Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and 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 - LRC1962

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9
Special Report: Millions of abandoned oil wells are leaking methane, a climate menace

<Merged the post with this thread since it needs some policy and solutions. Kassy>

Policy and solutions / Re: Lessons from COVID-19
« on: March 31, 2020, 07:53:09 PM »
IPCC 5 and Paris can be placed in the trash bin. At least in the short term most environmental concerns worldwide are going to be ignored all in the interest of generating maximum number of jobs and profits at all costs.
Looking at I do not think we will see 8.5, but 2.6 was hopeless before Covid now there is no chance and you will see a very fast upturn in CO2 once Covid is stabilized. Where we are heading. I do not know, but based on what is occurring with governments reaction to Covid? It will only be until after extreme crisis is already on us that any action will be taken and we all know that will be far to late to just mitigate the disaster we will be facing.

Policy and solutions / Re: Lessons from COVID-19
« on: March 28, 2020, 04:45:57 PM »
I think we have 2 different answers and Covid and AGW apply to both.
Lessons we should learn are that for profit fails miserably in a crisis. It is based on the premise you never have redundancy and you do everything as cheaply as possible. and result when a crisis hits you have no extra manoeuvring room in your system to mitigate the crisis and what you have in place is not good enough to handle the crisis.
What we are learning is that globalization is extremely fragile. Go into crisis mode what happens? Every  man for himself. Even in the boundaries of a county it is that way. Isolation is much needed, but what about much needed resources? There is very little cooperation in fact there is much more bickering about what  the other guy is or is not doing. End result. Everyone develops their own tests and own procedures and own medicines and own vaccines with very little sharing. There is some, but of the $Ts being spent very little. And as for the third world? Tough that's their problem.
IMO the same thing will happen with AGW solutions. Every man for himself and as long as I am taken care of, and I had better be, who cares about anyone else?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The Fast Transition
« on: March 10, 2020, 07:26:31 PM »
There is a brief mention of permafrost. If the land warms up beyond a certain point then the chances of seeing blue Arctic will become much greater as any ice near the land will be gone earlier in the melt season.
Now I normally avoid Fox like the plague, but I found this story interesting.

In the Arctic, a changing climate isn’t something that might happen in the near future. In the uppermost stretches of the Northern Hemisphere, it’s already happening now.

Temperatures are warming; sea ice is retreating.
Now a better science approach is: https://www.theguardian.coam/environment/2019/jun/18/arctic-permafrost-canada-science-climate-crisis
Permafrost at outposts in the Canadian Arctic is thawing 70 years earlier than predicted, an expedition has discovered, in the latest sign that the global climate crisis is accelerating even faster than scientists had feared.
Granted this is old news and I have been avoiding this site for the last year or so because it is getting very depressing for me.
If you tie in the melting permafrost and what is happening with the ice then a fast transition is unavoidable. The permafrost kept the land cold which than was able to keep the water cold therefore allowed the ice to keep thick enough to stick around.  With the permafrost going much faster then thought possible, it is now unable to keep things cold. On top of that you now are seeing more  and more large scale fires because of that loss which is heating the air even more adding ash to the ice. End result is the ice will be hit harder every summer.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 26, 2019, 12:34:24 PM »
The temp graph for Kotelny Island. 11 days in June have hit a record for the date, and the month is still not over. I am out of superlatives...
For anyone who is not aware of the location, it's in the New Siberian Islands, separating the Laptev from the ESS and the CAB.
As a Canadian, the map has a small typo. Saint John is in New Brunswick. St. John's is in Newfoundland. Canada likes making map makers life interesting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: May 30, 2019, 09:57:31 PM »
Can you drink melted sea ice?
New ice is usually very salty because it contains concentrated droplets called brine that are trapped in pockets between the ice crystals, and so it would not make good drinking water. As ice ages, the brine eventually drains through the ice, and by the time it becomes multiyear ice, nearly all of the brine is gone. Most multiyear ice is fresh enough that someone could drink its melted water. In fact, multiyear ice often supplies the fresh water needed for polar expeditions. See Salinity and Brine in the Characteristics section for more information.
Fresh water freezes at 0 degrees Celsius (32 degrees Fahrenheit), but the freezing point of sea water varies. For every 5 psu increase in salinity, the freezing point decreases by 0.28 degrees Celsius (0.5 degrees Fahrenheit); thus, in polar regions with an ocean salinity of about 32 psu, the water begins to freeze at -1.8 degrees Celsius (28.8 degrees Fahrenheit). The Arctic Ocean is generally fresher than other oceans, somewhere between 30 and 34 psu, but salinity levels vary by region, and areas with strong river inflow may have even lower salinity.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 07, 2019, 05:02:24 AM »
For those of you who agree to some extent that thin ice is very little different to thick ice in regards to heat this study begs to differ.
Low concentration of ice – spotty coverage of the water’s surface that leaves large areas of open water – will still play a much bigger role in creating warm temperatures, the new study finds. But if ice is thin, the amount of heat that seeps through it can cause up to a third of the warming that is caused by low ice concentration, the study found.
most heat still is most important in open water, but up to a third goes through thin ice.
Direct weather influence.
While it found that thinner ice does influence the lower and middle levels of the atmosphere, potentially shifting the jet stream southward, the study found “no significant response” to loss of ice thickness in the stratosphere. That upper level is the site of the polar vortex, the counterclockwise flow of air around the low-pressure system above the North Pole. The study did find that lower sea ice concentration influences the stratosphere and strengthens the polar vortex.
Thin ice effects lower and middle levels of atmosphere. Those are where you get the surface winds and rain/snow from.
This is not opinion it is science. Thinning ice does effect heat, weather, wildlife ....
Anyone remember the green ice that was seen a few years back? It was not an illusion. Not opinion.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 06, 2019, 01:45:04 PM »

And I still think we need the 12 dimensions some physicists think there are to reasonably model the ice.  (24 would be good too)
And less we forget. Chaos Theory! Just when we have things all figured out Chaos jams up the spokes and sends us into orbit.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 06, 2019, 12:43:16 PM »
Earlier I said I would not vote because I much prefer density. KK arguments have changed my mind.
His facts are so not that anyone who has read or studied should shake their heads in disgust.
Ask any microbe, seal, polar bear if there is a difference between an inch of ice and 10 meters of ice and their changing behaviour in the Arctic in the last 20 years would tell you all you need to know that volume matters.
As for KK's assertion that somehow extent and volume are related?  ??? If you check with the Antarctic you would find in the last few years max extent has increased. At the same time though volume has fallen as a result the ice sheets are moving much faster then ever before.
Ice will always form in the dark of winter in the Arctic, but unless things do a 180 there is no question of seeing sometime with  no ice as a minimum, it is only a question of when.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 05, 2019, 10:13:56 AM »
For calculations on energy transfer etc. , Area would be a better metric ?
I believe both are very valuable. Let us take pre 2000 and the extent and area were very similar not because of grid size, but because there was a much smaller dispersion area involved. Now that has been completely changed. extent is now almost twice the size as area. Just focusing on either extent or area then fitting in your energy transfer formula will give a false reading because area  size does not tell you dispersion. On the other hand extend will also have the same problem because it does not indicate how dense the pack ice is. Combining the two gives a far better indicator  early in the melt season as to how vulnerable the ice is but early in the freeze up it can also tell you potentially how much could possibly form. There is nothing simple about ice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 04, 2019, 10:06:37 PM »
Weather is unaffected by ice thickness also.  The entire evapotranspiration process is cutoff, when the water is covered by ice. 

Given the topic at hand, the differences between open water and an ice-covered surface is significantly greater than the difference in ice thickness.

GAC2012, in case one has forgotten, puts a great lie to those statements. The GAC ran onto ice, which if thick and solid would have died out quickly as the temp differential between the outer edge and core would have become the same as both would have been using the same air. What happened in 2012, the ice was thin or if thick very broken, which when the storm first hit dispersed the ice giving access to open water. End result was the temp differential remained high enough the the storm continued doing damage for a very long time. Volume and density do matter very much.
Another factor is waves. Waves hitting a wall of dense thick ice lose all their energy very fast. In 2007, scientists witnessed many times where waves were entering ice fields 100's of miles from the edge and destroying ice over 10 meters thick because the ice was really nothing more then slush. Again volume and density matter.
The last few years we have not seen a GAC nor the kind of wave action that destroys fragile ice and therefore extent has been a very important factor as  far as the shape of ice appears to be in, but if we get another storm like in 2012 or wave action like in 2007, and I feel that we would witness very large fast decline in the ice, because the volume and density of the ice that is around is very very fragile.
BTW I have not voted because it all depends on the weather. Some conditions the 2D metric is far better, but in others the 3D is far better. If we ever can get to the point of getting reliable density measurements, that would be even better.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 03, 2019, 04:04:54 PM »
Jim thanks for posting the article on transpolar drift, but when I followed the link, the text of article was broken up and unreadable. Advice welcome.
another readable link can be found here: (sharing link points to an epdf file that is not working)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 03, 2019, 03:54:13 PM »
So, did sea ice increase or decrease in that period? Which dimensions will you choose to use to make the call?

Depends on what the story is you are telling. i.e.:

If you talk buffer effects of the Arctic sea ice, you'll take volume as a measure.
If you talk albedo, you'll take extend as a measure.
Then you can add a 3rd component and that is mass of 3D ice. As seen in both 2007 and '12 both large melt offs, but for different weather reasons, happened primarily because large volume was hiding little mass.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 08, 2018, 11:35:37 PM »
As a complete outsider of US politics I have to really laugh at US obsession that socialism equals communism. a) earliest beginnings of universal Started when King of Sweden first introduced national stats in the mid 1700 and found out he had a very high mortality rate in his country that could not support his large army. Solution . bring in national health and to improve that later on national education
One of earliest universal pension schemes was Bismarck  in Germany. neither of which you can call leftest with a straight face.
Granted each had their own reasons for doing so, but each were as about as hard right politically you can get and still have a chance at retaining power.

The rest / Oil refinery explosion - St. John, New Brunswick.
« on: October 08, 2018, 07:04:58 PM »
May not seem such an import bit of news, but it is Canada's largest refinery. Seems to be 'small' problem at the moment, but Irving does not have a good record when it comes to safety  or pollution levels. As it owns over half of Atlantic Provinces economy directly politicians do trend to look the other way.
Something to keep an eye on for dark snow etc.

The rest / Happy Thanksgiving Canada
« on: October 08, 2018, 06:40:24 PM »
In the Canadian online Encyclopedia it seems Canadians took a very long time as to when to celebrate it and why.

Policy and solutions / Trump Science
« on: September 29, 2018, 01:49:10 AM »
Not sure exactly where to put this. Maybe sad comedy?
WH logic. Temps will rise 7F by 2100 which will cause massive sea level rise and catastrophic conditions on land. Based on their theory that this will happen no matter what is done as it already is in the pipe, return to 1960's BSU levels of emissions because if the world is going to be a disaster by 2100 why not enjoy life the way we did back then?
**face plant**
This has to be a joke right?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 20, 2018, 08:03:27 AM »
JAXA ASI Extent.
April 19th, 2018: 12,888,393 km2, a drop of -50,285 km2.
2018 is the lowest on record.
2018 is now -39,724 km2 under 2016.
I 'Liked' this, Actually should for each one, but most times I come on it is more to see what is happening then quickly leave. Not very kind to the forum, but what value I can add is very bad from education standards. On the otherhand liking it leaves me with a very sick feeling, because the legacy my generation has left (over 55) the next many generations will be paying a very high price for their entire lifetimes.
Keep the data coming because you are recording history and there are very few sites that are doing a very good job of it, and right now governments seem to be doing more and more to erase it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: April 06, 2018, 07:32:04 AM »
All this energy does NOT add temperature increase to the Arctic. Once ice-free conditions exist in the Arctic, any other added energy WILL raise Arctic water volume temperatures. About sixty times the volume of melted Arctic ice in the form of water will then be affected by any excess energy.
There is a dynamic that tends to be left out. That is the jet stream. Pre 2000 the jet stream usually was a buffer between weather systems in the Arctic and the rest of the NH. Now more often then not it is the main engine that is either pushing heat into it or pulling cold out of it. This means that whereas pre 2000 the sun was the biggest factor of heat for the Arctic, now location of the jet stream is by far the biggest factor.
As example how many times in the last few years have areas in the Arctic gotten close to or above 0C in the dead of winter? Or conversely when we have had the warmest global temps on record in the summer, the Arctic has had a hard time melting? If you check what the jet stream is doing you will see that it is a very important factor . If the wondering stream ever hit the Arctic in the summer like it has in the winter in the last few years, a great melt would occur regardless of sun.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: March 19, 2018, 03:52:07 PM »
Thanks for grouping all those links, A-Team.

Here are DMI sea surface temperature anomalies for March 8th of the past three years. You can almost see the heat shift from the North Atlantic to the North Pacific (not implying that such a shift is actually happening):
Would it be possible to infer that we can be seeing the inpact of changing currents?
In the case of the Atlanic side the Gulf Stream is moving farther south because of the cold blob and therefore less of its heat is getting into the Arctic.
On the Pacific side the current more or less has staid the same it is just that it is much warmer farther north than it used to be.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: March 18, 2018, 02:45:53 AM »
There is one point of snow on land. It tends to have a large amount of pollutants in it. As snow melts out pollutants then show up at the surface. Then that heats up and as the surface melts it than spreads the heat trough the lower levels causing faster melt.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: March 17, 2018, 02:55:01 PM »
If deeper snow means longer lasting snow, there are albedo effects, though of course difficult to quantify compared to all other effects. But the question I am interested in is whether deeper snow (esp. In famed Quebec) actually means longer-lasting snow. A database is hard to come by, but I plan to have some small result of my "research" next week.
Not all snow is equal. Get 6' of light powder snow and it can all go in days. On the otherhand you can have 6' of dense wet snow with icy layers and that can stick around for a very long time even in very warm temps.

The rest / Re: Different way of charting equivalent points in time.
« on: March 04, 2018, 04:40:21 PM »
The system you propose would then have wider angles per day during winter months, yes? This is of course not a huge problem, as each angle of the day could be divided to the ~24 hours a day takes.

Actually no. For the Arctic which is our main focus think of a protractor standing on edge on your desk. The 0o point is the spring equinox. Anywhere above the Arctic circle no matter what time of day it is the sun is on the horizon. At the 90o point the sun is at its highest point no matter where you are. At the 180o point the sun is back on the horizon or the fall equinox.
Just like in the lower latitudes you will have a dawn and twilight. But, as long as you are above the Arctic circle this all occurs only once a year. Then as amateurs it then can be translated to what you experience in a 24 hour day. the hottest part of the day is not when the sun is directly above, but an hour or 2 after, because it takes time for the suns heat that is shining directly above to take affect. The same for the cold. The coldest time of the night is not midnight even though that is the time when the most heat can be lost, it is closer to just before dawn. Using the 360oapproach although very difficult to chart, you are actually expressing where the sun is in relation to the sky.
This is very similar to how weather forecasters express the weather every day. The lows are always when the temperatures are traditionally the coldest part of the day. the highs are in terms of when it is hottest. Often weather events are explained as to those 2 points. For example tornadoes are almost always late afternoon early evening. Why? That is just after the hottest time of day  and when you have the greatest temperature differences between 2 close locations. This causes the greatest turbulence in the skies.
Edit: When it comes to the Arctic and Antarctica we have to get away from thinking in terms of the 24 hour day in both those locations. If you think of day as one period of sun and one period of dark then you have only one day a year. To get a better understanding of what is happening when and why we need to get an understanding of that basic fact.

The rest / Different way of charting equivalent points in time.
« on: March 04, 2018, 01:05:43 PM »
In,2223.250.html a discussion got going on what to do about Feb. 29. after a page or more the valid decision was made as off topic. I MHO A more valid scientific approach, although fitting it in spreadsheet far more difficult in some ways, would be to drop time references and replace it with degrees/minutes/seconds. Much like the longitudinal lines used to describe the earth's surface, you could also brake up the rotation around the sun in a similar way. Therefore to compare a 100 years ago to today, you find the degree point the earth is now at in relation to the sun and take it back 100 rotations. You then will end up with point to point comparisons, not having to figure out what to do with leap year. Or as in histories case the differences in the variety calendars man has created such as the Julian, Revised Julian or Gregorian Calendars.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: February 19, 2018, 05:44:00 AM »
Not sure if this study has already been posted or exactly where it should go as it could be posted in many spots.
Interacting Antarctic glaciers may cause faster melt and sea level contributions
This IMO continues to reinforce the idea glaciers are much more unstable and intact much with each other then previously thought.
"This is a potentially really dynamic place between these two glaciers, and this is somewhere where further study is really warranted," said lead author Dustin Schroeder, an assistant professor of geophysics at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences. "If this tributary were to retreat and get melted by warm ocean water, it could cause the melt beneath Pine Island to spread to Thwaites."

Sea-level rise has become a major global concern based on research showing extra ocean water from melting glaciers could swamp coastal areas around the world, contaminate drinking and irrigation water, threaten wildlife populations and hurt the economy. This new perspective on the Southwest Tributary shows melting beneath Pine Island may be currently or imminently causing the melting of Thwaites and speeding the rate of sea-level rise.

"These results show that the ocean is really starting to work on the edge of this glacier, which means that we're likely at the onset of it having an impact," Schroeder said.

Read more at:

Consequences / Re: 2018 Droughts
« on: January 20, 2018, 09:21:48 AM »
Should not be posting at this time (3AM) as I get really stupid.
A few few thoughts.
1) Up to now mankind could get away with for the the most part, land fresh water.
2)As pointed out, issues of energy costs building and upkeep costs,  amount of land needed for plant, pollution, where to place intake to minimize ecodamage and what to do with waste. All these things add to and create costs all on their own. The problems now are that things are becoming much more urgent and therefore the risks taken will be far greater to get water.
As for Cape Town. Remember you are talking about South Africa which because of penalties now being paid politically and economically for the decades of apartheid and the artificial economy it created plus the degradation of the majority  of its people it is not capable to respond quickly to disasters. Because it is in Africa and still has the illusion of being a forefront nation it has many difficulties that cause major problems when disaster strikes.
Before we get to caught up with casting blame for this problem Puerto Rico still has no power for over a million people in spite of being part of the richest nation in the world.
Note I do know that we are to keep away from politically charged statements, but as someone born in one of the poorest nations on earth, I get very tired of the holier then thou attitude that they are lazy and stupid. Most times they are living in situations they have absolutely no control over. How much change can you make earning less then $4000 a year?

Science / Importance of pollution and clouds in the Arctic
« on: January 06, 2018, 07:33:07 AM »
Clouds that are more 'sensitive' to pollution are speeding up Arctic warming
"Climate models show a difference between 2 C and 6 C," Taylor said. "The reason that difference is so large is because of cloud cover."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: October 15, 2017, 12:36:18 AM »
Maybe should start different post, but will ask anyway. Based on projected current path of Hurricane Ophelia:
What is the possible impact on the ESS as to wind/moisture levels on ice formation, or is it possible the dissipation and earlier freezing season will mean little?

Consequences / Re: Heated soils and their effects on CO2 levels
« on: October 08, 2017, 09:17:44 AM »
Soils emitting more carbon dioxide shows that it was happening but as yet did not know what was all involved.

Consequences / Heated soils and their effects on CO2 levels
« on: October 08, 2017, 09:10:06 AM »
Note: Apologizes if a duplicating post.
There’s a Climate Bomb Under Your Feet.
The purpose (of the study) was to measure how carbon dioxide may escape from the earth as the atmosphere warms. What they found[Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world], published yesterday in the journal Science, may mean the accelerating catastrophe of global warming has been fueled in part by warm dirt. As the Earth heats up, microbes in the soil accelerate the breakdown of organic materials and move on to others that may have once been ignored, each time releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
The good news, however, is that the research community is now fully on the case. Over the past week, at least four high-profile papers largely funded by the U.S. government have contributed new evidence, observations, and insight into the role of soil and forests in the global carbon cycle—the flow of material in and out of land, air, life, and sea that’s currently broken and getting worse.
A little overly optimistic as the best places to make the study are also the best places to make money from and you do have problems with governments doing anything with it or backing up the studies as there is still too much kicking the can down the road philosophy in dealing with the real problems faced now.
Although it does show that if we really wanted to bury carbon there are fairly easy ways of doing it. Problem there will be who is going to spend the money to bury the carbon then on top of that prevent anyone for a very long time  (100's of years)  to touch it?
Edit: should have added this first time around.
Late last month, scientists from Woods Hole Research Center and Boston University published [Long-term pattern and magnitude of soil carbon feedback to the climate system in a warming world]. in Science an analysis of satellite data showing one of the most dramatic turnabouts in recent memory. Long thought of as sponges that suck in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, tropical forests may actually be a source of emissions. Deforestation is obviously an enemy of forests; what the authors found was that forest degradation—losing healthy patches here or there to human or natural causes—is more damaging to carbon-soaking capacity than previously believed.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 06, 2017, 01:42:57 AM »
If I understand your position correctly you feel that Trump's greatest asset is that he's hugely incompetent. I tend to agree.

I depends upon how you define incompetent. He lives in his own world with his own objects. All he does is to fulfill those objects. Everything else is irrelevant to him and therefore does not matter and to be forgotten. The problem for us is what his objectives are. To my mind it is wrapped around one idea. Trump and making Trump the most important and talked about person in the world. It has no political thought behind it. In this he has done it in spades. He has captured in his mind the most important position in the world and he is the most talked about individual in the world today. All his speeches and twitters are all about ensuring that. All he needs to to do is do something that places in the top historically. That is why he wants to sign stuff.
The problem for him is the rest of the world truly is getting to understand that and find out that there are ways to make things work without the involvement of that position. Not only that, his fixating on getting rid of what has been done in the past, such as Paris Accord, Treaties, Health Care has focused attention on them. Not so much as what is wrong but what is right and therefore worth saving.
It is my position then that Trumps legacy will not be Trump, but what was good that came before Trump and therefore make him an unimportant footnote.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 03, 2017, 11:40:34 PM »
We in the world tend to be fixated by Trump. After six months of him I have come to the conclusion that from the global stand point it is in a far better position then I feared, but I am terribly sorry for where that has placed the US people.
In the beginning I feared a ripple copycat effect on other elections. The opposite effect seems to be happening more as voters in other nations seem for the most part to be going more moderate and punishing the extremist.
I feared the rest of the world leaders would either cater to Trump and let him lead or do something to antagonize him and cause blow back. I see that for the most part they have decided that the best way is to show him baubles and then quietly shove him aside and ignore him as much as possible.
I feared that environmentally from a global point he would be an environmental disaster. His leaving the Paris Accord has for the most part had the opposite effect from my understanding in that more of the globe has taken it as a challenge to actually make it work rather then be a nice get together to claim they tried.
I feared his isolationist moves would cause other countries to follow and end up locking up the global economy. In fact it seems that leaders have decided more needs to be done as far as trade agreements are concerned just doing it without the US at the table and they seem to be fine with that. Canada is also finding that working with each state individually without the WH involvement is also possible and you could see more countries following that path.
Trump can still do much damage globally, but I feel that world leaders see Trump for who and what he really is and work around an problems he represents. Voters around the world also see him in a similar way and are doing what they can to make sure their politicians are not the same type.
As for the GOP they have backed themselves into a very bad position. For the representatives in places where Trump supporters really matter they feel the need to still back him. For the places where he is weak and getting weaker they are seeing the pressure to challenge him otherwise they could lose in the next elections. As for the core Trump supporters their message is simple, we really do not care for policy matters that much we just want the way things are always done to be gone. In Trump they see someone who everyday is sticking his fingers into some elites eye and they love it policy? who cares. This is where the GOP has a problem. It has move from a party that was being run by Tea Party agenda to now being run by core voters whose main aim is stick it to and down the elite establishment (which includes all with more the a bachelors degree).
The is another big set of problems. You have an armed forces whose CiC has no interest in understanding what they do and are responsible for and can not stop from talking about what he is told. They still have the wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria is a problem that could spread and get far worse. North Korea is problem that could get out of hand because it is taking advantage of Trump's inattention to facts. You have Russia and China exerting more influence in more countries and a Man who does not understand that GW is real and has real consequences to the military. All the very same things can be said about foreign intelligence.
Domestically you have a "law and order" president that refuses to understand that law applies to him and the WH as well. You have a nation wide infrastructure that is crumbling, deregulating/unsupervised industries whose infrastructure is also crumbling and environmental disasters just waiting to happen or have happened and nothing being done about it, a judicial system opening being mocked, uncontrolled law enforcement (very small segment) that is bringing disrepute to the whole and president that seems to thick that is great policing a president that is not filling vacancies that need to be filled and on she goes. This is resulting a bureaucracy that is therefore doing more and more with no oversight that can either end up good or very very bad.
In the end that is forcing each state to do more and more on its own without Washington guidance. This is never good because you end up with a very uneven playing field. The end result will be a world that continues as it has but without the US involvement, and a US whose powers at the WH will be greatly diminished and federal level powers also greatly diminished because it will still be locked up beyond Jan 2021, which means over 10 years of getting nothing much done.
A very interesting read that will either make you laugh or cry depending on how it hits you at the time. This shows Trump on twitter really is Trump in life. The title I think really is very disparaging of Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. World leaders were learning and figuring out how to deal with Trump well before Trump officially won the GOP leadership. Trump was a very well known commodity even in the '70's and the rest of the world was banking on the fact he would not change. The only issue would be how much room would Trump give the world to do its own thing. The answer is very much in. Show him baubles, some papers to sign that really mean nothing and he is very happy and will leave you to do whatever you want because he does not care except that he saw the baubles and signed some papers.

The politics / Re: Russiagate
« on: July 01, 2017, 04:16:01 PM »
For perhaps the dozenth time, allow me to explain: our problem isn't so much with Russia meddling in our elections. That's reprehensible, and we need to work against it, but that's not what all the investigations are about. No, our problem is Americans working with Russia to subvert our democratic processes for the mutual benefit of both parties. That's not just reprehensible; that's treason. And that simply can't be tolerated.
I agree. You have the Nixon/Watergate problem. The break in was bad, but could have been easily contained if admitted to. Foreign election interference has been going on since the invention of elections. The problems are: encouraging it, assisting it, then compounding it by lying about it then using your power to prevent discovery. Trump is doing all that plus using his base to then discredit those who are trying to get at the truth.
We have a compounding problem in that we are in the instant era. Remember, there have been big problems in the past that took sometimes decades to overcome. Even Watergate took almost two years before Nixon fled the WH. In Trumps case, I could easily see him running for a second term unless the electorate gives a solid message in 2018 which I do not see coming.
In fact I could see Russiagate being one of those things that historians will give the final verdict and not the judicial system.

"I get the impression that this is how a very large part of the population thinks and this depresses me somewhat, because I'd like to see all that fervour and energy directed towards systemic solutions, not just solving something that gets us in a frenzy."
“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried” – Winston Churchill

The rest / Happy 150th Birthday Canada
« on: July 01, 2017, 10:42:31 AM »
Just to tell you how confusing it is to be a Canadian.
1) Yes indeed we became a nation on July 1, 1867. British Parliament reserved right of controlling legislation until 1931 and had ultimate control over any constitutional changes until 1982. Canadians were satisfied with that as we have Quebec who likes to march to its own drum and still has not officially signed on to the Canadian constitution and Bill of Rights.
2) Until WWI Canadian military had to be lead by British officers. That ended after the disgrace of Solesmes and Passchendaele where brilliant orders such as slow marches against known German machine gun emplacements were given. Explains some of the high death tolls. Canadians told British at that point if we are to die, it will be from our own generals orders or we will leave the fighting to you. Britain capitulated and Canada got control of its army.
3) Over 90% of Canadians live within 200 miles of the longest militarily undefended border in the world.
4) We no longer have a 1 cent denomination. All cash transactions are rounded to nearest 5 cents.
Googling about Canada and have found that you have to be very careful about what is and is not true about Canada. Almost every site that claims facts has got something wrong and usually it comes down to the fact as one history teacher told me. Canada is about the only nation in the world that broke every rule as to what creates a nation a nation. I guess the main unifying forces were the Hudson Bay Company which at one time or another own all natural resources in Canada and the right to envy Americans but not be Americans.
PS Our greatest sport is not Hockey it is belittling and trivializing any Canadian or Canadian achievement.

Arctic sea ice / Re: How soon could we go ice free?
« on: May 31, 2017, 04:28:20 AM »
I very interesting read on climate change. Loss, Mourning, and Climate Change
“I sat on the makeshift step of what would be my refurbished porch and envisioned a yard with wildflowers. Anxious for some permanency, I guess I needed to be reminded how temporal permanency is.”

Extreme changes in weather and climate can augur great loss, because loss itself is socially and culturally constructed, and that loss can include both human and non-human life. The act of mourning these losses publicly is at once a responsibility that we have to engage with the bereaved and an effort to reconstruct meaning around it afterward. At the core, mourning is a recognition of impermanence and mortality – of the forms of life around us and of our own.
I think our biggest problem will not be the loss of the ice, I do not mean to minimize what that loss will mean to our environment. Our biggest problem will be that we will need to change how we do things and trying to use the BAU approach will only result in failure.

As for answering the main question, it is up to weather and that is the biggest known unknown.

I can't predict when we'll see peak global CO2.  What we do know is that Europe hit peak CO2 around 1991.  The US hit peak CO2 in 2005.  China appears to have hit peak CO2.

Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel use might be peaking.  But it will take a few more years to see if that holds up.
I am not a scientist, but those statements cause me confusion. You say EU peaked CO2 emissions in 1991. This gives the impression that the EU is no longer contributing to a rise in CO2.
In my mind I see a clean lake then someone starts pumping in dirty water. Now just because the polluter no longer is increasing the amount of polluting water, just keeps on adding the same amount of pollution at the same level, does not mean that pollution levels in the lake will then level off. The levels will increase until you reach stabilisation.
Globally we may reach a point in the near future of not increasing output of CO2, but there is no way we are even close to a point of stabilisation as far as atmospheric CO2 levels are concerned. Then you have to consider all those natural feedbacks that are only now starting to get going and that will add even more to CO2 levels. Sorry but I can not see CO2 levels flattening out any time in the the foreseeable future until we reach zero CO2 emissions and can find a way to neutralise the feedbacks. But even then it will only drop very very slowly. 

I have just been catching up with this forum. Someone mentioned that anyone putting a vote for 2090+ is a denialist. I am anything but. In fact I see predominately  ice free conditions by September starting no later then 2030 and would not be surprised to see it before 2020. The point I made and I bbelieve there are others who voted for 2090+ see the same thing, is if the weather hit perfectly, you could end up with ice extent over 1M km2 in any single year. To deny that possibility means you are looking at Arctic temps by mid summer getting no lower then 5C in any particular year, which even the most extreme forecasts do not call for.

In the absence of geoengineering activities, when do you think the Arctic will experience its LAST year with a Sept minimum sea ice extent ABOVE 1 million square km? 

This is looking at human lifetime scales, not century or epoch scales so no, it won't be the absolute last unless the sun explodes.  Just global warming impacts, not nuclear winter etc.
Unless my english is really off the wording specifies LAST time ABOVE. That is NOT the same as the FIRST time ABOVE. That means to me all you need as one cold summer and you can have ice hanging around all summer. Maybe not much above 1M km2 but still above.
Therefore based on that interpretation I do see a chance of having a cold enough summer to have ice lasting all summer long.
 As for the exponential vs Gompertz argument.  Gompertz has a big problem because it only works if the melt is only as a result of sun influence. The real results are that as the  thins the it becomes much easier for the wind and waves attack and move around the thick ice. That means it will then get broken up and moved out of the Arctic. Bye bye Gompertz chart. As for exponential. It all depends on how steep you make that curve. To get below 1M you need not only high enough temperatures, but favourable wind and wave action for that first ice free summer. We are close enough to 2020 with still enough ice that we still may see ice after 2020, but based on condition of the ice right now, all it will take is a 2007 or 2012 summer and it will be all gone.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 09, 2017, 02:51:40 PM »
I'm not talking about blaming anyone, and climate risk deniers will do as they always will, but I was just wondering if they might get some traction with this. The Lord knows they need some Arctic propaganda to stall the inevitable.
Any time when scientists start talking about probabilities, even among those at odds among their peer group, unless you are deadly accurate in your predictions, you are leaving yourself open to ridicule. A case in point was Einstein's theory of General Relativity.   The only way it could then be tested was to get a precise measurement of deflection of light  from a star around the sun. Took years to get that measurement for proof and finally got the proof he needed.
As for measurements today? you are relying on satellite data that is still primarily 2d and getting data only during a passover, unlike what you can get on geostationary equatorial stations. As satelittes improve and get better data then can update old data basing it on old data you will get changes. Problem is that unless you can and care to understand the math involved, you will never truely believe that the science is good.

The rest / Re: How to secure internet ?
« on: April 06, 2017, 01:32:29 PM »
If I may.
It is a very important thing to protect your data from those who could use it for criminal purposes.  As for data mining, that is a different story. One there is such a thing is that having too much data can actually backfire. Case in point. Saw a story which talked about the fact the NSA has so much data, it actually can do little to find activities before they happen, but can find the trail after it had already occurred. As for targeted sales, that is old as statistics. Can not remember if it was a course I took or a documentary, but spoke of the fact door to door sales people, and ad companies could figure out the profile of people almost down to the house, just by using the available statistics that governments collect every single year, with uncanny accuracy. So ISPs selling your activities and you getting targeted accordingly is more accurate now, but basically the same as before internet era.
As someone who I talked to about this pointed out, obscuring yourself too much can have the reverse effect of making you a much more interesting person to target. As most police would tell you, the best way to be a good criminal is not to hide yourself or run, but act like everyone else around you.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 09:46:31 PM »
I don't think thickness and volume are hugely worse of than the last few years according to this below. However, all these measures are within a margin of error, and not precise, that's why I like the big thick line on this one. More realistic assessment.
The Arctic Penguin (PIOMAS) doesn't agree with DMI (at least as to the relation of 2016 ice volume to other years).

In either case one factor is missed. As we have been seen throughout the freezing, a lot of MYI thick ice has been sent through the Fram. That means no matter how thick what ice is left is young ice. That means high saline/contaminated content in that ice because it takes a few ice to 'purify' it. that means if there turns out to be a big melt off this melting season, it can not last much longer then any other of the ice that is around.
Granted that is a predicated on weather conditions in that particular region.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 30, 2017, 02:08:08 AM »
When it comes to these temperature anomalies... which I've been watching since at least November... I really have to wonder how much they matter this time of year (over ice, in particular).

If there's a patch of the arctic where normally it is -40 C/F, but instead due to huge anomalies it is -10 C, so what? It doesn't melt, melt ponds don't happen... I feel like the thermodynamics don't change...  until it gets above freezing.

Do we expect anything to come of these high anomalies, where temperatures still stay below freezing?

More Energy = Less Ice
A simple mind example. Take 2 freezers and 2 cows. Set one freezer at -10 and one at -40. Put one cow (both same size and weight) in each freezer. The cow in the freezer set at -10 will take much longer to freeze and even when it is totally frozen, a much shorter time to thaw then the one set at -40.
Now the Arctic is a much more complex system then a freezer because you have a lot of kinetic energy involved also, but I do think that does help get the point across that you can be frozen and then you can be really frozen.

The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: March 29, 2017, 10:04:40 PM »
Late-night TV roasts Trump on climate: he 'surrendered Florida to the ocean'

Seth Myers take on Trump:
During a press conference. Sean Spicer’s response to a question about Russia was to blame the press for making links that aren’t there. He claimed that if Trump used Russian dressing on a salad, people would see it as a connection. “The most suspicious thing about that scenario is the idea that Trump would eat a salad,” he said.
Edit: Took a few tries and googling before I found the change https to http advice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 20, 2017, 08:13:46 PM »
One note of caution. Even if the melt season turns out that there is not a great melt off and therefore a conclusion could be reached that the melt season was too cold or not right for melting, the ice is still in very bad shape. On top of that the winter months are getting so much warmer and stormier that what ice hangs around and actually grows is not in very good condition. In conclusion, the Arctic ice that is there is on life support and unless we humans get our act together, the rest of the earths systems are going to change so much that the normal will not be as it was even 20 years ago.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (March)
« on: March 07, 2017, 05:26:31 PM »
I do not know if the models take it into consideration, but not all ice is equal. The formula for energy needed to melt 1980 ice must be different then that needed for melting 2017 ice. Also impact of waves between 1980 and 2017 is most definitely different. In 1980 waves were hard pressed to get that far into that ice, now a wave can almost travel from one side of the Arctic to the other no matter what ice it faces. On top of that todays ice is far dirtier.
Therefore models can no longer just put sunlight in the equation, they must also put kinetic energy into the frame along with changes in the water column. That is water currents are far warmer and are having a bigger impact, plus all those storms are not only bringing warm water to the surface but adding a huge amount of kinetic energy to the mix that may put more energy into an area what the sun could do in the same amount of time. Granted those storms can go either way in the equation balance sheet.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 06, 2017, 05:16:39 AM »
Another way we are isolating ourselves. Depending upon computer technology for everything. See what happens at work when there is no power. Also in this day and age of economic efficiency and just in time deliveries, true redundancy is a fiction and as we can see by brown outs and blackouts even in the richest countries electric power is always a step away from collapse and therefore no computers. Another influencing natural factor that could rapidly change current direction of isolation can be found here.
"If the eruption had occurred only one week earlier, Earth would have been in the line of fire.] [url][/url]
The odds of a hit?
"In my view the July 2012 storm was in all respects at least as strong as the 1859 Carrington event," says Baker. "The only difference is, it missed."

In February 2014, physicist Pete Riley of Predictive Science Inc. published a paper in Space Weather entitled "On the probability of occurrence of extreme space weather events."  In it, he analyzed records of solar storms going back 50+ years.  By extrapolating the frequency of ordinary storms to the extreme, he calculated the odds that a Carrington-class storm would hit Earth in the next ten years.

The answer: 12%.
In a 2013 report, Lloyd's of London, the insurance market, put the population at risk of a massive storm at "between 20-40 million with durations up to 1-2 years," depending "largely on the availability of spare replacement transformers." The cost of such a recovery would range between $600 billion and $2.6 trillion.

Read more at:
Recovery time from a business view point?
During the Carrington event, people saw auroras as far south as Cuba. The storm also knocked out telegraph systems in much of the Northern Hemisphere. But "knocked out" doesn't quite cover it, as this anecdote from NASA makes clear:

Spark discharges shocked telegraph operators and set the telegraph paper on fire. Even when telegraphers disconnected the batteries powering the lines, aurora-induced electric currents in the wires still allowed messages to be transmitted.

And this was before we relied on an expansive electrical grid, radio waves, satellites, computers, and other systems that are highly susceptible to solar storms.

Today a Carrington event-like storm would be more devastating than at any other point in history. In fact, a powerful event may cause $2 trillion in damage just in the first year, according to the US government, and take 4 to 10 years for the planet to recover.
My edit: Knock outed the power in Quebec for millions for

Another acrticle:
The Canadian province of Quebec's electrical grid wasn't able to handle the load and went entirely offline. For 12 hours, in the freezing Quebec winter, almost the entire province was without power. I'm telling you, that place gets cold, so this was really bad timing.
Follow your imagination back to Thursday, September 1st, 1859. This was squarely in the middle of the Victorian age.

And not the awesome, fictional Steampunk Victorian age where spectacled gentleman and ladies of adventure plied the skies in their steam-powered brass dirigibles.

No, it was the regular crappy Victorian age of cholera and child labor. Technology was making huge leaps and bounds, however, and the first telegraph lines and electrical grids were getting laid down.

Imagine a really primitive version of today's electrical grid and internet.
I believe it could be even longer as dependence on the electron is so prevalent you have a chicken and egg problem. Cannot do one without the other. Only a 12% chance, but then in 1980 the Arctic was not supposed to able to melt out until 2100's.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 17, 2017, 12:54:34 PM »
An interesting article.
Trump and World Order


A future in which other countries hedge as the United States abandons its decades-long leadership is not preordained. Whether it comes to pass will depend on the choices Trump makes as president. If he pivots away from his campaign pledges—in response to the advice of senior advisers, pressure from Congress, or pleas from foreign leaders—his administration could revert to a more standard U.S. grand strategy. But if he makes life riskier for longtime partners—by weakening U.S. alliance commitments, adopting protectionist economic policies, and shirking obligations to combat global warming—U.S. allies and partners will seek to advance their national security, prosperity, and well-being through increased autonomy. In that case, the Trump administration will find that its attempts to expand the United States’ freedom of action and keep others guessing will be met in kind, to the benefit of U.S. rivals and to the detriment of U.S. economic interests and the health of the planet.

That would be an ironic outcome. A leitmotif of Trump’s presidential campaign was the need to reduce Americans’ vulnerability to international threats and unfair economic competition. And yet the steps Trump has endorsed risk driving away U.S. allies and partners, exposing Americans to global instability and economic retaliation, and accelerating the demise of the world the United States made.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: February 15, 2017, 03:21:33 PM »
This is a colection of articles trying to get an idea of who Trump as leader is.
Trump’s leadership style likely will have negative effects, UB expert says
“An authoritarian command-and-control style is highly directive and even dictatorial. It occurs when someone is trying to change a huge system in rapid motion and there is no room for debate, dissent or conflicting ideas,” he explains. “Not only are poor decisions made in that kind of a world, but people think, ‘why should I be loyal to this agency anymore when I am not valued or appreciated, and my opinions are not respected.’ This leadership style creates a toxic climate.”
Don’t expect Trump to settle down anytime soon – chaos is the President’s preferred management style
But prior predictions that Trump will calm down or normalise have generally been proven wrong. Trump seems comfortable in chaos; like his oft-stated idea that unpredictability is a virtue in negotiations (and, by extension, in foreign policy) is connected to a general comfort with a constant level of disruption. The federal bureaucracy, by contrast, is designed to tolerate the disruption of a presidential transition, but not governance by constant crisis. Ultimately, one must accommodate the other – but at this stage, there is little indication of how that might happen.
Case Study in Chaos: How Management Experts Grade a Trump White House
The unanimous verdict: Thus far, the Trump administration is a textbook case of how not to run a complex organization like the executive branch.
“This is so basic, it’s covered in the introduction to the M.B.A. program that all our students take,” said Lindred Greer, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. By all outward indications, Mr. Trump “desperately needs to take the course,” she said.
Trump’s leadership style: Bravado and branding
Donald Trump’s leadership style was built on his father’s success in the roughand-tumble world of developing apartments in New York’s outer boroughs, and refined under the tutelage of Roy Cohn, the Manhattan lawyer who taught Trump that all publicity is good publicity and that victory comes only to those who hit back a hundred times harder.
Building such uncertainty and unpredictability into his leadership and decision-making allows Trump to float possibilities, test ideas and remain antagonistic to the powers that be — all before he puts a decision into play. Add his infamous lack of impulse control — his predawn tweets, his thinskinned reaction to criticism, his insulting comments about people he’s already defeated — and a short attention span — he said he has no patience for reading reports or briefings — and the result is something not quite like any previous occupant of the White House.
A Staff Shake-Up Won’t Save Trump’s Flailing Presidency
Trump can fire, or force to resign, almost anyone in the administration save Pence. But doing so isn’t likely to suddenly turn things around in the White House. Trump will seek new supplicants as replacements, and they, too, will fall out of favor with him—for reasons they may or may not understand. It is well-documented that Trump is a rude, mercurial, vengeful boss who is, oxymoronically, an inattentive micromanager. He is arrogant enough to believe he knows everything, and thus his staffers are expendable minions, but he’s too ignorant to govern well. The only effective staff shake-up would be one aimed at the very top. That, in the end, is the real problem with this White House: Trump can’t fire himself.
IMO what you see is what you will get. Trump has done things Trumps way all his life and from his veiw been very successful at it.It is very doubtful that he will make any changes no matter how bad things may become, because in his mind it is always someone else's fault.
In regards to scientists and the environment, He cares very little for it, because it is not his brand. So the next four years at the best will be just a stalemate with things gradually getting worse, or a plummet to disaster.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 13, 2017, 08:38:07 PM »
I feel a very good write up of what has happened in the last week or so

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9