Please support this Forum and Neven's Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: Today at 01:33:40 PM »
This guy Jose has been named two weeks ago. It's probably not the longest streak ever, but it sure is a lot. Enough.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: Today at 07:24:51 AM »
In all fairness, the NHC kept discussed the possibility of rapid intensification for Maria and said it would not be surprising at all.
Jose on the other hand is a strange beast and feels like it's been around for eternity. But it surely must weaken given its location with cold SSTs and wind shear.

Policy and solutions / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: Today at 01:56:55 AM »
It's not just the missing data, but the unpublished cost of all these advantages. I've been extremely skeptical and I remain so.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: Today at 01:53:24 AM »
[7:33pm] Recon finds an estimated pressure of 926mb and surface winds of 160 mph in #Maria's northwestern eyewall.

I guess this means Cat 5.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 18, 2017, 11:30:31 AM »
Gravity powered truck.
Nice idea.

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps
« on: September 17, 2017, 07:49:39 AM »
I think it's basically reversion to mean following the El NiNo. But There's also been heavy snows on Greenland this past year.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 16, 2017, 05:26:57 PM »
FD, such a lifestyle as these people have would be called a nightmare by most people in developed nations, despite perhaps to have such vacations now and then. If all humanity lived in such conditions, someone would surely make the invention of energy, renewable or not. Actually, someone already did, back in 1750. So, I think people are looking for a solar/wind solution that can support these very human desires for improvements in living conditions and not ruin the atmosphere in the process. It does have environmental side effects, but less than the current alternative, which for most people isn't North Sentinel, but fossil BAU.
BTW, the best way to reduce humanity's impact on the environment is to limit the number of births. Ain't gonna happen of course. But surely higher chance than everybody going back to hunter gatherer.
(Just noticed this is wildly OT here).

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 16, 2017, 01:28:39 PM »
I think I actually predicted 4.5 as the minimum in some of the sea ice prediction threads. Is there anyway to verify this?
When you enter each of these threads, at the top, you will see the bin you voted for shown in bold font.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: September 15, 2017, 02:28:09 PM »
US DOD is deploying new Arctic Ocean buoys as announced on Sept 13 2017.

Does anyone have any links to the data from these buoys?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 15, 2017, 02:23:52 PM »
A-Team I know this is veering wildly OT but thank you for this excellent (and hellishly long) article. It explained and tied together many things I kind of knew and felt but couldn't put my finger on.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 15, 2017, 10:58:22 AM »
This sucks so much!  I, like all on this forum, need ZERO ice!  Those damn denialists have to be proven wrong!  Our earth is going to go ice free and they have to pay!!
I highly mislike your statement. And the arctic needs more ice, not less, and when it does go ice free we will all pay.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 13, 2017, 10:53:56 PM »
Bob, I believe etienne referred to registration of new vehicles, not resales and second-hand cars.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 13, 2017, 09:25:18 PM »
Despite the hurricanes being primarily property damage, the info-wars may still have went well. The message did get out, despite an excellent stream of tweets from the Koch's hurricane guy R Maue, that climate change did contribute to frequency and intensity of these tropical storms. And a lot of the public here goes by their gut feeling, which worked to our advantage for once.
That Maue has been driving me nuts. I thought he was just a plain old meteorologist, but he kept on and on with his AGW soft denial. Eric Holthaus on the other hand has been doing a good job of harping on climate change.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, the United States
« on: September 13, 2017, 01:34:49 PM »
In 2016 the US generated ~53 TWh more electricity with non-fossil fuel sources than in 2015. 
Bob, interesting analysis. Two comments off the cuff:
A. It seems there is some confusion between utilized energy and generated electricity. Electricity also gets wasted, in transmission and in storage and when used. It's not 80% or 65% but still not negligible. So replacing utilized energy with generated electricity doesn't seem like it's apples to apples. I may have missed the linkage somewhere in your post.
B. Is the energy consumption totally flat? If not, how much more energy was utilized in 2016 compared to 2015 in the US?

Arctic sea ice / Re: NSIDC 2017 Arctic SIE September average: August poll
« on: September 12, 2017, 11:00:25 PM »
EgalSust, it is not a simple ratio. If I am not mistaken, NSIDC monthly "average" takes all pixels that had 15% ice through the month, so it will tend to focus on the last days of the month (as they have more ice). In addition, more ice now compared to 2016 could also mean less ice growth to the end of the month. So the numbers are simply not in yet.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: September 11, 2017, 11:00:51 PM »
A good word for O-buoy 14 - it survived another whole melting season. Maybe it felt it was the last of its breed.
The movie has been updated to Sep 8th. A lot of ice floating around, but there doesn't seem to be much or even any refreezing going on.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 09, 2017, 07:49:44 AM »
After the 5pm update yesterday on the NHC website, we decided to get out of dodge. Live in Zephyrhills, Fl. Left this morning at 5am and are now in Ocean Springs, MS to sit out the storm. We used secondary roads to reach I-10W. Traffic on the interstate was heavy with serious congestion off and on until we were well west of Tallahassee. Not bad after until we neared Mobile, AL. Upon arriving at our destination, we went to Chili's to eat and have a stiff drink!

P.S.: Several hours after leaving home I recalled that I left our lawnmower, bicycle and charcoal grill outside in the back of our place. Decided against going back, doh!

Good for you BudM. Better safe than worried, especially as the track shifted westward again.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 09:45:01 PM »
Does the churn from Irma cool or warm the ocean behind it? Am looking at Jose, and wondering if Irma is steering air and creating a backwash, to push Jose further west, rather than the modeled northerly track.
Cyclones definitely cool the ocean as they traverse it, mostly from wind-driven evaporation and upwelling, but also from shading the ocean, and raining on the ocean surface. This makes it harder for other cyclones on the same path to achieve the same strength. Not sure how Irma is affecting the air currents and steering though.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:52:14 PM »
Oh no, Sigmetnow. I thank you with all my heart for the job you have done on this thread. This has been my go to place for reliable info. Thanks to it, I started scheduled last minute preparations early and had plenty of time to tighten up the place.

I admit, it is scary. I'm not sure what to expect, the eye will pass 60 miles to my North over the next 24 hours. My biggest vulnerability is created by my own trees. They held up during hurricanes Hugo and George, so I'm hoping they hold again.  My other worry are my windows. My house is made out of concrete but the windows are a weak point. The next 24 hours might be very long.

The next few weeks and months will probably suck. No power, no water and probably significant cleanup and rebuilding. But whatever. I'm ready.  8) 8)
Good luck Archimid! A concrete house is great. It will keep you safe, the rest are details.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 05, 2017, 02:49:31 PM »
This Irma is a real monster. Every time the NHC forecast mild strengthening it jumps up a category.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: September 05, 2017, 08:10:32 AM »
The animation looks very much like an early refreeze of the inner "slushy" areas, much as expected but a week earlier than I thought.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 04, 2017, 08:13:54 PM »
the relative widely spread slushy ice could make for an early relative jump in extent and area gains,

I still don't understand why refreeze of existing extent will lead to a jump in extent
Courtesy of Wipneus, here are the maps from 2 days ago for both NSIDC at 25 km resolution and Uni Hamburg at 3.125 km resolution. The area from ESS to the pole counts as low concentration but full extent in NSIDC, therefore an early refreeze of the "slush" will not result in an extent uptick. But on UH there are a lot of "open water" pixels mixed with the slush, should that region refreeze there will be a marked increase in AMSR2 extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: September 03, 2017, 08:28:27 PM »
The two main locations of extent increase on the map are not the "classic first refreeze" areas, and do not have very cold temps at the moment, so I'd be surprised if this was it. We'll soon know though.

To what extent, if any, would people agree with the statement

If landfalls appear to be decreasing, then hurricanes should not be used as an added reason for needing more action to deal with GW.
If landfalls appear to be decreasing (are they?), but the intensity of landfalling hurricanes is increasing, then hurricanes should be used as an added reason for needing more action to deal with GW.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 03, 2017, 01:33:24 PM »
It is safe to say, no matter if the minimum is today or by end of the month, that the amount of ice, and more importantly the spatial distribution of it, is similar to last year's end of season, with more and thicker ice in the Atlantic side, and sparser and thinner ice in the Pacific side, although the way the ice pack has reached to it is really different.
Interesting observation. Indeed the path to this distribution was quite different, but the end result similar. I still wonder myself what the end result will be, the thin slushy ice is in competition with the looming refreeze.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 02, 2017, 01:14:20 PM »
... (quote removed)
I'd rather you take this back. It's a science forum, not a personality forum.
I wish I could do what A-Team calls for, I lack the computing power, the technical know-how, the time, and mostly the discipline to acquire what I lack. But I still commend it. And I do my utmost best to avoid ad-hominem statements.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: September 02, 2017, 11:45:45 AM »
Found this online.  Pretty clear that Europe decoupled energy and GDP some decades back.
Energy is not emissions. And G7 is not the world (don't forget export of manufacturing and emissions with it to China). I believe there is still a positive relation between GDP and emissions, although on a downward path. Recession years reduce emissions more than economic boom years (if such still exist).
I agree with rboyd that the rate of reduction is not fast enough, OTOH I can't see voluntary degrowth happening.

So I've been wondering for a while about the old tongue of Zachariae, that got fully separated from the glacier in 2012. I speculate that when it goes, calving activity might pick up due to increased circulation at the front.
It turns out the tongue has been gradually losing bits and pieces, although it's a slow process not expected to finish anytime soon. CLICK to animate Aug 2016 vs. Aug 2017. Note the northeastern corner, the southeastern bulge, and the southernmost bit. For reference, Espen's excellent overview image from up-forum of calving front retreat.

Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: September 02, 2017, 08:21:14 AM »
And maybe, just maybe, a sharp rise in temps by 2020-2025 due to loss of aerosol cooling will drive the world to sharply cut on carbon.
IOW, get rid of global dimming now and face the full scale of the problem, rather than having it waiting in the wings to give the killing blow when temps are already much higher 50 years from now.

Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: September 01, 2017, 06:12:21 PM »
Cost of fuel should rise to take into account the associated pollution. A tax on fuel, that is used for a CCS operation, can bring shipping with fuel to parity with shipping using electricity and batteries.

The cost of fuel may drop as oil demand drops.

There is no ability to establish a global carbon tax. 

And there will probably always be a nation corrupt to allow bunker oil to be sold at an attractive price.

Here's what could easily happen.  Many countries put a high carbon tax on bunker oil. Corrupt oil-producing country becomes an exporter of bunker oil.  Tankers load its oil and head out to sea where them become floating fuel stations and refill ship tanks in international waters.
In that case, your solution (use electric-driven ships at double the hulls and half the speed) will not work either. If most shipping companies use slower and more expensive but non-polluting methods, but some rogue country has a polluting shipping company, and no global penalty is incurred on pollution, then I bet most shippers would choose the polluting but faster and cheaper alternative, as businesses sadly do today in a variety of other economic choices. So a global enforcement mechanism is needed for any shipping solution, which means it's probably best to leave this problem for last.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 01, 2017, 03:18:49 PM »
The weather conditions still warm enough to continue melting futhermore in September. (The pics below will update). There's not so much open water north of 80 latitude. The ice should continue to retreat on the edges and most likely the minimum extent should occur relatively late in September
I think the opposite.  All that slushy ice between the ESS and the pole will be easy to refreeze should the low temps come, as the water around it have not had a chance to mix. I think the balance of probability is more towards an early refeeze before Sept 15th, rather than a late one.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: September 01, 2017, 12:01:14 PM »
Few of the world's countries are run by dictatorships.  Even those countries like China which have strong central non-democratic governments cannot afford to get too far ahead of where their citizens are.  People, in general, are not supportive of a carbon fee.

The idea that there is any possibility of a global carbon fee is just ridiculous.

Please try to look for practical solutions.  Things that move us forward and have a chance of success.
Actually, a carbon fee that gets redistributed as a dividend to voting-age citizens could get decent support from the people. I do believe however that the people in power will not be supportive, and that sadly it will not happen.

Policy and solutions / Re: Ships and boats
« on: September 01, 2017, 11:56:18 AM »
There's tradeoffs for sailing speed. If you go half as fast, you need twice as many ships to carry the same amount of goods, and twice as much crew. It was worth it five years ago to sail much slower, with high fuel prices -- but it might not be today. Assuming free combustion waste disposal that is; carbon taxes would help push towards more efficiency.

I doubt cities getting eaten up by the rising seas is what's going to convince shippers to sail slower and cleaner. Instead they'll reduce the volume of shipments, on account of the city no longer being there to receive the goods.

We could sail ships with very small crews.  And if we can't afford the carbon output from bunker oil engines paying for more hulls might be the answer.

Shipping could well be the last job we tackle.  But I do believe we are likely to reach a point at which we'll attack all fossil fuel use.  The most concerned countries could simply add a meaningful carbon tariff based on how products and materials arrive.

The reaction would likely drive more manufacturing 'on continent' and send shippers looking for low carbon options for powering ships.
In economic terms it's pretty simple. Cost of fuel should rise to take into account the associated pollution. A tax on fuel, that is used for a CCS operation, can bring shipping with fuel to parity with shipping using electricity and batteries.
I guesstimate that shipping with fuel will still be more economical than twice the ships at half the speed, but that shipping volume will decrease as some of the shipped items will be manufactured closer to where they are sold.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 01, 2017, 09:33:56 AM »
IIRC the major reason Better Place failed was the CEO more than anything else.

I doubt that Better Place, had they become larger would have survived long term (much past 2020).  Batteries will almost certainly get cheaper and better.  And charging rates will probably increase some.  The extra battery inventory and swapping infrastructure would simply add to the cost of owning a car, there would be no real advantage worth paying for.
Correct on both statements.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 01, 2017, 08:28:46 AM »
And don't forget the other version of hybrid - an EV with an ICE generator for recharging during driving. Much cheaper and lighter than a full hybrid, if you need the extended range.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 01, 2017, 08:13:24 AM »
Well, there was a working project in Israel where you just switched the batteries at loading points instead of waiting all the loading time. Same thing could be possible at home. You could have two different batteries, one small and an bigger one, and when leaving in the morning, you could just choose the one you need.
That project was based on robotic switching of the batteries, plus I believe they were much smaller (and I assume lighter) than current batteries. When the project went bankrupt, the buyers were stranded without battery switching and with a fast degrading battery, so were really screwed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 31, 2017, 09:04:57 PM »
I am new to this forum but have been interested in artic sea ice trends for a while.
I prefer to stick to data and physics as much as possible.
Welcome, PhysicsDoc with the right approach.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: August 31, 2017, 06:02:53 PM »
Nice catch, Oren. Finally, a beautiful drone flight of the overspilling Addicks Reservoir past the "armored" emergency spillway showing surrounding neighborhoods, somewhat after the high water.

I'm surprised the drone didn't catch anyone patrolling the berms.  I would expect they'd have people out there monitoring the situation constantly. :o
I think I could spot a person standing on the levee next to the overtopping.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 31, 2017, 05:57:51 PM »
A. Snow does not constitute refreezing, even though it may somewhat affect area readings.
B. -2 and even -6 deg temps do not generally freeze seawater, though they refreeze meltponds (again affecting area readings).

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: August 31, 2017, 12:20:32 PM »
Finally found a drone video of the northeast overflow point of Addicks. It doesn't seem like a strong flow that can cause erosion, although I'm not sure when the video was taken.
! No longer available

Arctic Background / Re: Pen Hadow's Arctic Mission
« on: August 31, 2017, 08:19:48 AM »
What I can't ynderstand is why they are so late. Seems like this wasn't the plan. But I expect them to turn back soon.
Arctic Mission sets off from Nome in Alaska (USA) in the first week of August. The expedition team will not see land again for six weeks. We will cover about 3,500 miles by the time they return to harbour at Nome in mid-September.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: August 29, 2017, 11:30:48 PM »
Looking here, some more information on Addicks:
100 cfs spilling over the sides right now (elevation 108.73)
As it climbs to 109.5, there will be 4500 CFS spilling over the sides and spillway.
109.5 feet is the point at which more water will be coming over the sides than through the controlled dam. 4500cfs
110.4 is forecasted top for  Addicks
109.5 is when 4500cfs will pour out the side,
Going a foot higher than that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 29, 2017, 09:35:13 PM »
Wipneus thanks for the detailed explanation, and for your endless supply of reliable data and analysis.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 29, 2017, 07:37:09 AM »
From the same Wikipedia source:
The megafaunal extinction pattern observed in North America poses a problem for the bolide impact scenario, since it raises the question why large mammals should be preferentially exterminated over small mammals or other vertebrates. Additionally, some extant megafaunal species such as bison and Brown bear seem to have been little affected by the extinction event, while the environmental devastation caused by a bolide impact would not be expected to discriminate. Also, it appears that there was collapse in North American megafaunal population from 14,800 to 13,700 BP, well before the date of the hypothetical extraterrestrial impact, possibly from anthropogenic activities, including hunting.

Research published in 2012 has shown that the so-called "black mats" are easily explained by typical earth processes in wetland environments.The study of black mats, that are common in prehistorical wetland deposits which represent shallow marshlands, that were from 6000 to 40,000 years ago in the southwestern USA and Atacama Desert in Chile, showed elevated concentrations of iridium and magnetic sediments, magnetic spherules and titanomagnetite grains. It was suggested that because these markers are found within or at the base of black mats, irrespective of age or location, suggests that these markers arise from processes common to wetland systems, and probably not as a result of catastrophic bolide impacts.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 29, 2017, 12:57:56 AM »
A. Ned and Jai, I suggest a deep breath, cool down, we are talking science here.
B. Ned, I cannot follow your calculations nor Jai's references, but I have what feels like a stupid question which I'll risk asking:
It seems you are focused on the relative change of forcing from 2017 to 2035. So if the value of 2017 has been increased by 5% and so has the value for 2035, the relative change is 0%. However, in layman terms and as we are currently not in equilibrium, radiative forcing drives the speed of warming and not the actual temp. So if 2017 and 2035 are 5% higher we will get a faster rate of warming from 2017 onward, even if the relative change from 2017 to 2035 is 0%. If I press the gas pedal harder now and continue to do so with no change, my car will accelerate faster. Am I getting this wrong? Or am I misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 27, 2017, 12:53:06 PM »
Adding to Bob's excellent rebuttal, regarding the intermittency issue, solar+batteries and wind+batteries are also cost-competitive these days, and as battery prices are dropping I can't see why renewables+storage can't power the whole of civilization (if any is left by the time AGW has its ugly way).

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 26, 2017, 06:29:54 PM »
The linked NOAA website entitled: "THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)" was updated in Spring of 2017 with GHG data through the end of 2016 (see the attached images).  I note that if one assumes that the GWP100 for methane is 35 instead of 25 (per AR5), then NOAA's calculated value for the CO2-eq for 2016 would be 521ppm instead of 489ppm; which is a big difference, and one that NOAA should publically acknowledge.

CH4   ΔF = β(M½ - Mo½) - [f(M,No) - f(Mo,No)]   β = 0.036

Edit: The third image of Table 8.7 of AR5 has this footnote for methane: "These values do not include CO2 from methane oxidation. Values for fossil methane are higher by 1 and 2 for the 20 and 100 year metrics, respectively (Table 8.A.1)"  Thus, when you consider methane from fossil fuel and when you consider the GWP from the CO2 from methane oxidation, the resulting GWP values are higher than in Table 8.7 (i.e. the GWP100 for fossil fuel methane is 36 so when averaged with natural methane I use 35.

Also AR5 asserts a -50 and +75% uncertainty in their GWP values for CH4 (on the 100 year timeline); which means that this confidence range has a fat right-tail.
ASLR, maybe you could shed some light on this stupid question of mine: seeing as methane concentrations are on an ever-upward trend, despite the fact that methane is constantly removed from the atmosphere - why not use the actual forcing of current methane in the atmosphere, "instantaneous GWP", which I would guess is much higher than even the GWP20 value? I mean, if we totally stopped emitting now and all natural sources would oblige to do the same, then all jolly good, use GPW20 or whatever, but as that is not happening the actual radiative forcing of methane is much higher than these numbers suggest.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 26, 2017, 09:48:21 AM »
OK, just for fun let's carry this out a bit further.  Here's a simulation of what it would look like to reach +2 C pre-industrial by 2035:

Ned, your own chart shows 0 at about the 1940-1970 average. I know pre-industrial is not well defined but if you move your baseline by 0.25oc to the 1880-1930 average it will be much easier to imagine 2oc above baseline by 2035.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August mid monthly update)
« on: August 25, 2017, 04:39:16 PM »
At the current rate I doubt a 2nd place finish can be achieved, especially as the un-compacted pack has many areas of low concentration in the near-polar area, potentially subject to early refreeze. OTOH eyeballing the chart I think a finish below 2010 is quite probable, possibly also below 2016.

Arctic Background / Re: Whose data is wrong?
« on: August 25, 2017, 06:11:44 AM »
VAK, why resort to an iceberg armada to explain sudden cooling, when lake Agassiz suddenly emptying is a much simpler explanation?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31