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 - aperson

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: July 13, 2020, 09:28:49 AM »
If we put as much effort in greening the economy and creating healthier societies as we put in fighting COVID, the payoffs would be much bigger. So why don't we do it? Why do we focus solely on COVID?

Because the media is running a full-on propaganda operation, without any context or perspective, and that's enough to make people think there is nothing else in the world but this. Social media has compounded the problem. It's the latest chapter in Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.

Today it's COVID-19, tomorrow it will be some other hyped-up crisis that allows for a rapid advancement of bad stuff, enforced by the people itself. That's why I have hardly any hope left for humanity.

But the Austrian TV news yesterday, after its regular daily dose of Twenty Minutes Corona, had a segment on the Arctic. That was awesome.

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that shock doctrine / disaster capitalism style crisis profiteering requires that the disasters are manufactured. This is not the case, they are glad to profit off of actual disasters as well, as is the case with COVID-19.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 30, 2020, 09:24:07 AM »
I feel like this is the Arctic equivalent of posting a cat 5 hurricane into Florida on a tropical weather forum. We have consensus on a strong high pressure dome building in place by D3. The Euro continues to just amplify it into D5 and beyond.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 26, 2020, 02:05:45 AM »
The areas that lost their snow cover from the high pressure dome haven't had any time to collect any new snow cover. Even if the ice refroze/drained after melt-ponding, we're talking about about an albedo of ~0.6 compared to the ~0.9 provided by snow cover. Those temperature charts look like melting momentum in action; insolation will get to work immediately.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 24, 2020, 11:05:59 PM »
wild speculation as to the cause: an algal bloom

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 23, 2020, 01:21:47 AM »
To throw some science onto the pile, here is a preprint meta-analysis of IFR estimates:

A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates

The meta-analysis demonstrated a point-estimate of IFR of 0.75% (0.49-1.01%) with high heterogeneity (p<0.001).


Within distinct study types, there was a difference in the point-estimates for IFR. Published research had  a  much  lower  point-estimate  (modelling:  0.57%,  0.22-0.69%,  observational:  0.46%,  0.14-0.90%) than  pre-prints  (1.06%,  0.81-1.3%),  although  the  lowest  heterogeneity  was  seen  in  the  pre-print research.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 23, 2020, 12:50:22 AM »
What you are doing is simply unscientific. It's just maths.


Does the whole population get the disease, or do some people simply not get it, without their immune system being triggered?

I don't think you understand what the "Infection Fatality Rate" is. If you don't get the disease, you contribute to neither the numerator nor the denominator of the IFR.

All of this aimless conjecture to increase the bounds of uncertainty reeks of the same climate skeptic tactics that get so tiresome to encounter.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: May 23, 2020, 12:07:12 AM »
As of May 22nd, New York City has posted the following COVID-19 attributed deaths (from

18333 confirmed deaths
4753 probable deaths

The 2019 Census estimate for New York City's population is (from,bronxcountybronxboroughnewyork,kingscountybrooklynboroughnewyork,newyorkcountymanhattanboroughnewyork,queenscountyqueensboroughnewyork,richmondcountystatenislandboroughnewyork/PST045219):


If we assumed that everyone in NYC had been infected and there is no undercounting, this gives an IFR of:

Confirmed Only: 18333 / 8336817 = 0.22%
Confirmed + Probable: (18333 + 4753) / 8336817 = 0.27%

That is the absolute floor for what the IFR could be. Claiming that the IFR is 0.2% or below is complete rubbish when we already have observations demonstrating that it is higher.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: May 20, 2020, 06:41:42 AM »
Dam Inundation map: (attached)

A Dow Chemical plant is in the inundation zone:
"The plant is within the inundation zone, at least in part. No waste ponds that I see there. But the cogeneration plant has brine ponds labeled on Google Earth. They will also flood."

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 13, 2020, 07:20:31 AM »
Environment Canada's 2020-05-12 18z Analysis put the high at 1043mb and the low at 958mb. An 85mb gradient, impressive!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 12, 2020, 07:11:05 AM »
I agree with friv, and think one additional ingredient here is the amount of ice that will be sent down the death zone past Svalbard and out the Fram strait. We're looking at 4+ days of strong surface winds exporting ice. Just look at how packed the isobars are on this output and how well they are positioned to export ice.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 07:06:04 PM »

The Extraordinary Decisions Facing Italian Doctors

There are now simply too many patients for each one of them to receive adequate care.

The principle they settle upon is utilitarian. “Informed by the principle of maximizing benefits for the largest number,” they suggest that “the allocation criteria need to guarantee that those patients with the highest chance of therapeutic success will retain access to intensive care.”

The authors, who are medical doctors, then deduce a set of concrete recommendations for how to manage these impossible choices, including this: “It may become necessary to establish an age limit for access to intensive care.”

Those who are too old to have a high likelihood of recovery, or who have too low a number of “life-years” left even if they should survive, will be left to die. This sounds cruel, but the alternative, the document argues, is no better. “In case of a total saturation of resources, maintaining the criterion of ‘first come, first served’ would amount to a decision to exclude late-arriving patients from access to intensive care.”

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 06:48:44 PM »
Here are some threads describing the situation in Italy. Twitter has been an excellent source for getting boots-on-the-ground insight into these sort of situations: (March 9th)

"1/ I may be repeating myself, but I want to fight this sense of security that I see outside of the epicenters, as if nothing was going to happen "here". The media in Europe are reassuring, politicians are reassuring, while there's little to be reassured of.

2/ This is the English translation of a post of another ICU physician in Bergamo, Dr. Daniele Macchini. Read until the end "After much thought about whether and what to write about what is happening to us, I felt that silence was not responsible.

3/ I will therefore try to convey to people far from our reality what we are living in Bergamo in these days of Covid-19 pandemic. I understand the need not to create panic, but when the message of the dangerousness of what is happening does not reach people I shudder.

4/ I myself watched with some amazement the reorganization of the entire hospital in the past week, when our current enemy was still in the shadows: the wards slowly "emptied", elective activitieswere interrupted, intensive care were freed up to create as many beds as possible.

5/ All this rapid transformation brought an atmosphere of silence and surreal emptiness to the corridors of the hospital that we did not yet understand, waiting for a war that was yet to begin and that many (including me) were not so sure would ever come with such ferocity.

6/ I still remember my night call a week ago when I was waiting for the results of a swab. When I think about it, my anxiety over one possible case seems almost ridiculous and unjustified, now that I've seen what's happening. Well, the situation now is dramatic to say the least.

7/ The war has literally exploded and battles are uninterrupted day and night. But now that need for beds has arrived in all its drama. One after the other the departments that had been emptied fill up at an impressive pace.

8/ The boards with the names of the patients, of different colours depending on the operating unit, are now all red and instead of surgery you see the diagnosis, which is always the damned same: bilateral interstitial pneumonia.

9/ Now, explain to me which flu virus causes such a rapid drama. [post continues comparing covid19 to flu, link below]. And while there are still people who boast of not being afraid by ignoring directions, protesting because their normal routine is"temporarily" put in crisis,

10/ the epidemiological disaster is taking place. And there are no more surgeons, urologists, orthopedists, we are only doctors who suddenly become part of a single team to face this tsunami that has overwhelmed us.

11/ Cases are multiplying, we arrive at a rate of 15-20 admissions per day all for the same reason. The results of the swabs now come one after the other: positive, positive, positive. Suddenly the E.R. is collapsing.

12/ Reasons for the access always the same: fever and breathing difficulties, fever and cough, respiratory failure. Radiology reports always the same: bilateral interstitial pneumonia, bilateral interstitial pneumonia, bilateral interstitial pneumonia. All to be hospitalized.

13/ Someone already to be intubated and go to intensive care. For others it's too late... Every ventilator becomes like gold: those in operating theatres that have now suspended their non-urgent activity become intensive care places that did not exist before.

14/ The staff is exhausted. I saw the tiredness on faces that didn't know what it was despite the already exhausting workloads they had. I saw a solidarity of all of us, who never failed to go to our internist colleagues to ask "what can I do for you now?"

15/ Doctors who move beds and transfer patients, who administer therapies instead of nurses. Nurses with tears in their eyes because we can't save everyone, and the vital parameters of several patients at the same time reveal an already marked destiny.

16/ There are no more shifts, no more hours. Social life is suspended for us. We no longer see our families for fear of infecting them. Some of us have already become infected despite the protocols.

17/ Some of our colleagues who are infected also have infected relatives and some of their relatives are already struggling between life and death. So be patient, you can't go to the theatre, museums or the gym. Try to have pity on the myriad of old people you could exterminate.

18/ We just try to make ourselves useful. You should do the same: we influence the life and death of a few dozen people. You with yours, many more. Please share this message. We must spread the word to prevent what is happening here from happening all over Italy."

20/ I finish by saying that I really don't understand this war on panic. The only reason I see is mask shortages, but there's no mask on sale anymore. We don't have a lot of studies, but is it panic really worse than neglect and carelessness during an epidemic of this sort?" (March 9th)

"1/ ‘I feel the pressure to give you a quick personal update about what is happening in Italy, and also give some quick direct advice about what you should do.

2/ First, Lumbardy is the most developed region in Italy and it has a extraordinary good healthcare, I have worked in Italy, UK and Aus and don’t make the mistake to think that what is happening is happening in a 3rd world country.

3/ The current situation is difficult to imagine and numbers do not explain things at all. Our hospitals are overwhelmed by Covid-19, they are running 200% capacity

4/ We’ve stopped all routine, all ORs have been converted to ITUs and they are now diverting or not treating all other emergencies like trauma or strokes. There are hundreds of pts with severe resp failure and many of them do not have access to anything above a reservoir mask.

5/ Patients above 65 or younger with comorbidities are not even assessed by ITU, I am not saying not tubed, I’m saying not assessed and no ITU staff attends when they arrest. Staff are working as much as they can but they are starting to get sick and are emotionally overwhelmed.

6/ My friends call me in tears because they see people dying in front of them and they con only offer some oxygen. Ortho and pathologists are being given a leaflet and sent to see patients on NIV. PLEASE STOP, READ THIS AGAIN AND THINK.

7/ We have seen the same pattern in different areas a week apart, and there is no reason that in a few weeks it won’t be the same everywhere, this is the pattern:

8/ 1)A few positive cases, first mild measures, people are told to avoid ED but still hang out in groups, everyone says not to panick
2)Some moderate resp failures and a few severe ones that need tube, but regular access to ED is significantly reduced so everything looks great

9/ 3)Tons of patients with moderate resp failure, that overtime deteriorate to saturate ICUs first, then NIVs, then CPAP hoods, then even O2.
4)Staff gets sick so it gets difficult to cover for shifts, mortality spikes also from all other causes that can’t be treated properly.

10/ Everything about how to treat them is online but the only things that will make a difference are: do not be afraid of massively strict measures to keep people safe,

11/ if governments won’t do this at least keep your family safe, your loved ones with history of cancer or diabetes or any transplant will not be tubed if they need it even if they are young. By safe I mean YOU do not attend them and YOU decide who does and YOU teach them how to.

12/ Another typical attitude is read and listen to people saying things like this and think “that’s bad dude” and then go out for dinner because you think you’ll be safe.

13/ We have seen it, you won’t be if you don’t take it seriously. I really hope it won’t be as bad as here but prepare."

And if you need a further visceral experience:

Woman in Italy is stuck with the body of her husband who died from coronavirus

"An Italian woman has been unable to leave her apartment where her husband’s dead body is being kept due to quarantine restrictions, Giancarlo Canepa, mayor of Borghetto Santo Spirito, told CNN Tuesday.

The husband, who had tested positive for coronavirus previously, died Monday at 2 a.m. local time.

“Yes, it is true she is still there with the body and we won’t be able to remove it until Wednesday morning,“ the mayor said. Canepa said quarantine protocol states that no one is allowed to approach the body."

Anyway, El Cid, if you think China is lying about its numbers and there is adequate ER space in Italy, you are delusional.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2020, 09:04:21 AM »
1. Cherry picking oh yes. Western Europe ex Italy has 7.5 k cases and 80 dead, completely in line with China ex Hubei (cca 1% CFR). Guess why there is such a big difference with Italy (10k cases 600 dead). My guess is Italy has 50k cases actually.

Italy's healthcare system is overwhelmed therefore the CFR climbs. You can't just extrapolate the total case number on a wild guess.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 01, 2020, 05:57:48 AM »
Again - the fallacy you are using is called Appeal to Authority.

Even at best if 50% of the population is not involved (an R/R0 ratio of 0.5) then the observed CFR of 3.5 - 6.5% puts the aggregate CFR at 2.5% NOT 1%.

And again - wanting the fatality rate to be less is lovely as a human wish. But it doesn't change the reality (what ever that is). Acting as if it is lower lacking firm evidence to support that leads directly and inexorably to horrible decision making that kills people. Killing people is a really bad thing. Don't kill people.


What do you call the logical fallacy when you claim that scientists are wrong because claiming that they are right is an "appeal to authority" rather than refuting their underlying methodology?

In actual news:

"The team at the @seattleflustudy have sequenced the genome the #COVID19 community case reported yesterday from Snohomish County, WA, and have posted the sequence publicly to There are some enormous implications here.

This case, WA2, is on a branch in the evolutionary tree that descends directly from WA1, the first reported case in the USA sampled Jan 19, also from Snohomish County.

This strongly suggests that there has been cryptic transmission in Washington State for the past 6 weeks.

It's possible that this genetic similarity is a coincidence and these are separate introductions. However, I believe this is highly unlikely. The WA1 case had a variant at site 18060. This variant is only present in 2/59 viruses from China.

I'd assess the p-value for this coincidence at 2/59=0.03 and so is statistically significant. Additionally, these two cases are geographically proximal, both residing in Snohomish County.

I believe we're facing an already substantial outbreak in Washington State that was not detected until now due to narrow case definition requiring direct travel to China."

"An update, because I see people overly speculating on total outbreak size. Our best current expectation is a few hundred current infections. Expect more analyses tomorrow."

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 01, 2020, 05:13:11 AM »
They are quite simply - wrong. The data is clear. The ~1% rate is based on a series of entirely unproven assumptions. Absent actual evidence regarding those who do not report to hospital - about whether they have been infected or not, and what their outcomes are - the assumption that these exist and do not get sick is pure illusion. It is UNSAFE to assume such is the case, and it amounts to little more than wishful thinking. Wishful thing can and does get real people killed.


Calling epidemiologists "quite simply wrong" is the kind of shit climate science deniers do. Do better. We do have evidence regarding those that do not report to the hospital because we have closed environments like the Diamond Princess Cruise. Or, as an epidemiologist put it: "Not disputing urgent need for serosurveys. But several indicators: cruise ship, Singapore, modelling, phylodynamics all point to proportion of unreported cases around ~50%, so fatality rate ~1%. Serosurveys may give surprising result; but I wouldn’t bank on it."

My naive impression is that we're seeing the beginning of an equable climate forming in the night time tropospheric polar vortex. In general, the shapes sark is showing look like patterns composed of spherical harmonics that are moving from a lower energy state to a higher state. These higher energy states seem to be stable as they increase meridional heat transport and form stable blocking patterns. In essence, once you break out of the lowest level harmonic (a single large tropospheric vortex), you get self reinforcing patterns that let air in and out of the Arctic (configurations with 4, 6, 8, etc... quasi-symmetric nodes).

Of course, this is all conjecture from me as well since I'm not a researcher in this field. But these patterns have jumped out to me as a casual weather watcher as well.

Edit: Maybe Chladni plates provide another example of what these cross-sections look like as they move from lower to higher energy states (in this case, lower hz to higher hz):

Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 01, 2019, 09:30:57 PM »
I can see quite clearly that it is not a cause of anxiety and unease.  Sorry, but the climate situation is not the cause of every ill on this planet.

I imagine it's pretty easy to see that when your entire posting career is one Type II error after another.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:39:33 AM »
On the bright side we've now triple-validated our work :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 16, 2019, 05:35:06 AM »
September 15th, 2019:
     4,006,036 km2, a drop of 19,682 km2.
     2019 is now 2nd lowest on record.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:15:41 AM »
It's not a denialist mistake to be wrong. Everybody is wrong sometimes with their predictions. It's just a mistake. What do we call people who voted for BOE option THIS YEAR, during this melting season. Or do you think that was more realistic than weatherdude's prediction. They were just wronglike him. That is it. No conspiracies or hidden meanings behind every false prediction. Some are more realistic, some are less.

Hi colchonero, I agree with you. Regardless, I don't think you understand the context for this specific poster. They post denialist rhetoric on other forums like americanwx and then disappear whenever SIE or SIA goes back to low values. They seem to have registered here to do the same.

I agree with making falsifiable predictions and verifying them, in fact I have one coming up in just a few days that may bust that I will be posting about! It is not his prediction I have a problem with, it is his hubris: "Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent."

And note that this is not the first time this specific user has done this on this forum or elsewhere. Without this surrounding context I would have not been so judgmental.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 11:07:43 PM »
He is a denier troll and it was not a risk, it was a lie designed to further obfuscate and derail the discourse on this forum.

Yep, this isn't the only forum he does this garbage on. Unfortunately he made the denialist mistake of making a falsifiable prediction.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 15, 2019, 08:12:25 PM »
Hi weatherdude88,

I can't wait to hear your verification summary from this July prediction:

Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent. We may not end up in the top 5 in a sea ice area metric (looking at UH AMSR2 and NSIDC daily data and extrapolating).

The regions that will matter at the end of the 2019 melt season are the Central Arctic Basin, East Siberian sea, Beautfort sea, Greenland sea, and Canadian Archipelago.

For the most part, we are lagging the highest melt years in these regions (There are 5 years that lead 2019 in all these areas combined).

There is too much high latitude ice in the critical regions. All the subjective interpretation of data will not translate to reality, no matter how many members reiterate it.

By the end of the first week of August, it will become evident that 2019 will be ordinary, as it relates to sea ice minimums over the last decade.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 10, 2019, 10:31:37 AM »
I think some of you are confusing liberal denial with "left-wing denial".

This is an excellent and important distinction to clarify. The liberals want to maintain the status quo just as much as the denialists, they just have different tactics. It is important we don't use tactics that can be coopted by them when advocating environmental justice.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 08, 2019, 01:55:17 AM »
You don't think November can be +7C in the entire Arctic?  sheesh, tough crowd

Heh, that CFS chart to me looks like a standard, modern November. Looks like a lack of Bering Sea ice, a relentless -EPO run, and sustained warm air advection toward the pole in the Pacific.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 10:00:35 PM »
Would it really be so bad if the trust of the "general public" in the NWS was reduced? In those susceptible to "trust reduction" I would argue that most already do not believe in climate change and are generally egregiously stupid. If they get sucked into a tornado or blown away by a hurricane, what's the loss? I would say it is actually a gain in terms of reducing emissions, ironically the roundabout way of doing this is also the most effective.  :)

You're a bit too high on your own supply of irony here friend. Put it down before you start believing other foolish things like an imminent reglaciation.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:31:56 PM »
Do you think Dorian's name will be retired?

It is an absolute certainty.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 08:31:26 PM »
I do think this is more than a little overblown.
But I won't get drawn into a debate.
It was stupid. It didn't bring the NOAA to a halt.

I think it's a serious problem because it erodes the public's trust in impact forecasting. Can you imagine how much of a nightmare emergency management & response would be if the populace was as distrusting of the NWS as they were of climate scientists?

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 03:50:08 AM »
Seriously?  Does anyone actually believe that his misstatements hindered efforts in any way?  Please stop posting such nonsense.

Dr. Maue, is that you?

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 06, 2019, 08:55:19 PM »
3 days ago I said to a friend in Halifx that within 10 years they will face a fully fledged =>cat1 hurricane overhead, that was perhaps a bit optimistic :-(

The Canadian Maritimes are hit by hurricanes regularly, but not frequently. Hurricane Juan in 2003 (973mb / 85kt) is a good example of one that caused significant damage in Halifax. So impacts happening altogether is well within climatology, though I would expect frequency to increase as systems stay tropical longer before they fully go extratropical and the poleward migration of tropical cyclones results in more hits up there.

That being said. I do not think the maritimes have ever seen a major (cat 3+) hurricane landfall.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 06:26:28 PM »
And on Sunday / Monday Nova Scotia / Newfoundland get a hurricane for breakfast.

Or not. This baby was expected to land in Florida and see what happened...

There's a big difference between a fully tropical system with little to no synoptic steering and a hurricane undergoing extratropical transition that is firmly hooked to a gigantic trough.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:40:55 PM »
I've been watching Lingling and Dorian recently, and I'm interested that they both undergo extratropical transition and integrate their momentum into the jet stream around the same time:

Dorian and Lingling are the symmetrically opposite 968mb lows here. Their angular momentum seems to enhance a dipole pattern, and the timing of their momentum transfer will be critical to how it sets up here. Regardless of the exact configuration, it looks like this will split the initiating tropospheric polar vortex into two lobes and allow a major heat/moisture intrusion from the Pacific

As we enter peak hurricane season, it's important to remember that one of the major heat engines that moves heat from equator to pole are tropical cyclones, so watching their activity will be critical to see how the freezing season initiates (or fails to)

This to me indicates that the melting season is not over yet and way may see losses for the next two weeks. I would be stunned if the AO does not go negative again in the next two weeks, but then again I'm just a naive observer and not a pro meteorologist.

Edit: And after looking at this month's PIOMAS, I really wonder if this will push the Sept 15 update into first place.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: July 03, 2019, 06:24:53 PM »
One thing rather special about Hurricane Barbara was 
Barbara vaulted from a tropical storm with 70 mph winds to a Category 4 hurricane with 130 mph winds in just 18.5 hours, as confirmed in a special update issued by the National Hurricane Center (NHC) [Tuesday morning].
(Weather Underground)

I understand the NOAA forecasters were not expecting this rapid intensification (RI).  RI seems to be happening more often in recent years - Global Warming, per chance?  [/sarc].

SHIPS - an intensity forecasting model and one of the primary intensity forecasting tools used by the NHC - was showing heightened chances of RI well in advance. Here's a post from a tropical cyclone tracking forum on Sunday showing very high chances of 48/72hr RI relative to climatological averages from SHIPS output:

SHIPS Prob RI for 55kt/ 48hr RI threshold=  41% is   6.9 times climatological mean ( 5.9%)
SHIPS Prob RI for 65kt/ 72hr RI threshold=  46% is   9.5 times climatological mean ( 4.8%)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 01, 2019, 07:56:39 PM »
Despite all of the hyperbole and wish casting, 2019 will not be in the top 3 lowest sea ice minimums on record in area or extent. We may not end up in the top 5 in a sea ice area metric (looking at UH AMSR2 and NSIDC daily data and extrapolating).

A falsifiable prediction! I can't wait to revisit after minimum

Given the start and finish point for this game and the Oregon trail style, I think a major driver of variability between gameplays will be just how chaotic synoptic scale weather will be in this scenario.

Is there an option to start the journey at different times of year? Summer would essentially be hard mode compared to Winter. Some playthroughs should expect to see regions with neverending torrential rains while similar regions are covered in extreme drought on a different playthrough.

Would there be options to wait in place and consume resources instead of move on? Decisionmaking about whether a stuck weather pattern will moderate or whether one must instead just push through it would be critical.

Having someone in your party with access to satellite data from things like the GOES satellites that are still just up there orbiting would be a major boon to being able to make smart migratory decisions.

Lots of interesting options here with this style of game.

Edit: I'd also recommend putting the backstory in the OP to get more relevantly guided discussion. It may also be useful to consider what sort of concentration pathway got us to 4C. Is this 4C in 2150 or 2050?

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: June 28, 2019, 11:20:26 PM »
You can't think that you'll be reviled in 50 years if there's no concept of how things might be 50 years in the future.  One has to operate within the reality of the moment.  Do you condemn geologists for talking about the fixed placement of continents prior to Wegener introducing the idea of continental drift in 1912?

There is a difference between scientific fact and moral imperative. I would hope even you are aware that this is an egregious false equivalency.

If you have a basic sense of empathy and compassion you can easily find many things where there is a dissonance between how people act and how people should act. I can spot many things now that are generally acceptable that will likely be seen as taboo in the future: Denying transgender people rights, littering, etc....

I can cultivate compassion and listen to others and spot even more things. I would hope that the leader of our country is a person that does this instead of a means-tested weathervane that naively follows the zeitgeist through bad and good like Joe Biden.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: June 28, 2019, 09:35:31 PM »
I suspect many of you, when in your seventies, will be able to look back at things you thought and did when you were much younger and realize that you did not think or do the right thing by current standards.  But at the time that seemed to be the right thing to think or do.

Rather than using this as a rationalization for poor actions, it's a good thought experiment to consider whether what you're doing is truly progressive or not. If you think what you're doing will be reviled in 50 years, maybe try harder?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 09:08:22 PM »
Just for the record, I was asking a question, not making a point.  Pedantry would imply I was imparting knowledge.  I was seeking it.

Indeed, I am the one being pedantic  :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 08:29:15 PM »
My question is with respect to the Nullschool forecast (as of June 20) and what it is showing up to 5 days from now.

A point of pedantry: Nullschool is a presentation layer, it does not provide a forecast. Its source for most land-derived parameters is the most recent GFS operational model run (the source field in the menu shows the source provided for the currently active field being displayed).

And another point of pedantry about dipoles: The Dipole Anomaly is defined as the second EOF of the 1000 millibar height pattern (the first EOF that explains more variance in the principal component analysis of the 1000 millibar height pattern is the Arctic Oscillation). To present a DA pattern one needs to present a map of 1000h whereas we commonly show 500h. These two heights correlate but are not identical.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 20, 2019, 12:13:45 AM »
^ If those PWATs validate there will be extensive melting along the Barents Sea where 2019 has increased extent coverage relative to recent years.

I'm of the possibly naive belief that Warm Air Advection of high PWAT air parcels gives you the vertical instability needed to transfer massive amounts of heat to the ice surface. Without the humidity, warmer air should float above the protective cold air directly above the ice surface with insufficient convective instability to reach the surface.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: June 18, 2019, 07:54:12 AM »
Yes, in a warmer world, rainfall is expected to increase.  This will naturally led to enhanced flooding.  On the flip side, it will lead to diminished drought.

Increased flooding and increased drought are not mutually exclusive. You have an incorrect mental model of temperature and precipitation. The most basic way to correct your misunderstanding is to understand the relationship between temperature and the amount of water vapor that can be held in the air before it saturates. At warmer temperatures it is harder to saturate the atmosphere, but it will rain harder when it reaches saturation.

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:40:15 PM »
who cares?

The relatives of the ones who die from this do care quite a lot. Not that i know them, but i feel save to assume so.

Pretty sure what kills people is the wet bulb temperature, not the temperature in the sun. All they have to do in the latter is just to seek shade.

While you are "pretty sure", you are not really correct here. To determine heat stroke threat, the NWS uses the Heat Index, which is a regression that includes both temperature and relative humidity. It is distinct from a dewpoint calculation, see:

Hot and dry environments with a suitably high heat index would have a low dew point yet would still present a high heat stroke threat.

Also note that "All they have to do in the latter is just to seek shade" is not very good advice given how rapidly heat exhaustion can present and how much it affects your physical and cognitive abilities.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 17, 2019, 09:44:36 PM »
As a layman, I don't really know what I'm talking about, so maybe someone can help me out. Frivolous, who seems to speak with some amount of authority/expertise, is posting 5-10 day forecasts; how much attention should we pay to those? I know that temp forecasts beyond a few days out are often wildly inaccurate, are long-range MSLP forecasts typically better?

It depends. Typically there is high variability around D5 on operational runs, e.g. GFS and ECMWF. If there is consistency between multiple runs, it may be indicating a pattern that models have higher confidence on appearing.

For anything past D5 we should only be posting ensemble model outputs instead of operational runs, e.g. GEFS and EPS, but we often don't. These ensemble runs are like their operational counterparts, however the initial conditions are modified slightly for each ensemble member to generate a spread of outputs that can better find divergent states or more confidently show that there is convergence on a given single state. The output for things like 500mb heights in ensembles then represents the blended state across all ensemble members rather than the single expected state that one model run sees.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 03, 2019, 12:51:41 AM »
Extensive melt-ponding in the Laptev Sea near the Lena River Delta has occurred over the past 5 days. This is indicated by the darker blue compared to the cyan that ice (both on the surface and as cloud vapor) returns. Attached is Jun 2nd Terra/MODIS bands 7-2-1 from Worldview:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 26, 2019, 02:59:00 AM »
You care more about looking smart than educating people.

You indicated you were an engineer, I gave you a short response that I figured was geared toward an engineer. I will try to provide a better Simple English answer in the future to spare you from throwing a tempter tantrum.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 25, 2019, 08:37:34 PM »
edit: I've just seen the ECMWF forecast and it looks pretty terrible indeed. Anything above 1030 hPa around this time of year, is a disaster for the ice. I'll post the latest forecast this evening.
Can you explain why you say it's bad in reference a pressure? I understand Pa refers to a Pascal. I'm an engineer, and the importance of air pressure rather than temperature is not obvious to me.

High pressure indicates subsidence. This inhibits cloud formation which means that the Arctic regions underneath the high will receive more incoming shortwave radiation.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:13:26 PM »
I was not aware that double cropping was one of the strategies.  Of course, that assumes that precipitation will decrease, even though precipitation has increased during the most recent warming period, and is expected to continue as the planet warms.

There are other sources of water supply beside precipitation. See: Snowpack runoff.

Yes.  Both snowpack and precipitation have increased in the corn belt in recent years.

Yes.  And the dates by which snowpack melt begin move earlier in the year, meaning that there will be increased river streamflow at the beginning of the growing season with decreased river streamflow from snowpack at other times. This increases flood risk while decreasing the duration that snowpack runoff can be relied upon as a water source.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 29, 2019, 06:25:55 PM »
I was not aware that double cropping was one of the strategies.  Of course, that assumes that precipitation will decrease, even though precipitation has increased during the most recent warming period, and is expected to continue as the planet warms.

There are other sources of water supply beside precipitation. See: Snowpack runoff.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: March 03, 2019, 01:14:29 AM »
I read something recently that was looking at the flooding of the strat , over the U.S.A., with water vapour from ever taller storms and have to wonder if we can rapidly alter the levels of heat trapping water in the arctic strat impeding the loss of heat from the polar night?

Is a warmed world providing a rapid path to an equable climate?

Definitely, although I think water vapor intruding from tropics to poles causing an equable climate is almost true by tautology. Equable climates can be defined in terms of only having a Hadley cell stretching from equator to pole instead of our 3 cell hadley, ferrel, polar cell regime.

I think what we have been witnessing in terms of Rossby wavebreak patterns transporting water vapor poleward (especially over Alaska) is a leading indicator of the 3-cell regime breaking down entirely.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 03:12:42 AM »
Oren, if you knew people will read, edit  or censure what you write, would you write the same way? No. Impossible. Censuring your own writing for fear of censorship is probably the quickest way to kill creativity. Elon still enjoys the right to free speech and this tweet did not move the markets in any way.

This tweet was not material information, was after market hours and clarification was offered before  market open. I think he SEC is significantly over reaching. The courts will decide.

Non-public production numbers are material information. The original tweet was made at 7:15PM ET which is 45 minutes before the After-hours market closes.

I understand you like to cheerlead for Tesla. I recommend that you cheerlead by not posting information that is factually incorrect.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 12:49:06 AM »

Title: Elon Musk Faces U.S. Contempt Claim for Violating SEC Accord


The SEC claimed on Monday that a Feb. 19 tweet by Musk violated the settlement when he wrote that “Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019.” The settlement with the agency required him to seek pre-approval from the company for social media posts and other written communication that would be material to the company or investors.

“He once again published inaccurate and material information about Tesla to his over 24 million Twitter followers, including members of the press, and made this inaccurate information available to anyone with Internet access,” the SEC said in court papers filed in Manhattan federal court.

Tesla shares plunged as much as 5.4 percent as of 6:30 p.m. Monday in New York. The stock was already down 10 percent this year through the close of regular trading.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4