Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: "Stupid" Questions :o  (Read 529005 times)

Pmt111500

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1856
  • Yes, I do not always bicycle
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1800 on: April 24, 2019, 05:36:07 PM »
Wave-energy generators operating only in the night powering infrared lasers pointing directly up emitting on a non-absorbed frequency might be a fun experiment for some engineers.
Cooling the outside by heat pump.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1801 on: April 24, 2019, 07:10:47 PM »
What you are asking for is a way of converting the heat energy of the oceans into stored chemical energy of bound CO2, with no further heat loss to the surroundings such that you end up with a net loss of heat.  This is impossible.

I'm not sure if that was what he was asking - and if the energy is used to chemically convert CO2 into e.g. pure C and frefloating O2 (or some other combination of solid/liquid that can be sequestered, and non-greenhouse gas) then most of the energy will be converted into chemical energy and stored there for the foreseeable future, and therefore not released as warmth.

Chemical sequestration of CO2 (as opposed to spatial, i.e. pumping it underground) is effectively a giant battery, taking energy and storing it.
Do you know if such a chemical reaction is possible binntho? If you are out at sea on a platform whose details are irrelevant for now, getting electricity from a source that is irrelevant for now, grabbing pure concentrated CO2 with a technology that is irrelevant for now, could that CO2 be made solid and dumped over board and not dissolve in the sea water or anything like that?

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1802 on: April 24, 2019, 07:34:51 PM »

Do you know if such a chemical reaction is possible binntho? If you are out at sea on a platform whose details are irrelevant for now, getting electricity from a source that is irrelevant for now, grabbing pure concentrated CO2 with a technology that is irrelevant for now, could that CO2 be made solid and dumped over board and not dissolve in the sea water or anything like that?

All sorts of things are possible and being investigated.
https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/carbon-capture-conversion-turn-co2-building-materials/
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02427
https://phys.org/news/2015-08-co2-air-materials-dont-climate.html

doesn't mean they will look cost effective.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2981
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1803 on: April 24, 2019, 07:56:19 PM »
The 'on the cheap' way Earth sequesters carbon is primarily by (1) converting CO2 into plant matter and burying it (voila: coal!) or by (2) weathering minerals (especially olivine) and create bicarbonate ions (voila: clam shells and coral reefs).   A 2011 discussion paper suggests using 'nature's ways' would be more cost effective than more contraption-based geoengineering.  (The paper 'jumped out at me' from an internet search - no other connection.)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1804 on: April 24, 2019, 08:01:04 PM »

Do you know if such a chemical reaction is possible binntho? If you are out at sea on a platform whose details are irrelevant for now, getting electricity from a source that is irrelevant for now, grabbing pure concentrated CO2 with a technology that is irrelevant for now, could that CO2 be made solid and dumped over board and not dissolve in the sea water or anything like that?

All sorts of things are possible and being investigated.
https://carbon.xprize.org/prizes/carbon
https://www.theengineer.co.uk/carbon-capture-conversion-turn-co2-building-materials/
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b02427
https://phys.org/news/2015-08-co2-air-materials-dont-climate.html

doesn't mean they will look cost effective.

Thank you, I will read those. Again I'll sleep better if our hope is in the "change a billionaire's mind" box than the "change the laws of physics" box.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1805 on: April 24, 2019, 08:13:00 PM »
The 'on the cheap' way Earth sequesters carbon is primarily by (1) converting CO2 into plant matter and burying it (voila: coal!) or by (2) weathering minerals (especially olivine) and create bicarbonate ions (voila: clam shells and coral reefs).   A 2011 discussion paper suggests using 'nature's ways' would be more cost effective than more contraption-based geoengineering.  (The paper 'jumped out at me' from an internet search - no other connection.)

Thanks. Part of the reason for the sea based interest is the competition on land between agriculture, urban, forest, and solar generation seem to be a problem. Sea looks like real estate. Thanks

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 847
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1806 on: April 24, 2019, 08:19:40 PM »
piongain, if we invest enough in solar panels and wind turbines, we could get nearly unlimited "free" electricity (if we disregard the cost and the resources needed to build the panels and turbines and maintain them). The same could theoretically be said of wave energy and tidal energy, though the costs per energy unit are much higher AFAIK. Note solar panels could be placed in deserts where the land is quite useless for agriculture or forest or habitat, and wind turbines can be offshore and even floating.
With unlimited electricity, surely there are many ways to pull down CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it. So yes, our hope lies in changing people's minds, and then the physics would be on our side.
Unfortunately, that hope is quite remote, given the limited time we have and the large number of people that need convincing. But it's not physically hopeless.

piongain

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1807 on: April 24, 2019, 08:22:18 PM »
piongain, if we invest enough in solar panels and wind turbines, we could get nearly unlimited "free" electricity (if we disregard the cost and the resources needed to build the panels and turbines and maintain them). The same could theoretically be said of wave energy and tidal energy, though the costs per energy unit are much higher AFAIK. Note solar panels could be placed in deserts where the land is quite useless for agriculture or forest or habitat, and wind turbines can be offshore and even floating.
With unlimited electricity, surely there are many ways to pull down CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it. So yes, our hope lies in changing people's minds, and then the physics would be on our side.
Unfortunately, that hope is quite remote, given the limited time we have and the large number of people that need convincing. But it's not physically hopeless.

Thank you Oren, I'm quite heart broken tbh so when people say changing people's minds is the problem i see hope there. Sry for the newbie posts I'll read and be quiet for a while. Thx guys.

RoxTheGeologist

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1808 on: April 24, 2019, 08:47:40 PM »
Hi all, i have a stupid question (if pushed i might have many more). Here goes. In thinking about feedback loops has it ever struck anybody as odd that the real whoppers all lean one direction? I know there's a few negative feedbacks but the ones worth writing home about just seem to be going one direction, reinforcing and amplifying each other instead of cancelling or balancing each other out. I'm not sure why that seems odd to me but it does, not in any sciency way but just in my good old fashioned gut. I'd find a great big counter weight or a monumental buffer so satisfying. There. There's more stupid where that came from if anybody is in the market.

Carbon fertilization, there is more carbon being stored in the biosphere, absorption into the oceans, but the pH is decreasing, and we should all fear the time when the surface of the ocean isn't saturated in weak alkali bicarbonate (bye bye shellfish), Silicate weathering, but it's debatable if it has changed rate with increase CO2. At least this puts bicarbonate back into the ocean. Worryingly the carbon fertilization rate is dependent on soil moisture (see one of AbruptSLRs incredibly useful posts), so watch this space as land becomes hotter and dryer, and the oceans will absorb less as the pH increases.



RoxTheGeologist

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1809 on: April 24, 2019, 08:53:52 PM »
piongain, if we invest enough in solar panels and wind turbines, we could get nearly unlimited "free" electricity (if we disregard the cost and the resources needed to build the panels and turbines and maintain them). The same could theoretically be said of wave energy and tidal energy, though the costs per energy unit are much higher AFAIK. Note solar panels could be placed in deserts where the land is quite useless for agriculture or forest or habitat, and wind turbines can be offshore and even floating.
With unlimited electricity, surely there are many ways to pull down CO2 from the atmosphere and sequester it. So yes, our hope lies in changing people's minds, and then the physics would be on our side.
Unfortunately, that hope is quite remote, given the limited time we have and the large number of people that need convincing. But it's not physically hopeless.


I'm writing about this at the moment, and despite all our attempts to cut carbon usage, it's still increasing. I think the only way we are going to fix this is by ensuring that all carbon extracted and all land use changes are correctly matched by sequestration. We all, each of us, has to be financially responsible for making sure all the pollution caused by farming and fuel and energy is taken care of. Making something cheaper doesn't mean it will be adopted. I have a very telling experience of this. The oil companies will NOT give up the marketplace, no matter how much money is to be made, no matter how cheap renewable fuel is. They largely own the retail outlets, and they get to choose what they put through them while still complaining about the fact that there isn't enough carbon credits to make policy work. It has to be done with global policy that is verifiable, and policed and enforced with sanctions against individuals, corporations and countries.


sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1810 on: April 24, 2019, 10:39:35 PM »
Re: Thermal energy from ocean.

To run a heat engine you need a temperature difference. Check out OTEC, a proposal to use the temperature difference between surface and deep ocean to generate energy.

sidd

Peter Ellis

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 617
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 11
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1811 on: April 25, 2019, 10:05:52 AM »
Do you know if such a chemical reaction is possible binntho? If you are out at sea on a platform whose details are irrelevant for now, getting electricity from a source that is irrelevant for now, grabbing pure concentrated CO2 with a technology that is irrelevant for now, could that CO2 be made solid and dumped over board and not dissolve in the sea water or anything like that?

Sure.  Grow a tree.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1812 on: April 25, 2019, 10:29:44 AM »
...There is one possible form that would work: Stopping and reversing the deforestation...

And so we circled back to the very first reply only 1 1/2 pages later.  ;)

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1813 on: April 25, 2019, 11:00:52 AM »
This must be a result of the Sahara-sand rain everyone is talking about.  ;D

echoughton

  • New ice
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1814 on: April 25, 2019, 12:11:53 PM »
Can we as a group please refrain from posting ANYTHING beyond 7 day forecasts? For some reason the Arctic forecasts at the long range are even worse than the ones down here where people live, and they rarely verify to anywhere close to accurate.
I know folks have been complaining, but many still feel the need to post "HEAT TORCH AT THE CHUKCHI AT DAY 10!!!" So I add my voice here at stupic questions department.
Thnk you

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1815 on: April 25, 2019, 12:21:01 PM »
Well, given the forecast for the next 7 days from todays perspective, Bbr was spot on with his 'Yikes' post, wasn't he?

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1816 on: April 25, 2019, 12:25:05 PM »
Is it expected that there is a correlation between topographic features and sea ice temperature?

That was me being stupid. Opacity was 50%. Never mind... m)

sark

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 317
  • not a scientist
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 141
  • Likes Given: 77
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1817 on: April 25, 2019, 01:36:00 PM »
Can we as a group please refrain from posting ANYTHING beyond 7 day forecasts? For some reason the Arctic forecasts at the long range are even worse than the ones down here where people live, and they rarely verify to anywhere close to accurate.
I know folks have been complaining, but many still feel the need to post "HEAT TORCH AT THE CHUKCHI AT DAY 10!!!" So I add my voice here at stupic questions department.
Thnk you

I said the polar cell is failing over a month ago.  Pretty much 5 weeks early.  What's happening now is what I said would happen on 24 Mar 2019...  Pretty good for prophecy work.  toot toot?

Below is a gif of the 7-10 day forecast from GFS compared with the last complete run... essentially the 7-10 day is on the left and reality is on the right.  Not dismissable.

Just start squinting a little after day 5 and close your eyes entirely by day 15

Click to run
« Last Edit: April 25, 2019, 07:52:20 PM by sark »
I am not a scientist

Tony Mcleod

  • New ice
  • Posts: 70
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1818 on: April 25, 2019, 01:48:53 PM »
From back in April what is the single best predicter of a September minimum? Or isn't there one?

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1819 on: April 25, 2019, 04:21:08 PM »
From back in April what is the single best predicter of a September minimum? Or isn't there one?

Sorry, but there really is not one single best.

Stephan

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 714
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 207
  • Likes Given: 117
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1820 on: April 25, 2019, 07:44:41 PM »
From back in April what is the single best predicter of a September minimum? Or isn't there one?
Klondike Kat is completely right.
You can try best by yourself in creating an excel sheet with April averages and September minima and you will find a completely random picture with not even a trace of a trend line.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1821 on: April 25, 2019, 08:11:38 PM »
From back in April what is the single best predicter of a September minimum? Or isn't there one?
Klondike Kat is completely right.
You can try best by yourself in creating an excel sheet with April averages and September minima and you will find a completely random picture with not even a trace of a trend line.
Bitter experience says...

Question :- Is there a predictor better than a random number generator?"
Answer   :- The Farmers' Almanac?
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2981
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1822 on: April 25, 2019, 08:18:31 PM »
The best predicter of September minimum is climatology, not 'current data' before June (or maybe July) and not the Farmer's Almanac (although it's more fun to read).  See the ASI Graphs page - Long Term Graphs - for examples.  Some of these show trends, others use models. 

And always predict with a huge error bar   ::) :P
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Sleepy

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1202
  • Retired, again...
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 126
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1823 on: April 26, 2019, 08:52:29 AM »
And always predict with a huge error bar   ::) :P
Ok, the ASI is a Zombie.
Omnia mirari, etiam tritissima.
-
Science is a jealous mistress and takes little account of a man's feelings.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1824 on: April 26, 2019, 03:02:39 PM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?
Do you mean this one perhaps?

The graph attached looks back 365 days for each day's average reading.


That's the one, thank you!
I did another one using NSIDC data going back to 1980

Thank you for that one as well!

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2981
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1825 on: April 26, 2019, 08:36:37 PM »
I wonder if 83-42 is still 'there' (northernmost speck of 'land')?
[picture credit: Peter Skafte] 2004 news article
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Paddy

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 566
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 35
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1826 on: April 29, 2019, 09:42:50 AM »
At one point, I dimly recall that somebody on the forum posted a graph of the mean sea ice extent by year. Any idea where I could find it?
Do you mean this one perhaps?

The graph attached looks back 365 days for each day's average reading.


That's the one, thank you!
I did another one using NSIDC data going back to 1980

Prediction: since the most recent November: March extent tended to be relatively high, we won't see the line on this graph go below 10m in 2019. However, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes below that in 2020.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • *****
  • Posts: 7136
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 697
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1827 on: April 29, 2019, 10:33:05 AM »
Question from new member:

I see it.  I also see how much cold is being lost in the next 2 weeks.

What I'm asking specifically for is if it seems normal during the spring PV transition for high pressure to move rapidly from equator to pole without so much as half a trip around the world?  Nevermind from both East and West at the same time.  Are we okay?

I'm a long time lurker here, probably for more than 5 years. Just decided to post now, great forum. Just a question though from someone who is a total layman. Can cold actually be lost? When the cold air from the arctic is forced out into lower latitudes, does this actually change the equation at all or is all the heat/lack of heat in the system conserved in some way? Thanks.
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1828 on: April 29, 2019, 02:48:34 PM »
Question from new member:

I see it.  I also see how much cold is being lost in the next 2 weeks.

What I'm asking specifically for is if it seems normal during the spring PV transition for high pressure to move rapidly from equator to pole without so much as half a trip around the world?  Nevermind from both East and West at the same time.  Are we okay?

I'm a long time lurker here, probably for more than 5 years. Just decided to post now, great forum. Just a question though from someone who is a total layman. Can cold actually be lost? When the cold air from the arctic is forced out into lower latitudes, does this actually change the equation at all or is all the heat/lack of heat in the system conserved in some way? Thanks.

Slim, no, cold cannot be lost.  Cold is simply a lack of heat.  When someone says that cold air is forced out of the Arctic, what they really mean is that a front has pushed the warm air out.  The winds are not moving cold air in, as they are blowing warm air out.  Heat is naturally lost from the surface to the atmosphere, and ultimately to space, due to differential temperature; heat will flow from a warm body to a cold one.  Without a source of heat, both bodies would achieve the same temperature.  However, we have a constant source of heat (the sun) which warms the surface.  The heat flows to colder areas, such as the poles, where it can ultimately be lost to space.  Atmospheric changes can alter this flow.  Have I made any sense?

crandles

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2495
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 85
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1829 on: April 29, 2019, 03:57:30 PM »
I see it.  I also see how much cold is being lost in the next 2 weeks.

What I'm asking specifically for is if it seems normal during the spring PV transition for high pressure to move rapidly from equator to pole without so much as half a trip around the world?  Nevermind from both East and West at the same time.  Are we okay?

I'm a long time lurker here, probably for more than 5 years. Just decided to post now, great forum. Just a question though from someone who is a total layman. Can cold actually be lost? When the cold air from the arctic is forced out into lower latitudes, does this actually change the equation at all or is all the heat/lack of heat in the system conserved in some way? Thanks.

My answer is more along the lines of asking what system are you considering.

If considering whole Earth then if you replace cold air in arctic with warm from further south by winds then you are also moving cold air out of the arctic to more southerly latitudes.

If what you are considering is just the Arctic then this has warmed up (cold lost if you want).

The arctic can and does also warm up by solar heat in summer.


If we are considering the whole planet, there are some high latitudes that are warmer than normal and through solar heating less more loss of heat to space this area will tend to gain heat more slowly than normal. There is also colder than normal more southerly latitude which will tend to gain heat faster than normal through solar heating less lower loss to space. These tendencies are in opposite directions but unlike wind redistributing heat, these tendencies are not perfectly balanced being affected by things like clouds etc.

I guess the winds effects redistributing heat may not be perfectly balanced either particularly if they winds are changing altitudes which affects rate of heat loss to space. Again this is more of knock on effect than direct effect of wind.

Not really sure if this is getting closer to answering your question or not. Perhaps saying what systems you are trying to consider: Just Arctic/ Earths atmosphere/ other might help people provide sensible answers
« Last Edit: April 29, 2019, 04:10:19 PM by crandles »

Thomas Barlow

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 25
  • Likes Given: 21
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1830 on: April 30, 2019, 05:20:45 PM »
Just a question though from someone who is a total layman. Can cold actually be lost?
The greenhouse effect means that heat is being trapped in the atmosphere instead of being reflected back into space as it normally is, so no, after ocean and land absords some of it, cold is not maintained elsewhere or in another form. Heat from the Sun just keeps coming in and getting trapped by greenhouse gases and particulate matter. Also, increasing moisture in the atmosphere acts as a greenhouse heat trap.

But cold being forced out of the Arctic has meant a great skiing season here on north east coast America, so that suggests there will be a mixing, even an apparent pull-back from warming in some places (and politicans carrying snowballs into Congress once in a while).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2019, 02:30:22 PM by Thomas Barlow »

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1831 on: April 30, 2019, 10:10:43 PM »
Formally, the first law states (read u as mu below)

dU = TdS - PdV + udN + ...

U is internal energy of a system, T is temperature, S is entropy, P is pressure V is volume, u is chemical potential N is number. The term TdS is the heat term = dQ , where Q is heat into a system.

Again, formally speaking there is nothing stopping you from defining -dQ as a "cold" term. But then you will have to be quite careful in reproducing thermodynamics in this picture, especially the existence of an absolute zero in the te,perature scale.

Good luck.

sidd

interstitial

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 159
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 30
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1832 on: May 01, 2019, 01:17:37 AM »
What happened to Arbor Day? it used to be a thing. I haven't heard or read anything about it in recent years.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1833 on: May 01, 2019, 08:29:46 PM »
Stupid question: Where to put PSAs?

Here i have one:

PSA: NASA Worldview and other sites on the earthdata.nasa.gov domain will be unavailable on Thursday, 2 May 2019 from 7pm - 11pm ET due to planned maintenance. We apologize for the inconvenience.

gerontocrat

  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 6314
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1348
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1834 on: May 02, 2019, 07:16:53 PM »
I am confused - it happens more often these days.

If one tries to access climate reanalyzer for the GFS dataone gets:-

Quote
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.
or
https://climatereanalyzer.org/
This site can’t provide a secure connection climatereanalyzer.org sent an invalid response.

But if you go to https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/forecasts

You can access lots of current images from climatereanalyzer using the latest GFS run. (see attached)

EDIT:- BUT MAYBE NOT NOW
I have been clicking on the images on  https://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/forecasts and they are dying one by one.

The dead hand of Gerontocrat strikes again
"Para a Causa do Povo a Luta Continua!"
"And that's all I'm going to say about that". Forrest Gump
"Damn, I wanted to see what happened next" (Epitaph)

Steven

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 553
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 129
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1835 on: May 02, 2019, 08:36:26 PM »
If one tries to access climate reanalyzer for the GFS data...

There are alternatives, for example Karsten Haustein.  Click the play button on that page to animate the images.

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1836 on: May 02, 2019, 10:20:26 PM »
That's a great site Steven. Thanks for the link!

Dharma Rupa

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 493
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1837 on: May 06, 2019, 01:14:13 PM »
Is it possible with this forum software to set a thread moderated with only certain people allowed to normally post there?  I can think of one thread that would be a whole lot better if only two people were allowed to post there.  (Maybe if those two people were the moderators?)

Slim

  • New ice
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1838 on: May 11, 2019, 05:13:19 PM »
Thanks to everyone who answered my question regarding whether cold could actually be lost or not. Very interesting to read the responses.

Tor Bejnar

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 2981
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 167
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1839 on: May 11, 2019, 06:56:31 PM »
By the way, welcome to the ASIF, Slim!  As some say, "The first post is the hardest."  I suspect your 2nd post was, in fact, easier!  :)
Arctic ice is healthy for children and other living things.

Tom_Mazanec

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1445
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 301
  • Likes Given: 50
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1840 on: May 15, 2019, 06:29:21 PM »
Here is my stupid question:
What is CO2e now?
I don't mean the definition, I mean the number. Searching I find an implication that it is still below 500 ppm but will reach it BAU within a decade of 2016:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1762.msg92315.html#msg92315
or by 2025:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1056.msg39615.html#msg39615
and an implication that it is about 720 ppm "near term":
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,143.msg196439.html#msg196439
Either I am misreading the messages, or they substantially disagree.
Can anyone give me current CO2e?
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

VaughnAn

  • New ice
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 325
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1841 on: May 15, 2019, 07:50:55 PM »
Tom_M, I have been asking that question to Robert Scribbler too.  So far no response.  It looks like the short term CO2e could be as high as 800ppmCO2e when including the effects of other "minor" greenhouse gasses as well.  Methane is destroyed in the atmosphere comparatively quickly but since right now we are also very concerned about the immediate effects of greenhouse gasses, a few years of immediate effects would seem to have a much greater effect than in past history where a burp of methane would be gone in a few years.  We have a sustained increase in methane so in my way of thinking it calls for a look at more appropriate numbers for converting the effects of methane to a more appropriate CO2e??

b_lumenkraft

  • Guest
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1842 on: May 20, 2019, 12:20:08 PM »
Something wrong with https://www.polarview.aq ??

No more new radar shots since 18th early morning for both, Antarctic and Arctic.

Rodius

  • New ice
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1843 on: May 20, 2019, 01:47:03 PM »
I have been hearing a lot of climate deniers tell me that the peer review process is corrupted.

My response is typically one along the lines of "Not when you know where to look for good peer reviewed research, and they are worth reading."

So, my stupid question is, how much truth is there to the corruption accusation?
And what online options are there for checking which peer reviewed papers are legitimate?

oren

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4413
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 847
  • Likes Given: 1267
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1844 on: May 20, 2019, 02:20:58 PM »
I can't answer the question directly,but:
I am sure peer review is not a magic process, and at the margin some papers can manage to pass peer review but shouldn't. Nothing is perfect. But the deniers' argument is classic concern trolling - if you prove the peer review for a certain paper was spotless, they will come up with any other argument of their choice. They don't really care if peer review was successful or not. Peer reviewed science is 95% or 99% correct. Troll "science" is 100% garbage.

Klondike Kat

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 38
  • Likes Given: 47
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1845 on: May 20, 2019, 03:09:34 PM »
The peer review process is only as good as those initiating the process.  In principle, the practice is sound.  In practice, in can be corrupted.  Read the following:

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/editors-update/when-reviewing-goes-wrong-the-ugly-side-of-peer-review

Reputable journals have a reputable process.  Others, not so much.

HapHazard

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 153
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 922
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1846 on: May 20, 2019, 07:55:16 PM »
Tangentially related, but thought I'd link it here to show how deniers do whatever they can to muddy the waters.

A Major Coal Company Went Bust. Its Bankruptcy Filing Shows That It Was Funding Climate Change Denialism.

thejazzmarauder

  • New ice
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1847 on: May 20, 2019, 09:12:50 PM »
Do melt ponds have any mechanical effect on sea ice or are they strictly important due to albedo change?

uniquorn

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1463
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 704
  • Likes Given: 145
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1848 on: May 20, 2019, 10:56:39 PM »
Something wrong with https://www.polarview.aq ??
No more new radar shots since 18th early morning for both, Antarctic and Arctic.
It happens for a couple of days every two months or so. I don't know why.

sidd

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 4878
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 292
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« Reply #1849 on: May 20, 2019, 11:09:02 PM »
Re: Do melt ponds have any mechanical effect on sea ice

If they get deep enuf the pressure can form a crevasse all the way to the bottom (hydrofracture)

sidd