggles to find a climate type/earth state that best suits the atmospheric mix we have created?
In part this is why the return of the 'perfect melt storm' synoptics worries me so much. If we are looking for the 'trigger' for past rapid 'climate shifts' it was as the ice sheets got to the point of melt out. One year 90% of the incoming summer solar was repelled, the next year over 80% was grabbed by the welcoming bare earth..... now that is a sudden change in our energy Budget and all over the space of a year!
To me this is where we are headed in the basin with poor winter growth and the ice being a majority of young ,salty, ice. We saw 'average synoptic' years leading to record losses (over the late noughties/early 2010's) once 07' had taken out the bulk of the paleocryistic ice ( with 2010 finishing it off completely). I fear that if average years can drive record losses in this 'new Arctic' then the return of the 'perfect melt storm ' synoptic ( high export and high in-situ melt) will spell disaster!
Once we have near total melt out ( sub 1 million sq km's) then the scene is set for the progression toward open water basin from June through October as first year, late formed, low volume ice replaces the mix of F.Y. ice and older ice types we see today.
Sooooo, how much more energy would this place into the system that was otherwise occupied in ice melt? How does our changed atmospheric mix deal with this extra re-radiated heat?
It does not matter ( any more) how we got here but it might prove essential to better understand what we will see over the coming years esp. if the 'perfect melt storm' synoptic keeps to the 10 year spacing we saw in the run up to 07'? This winters appalling temp/ice cover in the basin is not how I would have liked to enter the melt season which provides us with the 'older', 'thicker' ice to fend off a 2017 'perfect melt storm'!
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 28, 2016 12:31:42 GMT
Why would there be a 10 year spacing???
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2016 13:32:11 GMT
I think what we are witnessing is a change in the jet stream patterns and stability. Instead of the polar vortex and the tropical and subtropical jets being zonal they now have large Rossby waves and often blocking highs holding them stable. If you look at earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-90.37,83.85,480 you will see the dumbbell shaped polar vortex with jet stream winds crossing the pole. This pattern exists to quite low levels. The continual winds from the South would ensure both that the Arctic was warmer and that the heat from the South would be radiate faster into space, this is a cooling effect in the same way the warm 'blob' in the Pacific was a cooling event. Interestingly, I read in a comment elsewhere that the Laurentide ice sheet shape appears to be due to the loops in the jetstream being halted by a semi-permanent blocking high causing continual polar air to flow down the Ohio Valley and East coast of North America.
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Feb 28, 2016 15:32:41 GMT
I think what we are witnessing is a change in the jet stream patterns and stability. Instead of the polar vortex and the tropical and subtropical jets being zonal they now have large Rossby waves and often blocking highs holding them stable. If you look at earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-90.37,83.85,480 you will see the dumbbell shaped polar vortex with jet stream winds crossing the pole. This pattern exists to quite low levels. The continual winds from the South would ensure both that the Arctic was warmer and that the heat from the South would be radiate faster into space, this is a cooling effect in the same way the warm 'blob' in the Pacific was a cooling event. Interestingly, I read in a comment elsewhere that the Laurentide ice sheet shape appears to be due to the loops in the jetstream being halted by a semi-permanent blocking high causing continual polar air to flow down the Ohio Valley and East coast of North America. I may be wrong Nautonnier, but I think at that pressure your looking at the bottom of the qbo which is still showing the effects of the sudden stratospheric warming event from a couple of weeks ago. The previous anti cyclone split with a weaker cyclonic movement of air over Greenland/ Canada. Hence the current shape if the dominated flow of air....
|
|
|
Post by graywolf on Feb 28, 2016 15:52:12 GMT
Why would there be a 10 year spacing??? What they found when they looked at the 'perfect melt storm synoptic' , after the surprise of 07', of high melt /high export melt seasons was that there was a 10 to 20 year cycle (with the two events preceding 07' having only 10 year spacing) so , maybe it will be 2027 before it turns up again? The only reason I mention 10 years is a combination of both it being the earliest possible return of the synoptic and the past two showing the low end return spacing?
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 28, 2016 16:48:16 GMT
I think what we are witnessing is a change in the jet stream patterns and stability. Instead of the polar vortex and the tropical and subtropical jets being zonal they now have large Rossby waves and often blocking highs holding them stable. If you look at earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-90.37,83.85,480 you will see the dumbbell shaped polar vortex with jet stream winds crossing the pole. This pattern exists to quite low levels. The continual winds from the South would ensure both that the Arctic was warmer and that the heat from the South would be radiate faster into space, this is a cooling effect in the same way the warm 'blob' in the Pacific was a cooling event. Interestingly, I read in a comment elsewhere that the Laurentide ice sheet shape appears to be due to the loops in the jetstream being halted by a semi-permanent blocking high causing continual polar air to flow down the Ohio Valley and East coast of North America. I may be wrong Nautonnier, but I think at that pressure your looking at the bottom of the qbo which is still showing the effects of the sudden stratospheric warming event from a couple of weeks ago. The previous anti cyclone split with a weaker cyclonic movement of air over Greenland/ Canada. Hence the current shape if the dominated flow of air.... I have been watching the cross polar wind since before the SSW through till now this was due to a paper I had read saying that SSW were due to a Rossby wave in the subtropical jet with its polarward loop running over the Himalayas and being forced up through the low winter tropopause into the stratosphere causing the SSW. That seemed feasible - and it may have happened this year.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 28, 2016 17:34:24 GMT
Sadly the background warming leads to 'feedback's' and the loss of Sea ice is one such 'feedback' with up to 25% of the warming since 07' being put down to the change from 'sea ice' to 'dark water'.... While that is very true it seems odd that everybody's favorite topic to avoid is the basic law of radiation that what is absorbed is emitted. That dark water emits as much heat as it receives. Its difficult to figure how a trace gas is going to actually trap any heat without heating up and if it heats up it also will radiate more to space. Yes it is warm in the arctic atmosphere, but the challenge is to know what that means for heat in the ocean now that a huge layer of insulation has been stripped off the top of it. If the ocean below the ice was of a mean temperature above that of the atmosphere above the ice, then heat losses to space are greatly accelerated and that fact would seem logically to be manifested by a warming of that atmosphere as that warmer water gets fully exposed to the atmosphere. It also means greater net heat losses to space both directly by the ocean surface and by the atmosphere. The true fraud of global warming can be found all over its surface as one factor among two is singled out and the other ignored. Amount of heat accumulated the surface is automatically attributed to greenhouse gases also while ignoring the basic radiation law that what something absorbs it emits.
|
|