Polar Ice for 2018

Not entirely off topic. As this planet increases solar-E trapping in atmosphere (a small place), much bigger oceans have continued to E-transfer in ways we effinging don't understand.

Air-T dipped ~1870-1910. Less ~1940-1960. ~2000-2010 was shortest and flattest. One might suspect that oceans have used up their century-scale T-moderating thing-doing. It would be great if we understood the ocean-thermal beast!

Few-decades forward will feature atmospheric CO2 +2ppm (ish) per year; it has not been down regulated. I don't care who has told you what. Its solar-E trapping in atmosphere will increase less than linearly (because that's physics), and make +T at or not much higher than recent-decadal rates.

You may have read that T will increase faster due (mostly) to water-vapor feedback. You may have read that other forces will send T down instead, with those other forces being loosely described.

I personally reject both extremes; one from IPCC-sanctioned models and the other from climate-change deniers. My expectations must not be seen as certain, but somehow, among these possibilities, we need a comprehensive, good-for-humans plan.

No more will I OT this polar-ice thread. Takin' it elsewhere.

 

Greenland ice-melt history:

West Greenland Ice Sheet melting at the fastest rate in centuries: Weather patterns and summer warming trend combine to drive dramatic ice loss -- ScienceDaily

 

Upper altitude winds (i.e. jet streams) are driven by the temp difference between the pole and the equator. the Arctic is warming rapidly and we may see a Blue Ocean event this year. The lower the temp differential, the more the jet streams slow down and meander like an old river. Storm movement slows, and cold polar air can go far southward and warm southern air now goes to the pole to increase the melt rate. Also in the mix is the massive deposit of Methane Hydrates off the Siberian Shelf which can destabilize at any time. Global temps will then rise quickly depending on how much is released and would occur in days, weeks or months. A ice free Arctic will absorb massive amounts of solar input, and the feedbacks increase rapidly. Another degree or so of warming will also drastically reduce crop yields, which would lead to massive famine on a planet thats in incredible population overshoot. Its been quite the party for the last couple hundred years, but the Piper will get paid, probably much sooner than later and it won't be pretty.

 

As an operational meteorologist (now retired), I understand upper level flow quite well.

It is my experience that as upper flow weakens, the flow deamplifies; it doesn't amplify. For example, in mid to late summer, when the temperature gradient between the poles and tropics is at its annual minimum, upper flow is weak and tends to not have sharp ridges and troughs. That is mainly why organized severe weather tends to peak in spring (with a weaker peak in autumn), but tends to decrease considerably in summer months, in spite of having more thermal energy with which to work.

I will continue to follow the weakening poles-to-tropics thermal gradient in the current warming scenario studies as it is my belief that something else is causing the upper level flow to become "wavier".

 

Tiros-1 was launched in 1960 as Earth's first weather satellite. So there could be more than 50 years of images to examine for jet-stream patterns though time. Meteorologists present might talk about how much of that has been done or could be done.

 

Satellite water vapor channel is good for examining flow at the jet stream levels. Not sure how much that has been used in these upper tropospheric flow studies.

 

Did any satellites look at water vapor before GOES began in 1975? We recall that they are they are geostationary and at least two are thus needed for full-earth coverage.

 

As I recall, water vapor imagery has been available since I've been involved in meteorology (college in the early 1970s).

According to University of Wisconsin, WV imagery was available on the first weather satellite operational in 1960 (water vapor absorption portion of the IR spectrum). Not sure how valuable those images would be for studying upper air flow at that time though.

 

It appears to be good winter temps for shipping;
Russian tanker sails through Arctic without icebreaker for first time | Environment | The Guardian
.

 

Borrowing one link from eaglesight333 to emphasize here:

NASA GRACE-FO Satellites Will Track Changes to Earth’s Water and Ice - Seeker

 

Full longitude coverage from geostationary orbit requires at least 3 satellites, as any one is above the horizon for only 163 degrees of longitude. And the sharply oblique view near the limbs reduces the useful span.

 

"Although the two GRACE-FO spacecraft are very similar to those used in the previous GRACE mission, they will carry one new piece of equipment: the experimental Laser Ranging Interferometer. If this new technology works as planned, it could provide measurements up to 10 times more accurate than the microwave measurements, NASA officials said."

 

I find 24 geostationary satellites currently in service. Launched by several countries, with different sensor suites. Uncertain to what extent they are mega-merged for weather forecasting etc.

 

Looking at GOES full disk imagery to understand better the obliquity thing mentioned by fuzzy1. Was particularly struck by how uninformative imagery is at both poles. Same problem, and I suppose it means that only polar orbiters are useful for this.

 

Do note that latitude coverage span has about the same limit as longitude. Thus, as seen from geostationary orbit, 'the poles' on the images are really about just latitude 81 degrees N/S. The actual poles are hidden over the horizon, more than 900 km beyond the edge.

I suppose geosynchronous (but not geostationary) sensors could be put on inclined orbits to image closer to the poles, but that would not provide continuous coverage of either.

 

inclined geosynchronous orbits sound kinda 'Kesslery' to me