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 - El Cid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Casual 2021 melting season predictions
« on: April 10, 2021, 02:51:41 PM »
Statistics show that summer ice loss in the Arctic has been decreasing in recent years. It is possible to predict the growth of ice in the 20s of the 21st century.

If you would have used the 80s growth rate to forecast the 90s you would have been wrong.
If you would have use the 90s growth rate to forecast the 00s you would have been wrong.
If you would have used the 00s growth rate to forecast the 10s you would have been wrong.

As Master Yoda said: Impossible to see the future is.

Especially with these very simplistic linear projections

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 10, 2021, 08:41:52 AM »
0.15% IFR
European Journal of Clinical Investigation - 23rd March 2021.
And posted on the US gov. NIH website.

Yes Thomas! The IFR is 0,15%.

Hungary's population is 9.7 million officialy, but only cca 9 million live here, so if everyone gets infected (which we know is virtually impossible with a virus because of herdimmunity) then we will have "only" 13500 dead. That is tolerable.

Strangely we already have 22000, growing by cca 200 per day with less than 1/3 of the population having been infected.

Go figure

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 30, 2021, 12:45:42 PM »
Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines are 90% effective in 'real-world' study

I saw this study yesterday and this is really great, because they tested for symptomatic and also asymptomatic cases as well, so we know that mRNA vaccines are able to stop asymptomatic cases as well, and therefore (probably) transmission very effectively.

mRNA vaccines are a real breakthrough, soon nothing else will be used. They are like inventing guns, where
guns = mRNA vaccines,
vectorvaccines = arrows
and our standard vaccines (killed or weakened viruses) =  blunt, stone axes

Guns will very soon push out everything else

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 20, 2021, 07:33:04 AM »

" “Our studies show that there have been large fluctuations in the amount of summer sea ice during the last 10,000 years. During the so-called Holocene Climate Optimum, from approximately 8000 to 5000 years ago, when the temperatures were somewhat warmer than today, there was significantly less sea ice in the Arctic Ocean, probably less than 50% of the summer 2007 coverage "

"The good news is that even with a reduction to less than 50% of the current amount of sea ice the ice will not reach a point of no return:"

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 18, 2021, 06:57:34 PM »
My point was (as we are discussing the climatic effects of BOE in this thread) that just because we lose most of the Arcic Ice (=BOE) no runaway processes develop. I think the above research supports that. BOE does not CAUSE a sort of climatic collapse.

However, out actions taken together (AGW+the things you mentioned kassy and many more) could lead to runaway processes eventually both climatically and ecologically. So we most definitely need to step up and act against the destruction of our planet.

I think BOE is just a milestone and we are already seeing the effects of Arctic Ice loss. I expect more of the same during the next decades:

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 15, 2021, 06:40:41 PM »
oh no, not again!!

anyway I won't look for the original papers I quoted but here is what I found quickly and are based on the same ice core recods:

"Measurements made on the ice cores reveal that temperatures over the Greenland ice-sheet warmed by 8 to 16°C at each event, sometimes within decades. ...For a long time, scientists have been wondering whether climate responses in the middle latitudes and tropics occurred simultaneously with abrupt temperature changes over Greenland, or if there were regional leads or lags in timing...Based on data spanning the entire last glacial period, our results show that abrupt climate changes occurred synchronously (within decades in some cases) across Europe and both the South American and Asian Summer Monsoon regions. "

"Studies of the ice show that the temperature in the northern hemisphere rose by as much as 10°C in just a few decades on two occasions. The first change happened 14,700 years ago, when the planet was still in the grip of the last ice age. The subsequent warmer period lasted less than 2,000 years before the climate cooled again. The second switch to warmer temperatures occurred 11,700 years ago, at the end of the ice age."

So there you have it. It was an extremely fast, extremely big warming and it happened all across the NH.

And it was even warmer up north than now

"Today, northwest Greenland hovers in the 30s and low 40s Fahrenheit and weathers snowstorms in summer. But average summer temperatures in the early Holocene (8,000 to 11,000 years ago) and Last Interglacial (116,000 to 130,000 years ago) climbed well into the 50s"

And no, despite all this, there was no runaway process. This is what science says

Arctic sea ice / Re: Casual 2021 melting season predictions
« on: March 13, 2021, 08:10:05 AM »
And there's not your BOE!

gerontocrat, I am disappointed. You are NOT a true believer!  :D

BTW, I think that more and more Arctic Seas are undergoing Hudsonification (your charts support this) meaning they freeze very late (Nov, even Dec) and then they suddenly melt out quickly (June, July). And I still think that the North Pole region seems amazingly weak that will likely have consequences this year.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 11, 2021, 07:44:04 AM »
I have yet to see data that shows that Arctic Ice loss is interfering with agricultural production. Actually, I see the opposite: a boom in NH mid and especially high(er) latitude food production. As an example I attach Canada's soybean and wheat production timeseries plus wheat yields. Hardly pointing towards famine. They show increasing productivity and production. The same is true for postSoviet countries and most of N-Europe.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 10, 2021, 07:31:40 AM »
As for Africa, I think they are similar to India, where recent studies show that possibly 30-60% of the population has already been infected. Age structure and cross-immunity from previous infections probably means that mortality is only 0,1% or less there.  It is just another malaise they need to cope with - they have many other problems of bigger magnitude they need to deal with.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 09, 2021, 05:49:52 PM »
Russia: Russia is already emerging as a major agri-exporter. Warming means higher yields. Warming means some areas swithcing from wheat to corn which is more productive (because of the C4 pathway of photosythesis).

Canada: same. Warming = longer growing season= more calories

Texas: the majority of Texas DID NOT experience record cold. There were major, even colder Arctic outbreaks during the 20th century. Texas was a loser because of human stupidity (no interconnector to other states and stupid regulation), same as those Californian fires: people build in the middle of extremely dry forests which routinely burn down (natural process) and are amazed that they lode their homes...

So far, we have not seen any growth in the volatility of NH weather due to Arctic melting. I studied numerous data from various countries and have yet to see any proof of growing volatility. What I see is warming during almost all seasons.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 09, 2021, 03:02:16 PM »
i don't think a BOE does anything by itself. 2012 was a sort-of-BOE (in some seas) and not much was changed. I think it is more of a process than a one-off event. Our climate is already changing.

Also, BOE means more water vapour = more rain/snow in mid to high latitudes. Also, more warmth = longer growing season. 

So, BOE will likely be good at some places and bad for other regions.
I think Canada and Russia are winners.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 09, 2021, 02:50:12 PM »
As far as I know, the Swedish government opted for a strategy that wasn't based on fear, distrust and division. That was the main reason it was vilified (by BSers, of course).

No Neven. Their strategy was based on obviously (even at that time!) false assumptions of many things, especially IFR, which made them believe that herdimmunity was always just around the corner, so there was no need to stop the spread of the virus, because the economic/social costs were bigger than the loss of life.
They expected to reach herd immunity by April 2020, the May, then June, etc. Then summer bailed them out and they thought that they were wright. Autumn/winter proved them wrong again.

Their assumptions were also based on hazy T-cell defense which led them to think that many more people are actually protected than the number who have antibodies.

We followed their follies on this thread from the beginning.

They had a theory which even last spring seemed wrong. It was proven wrong and their whole strategy was based on those glaringly false theories and assumptions.

China's strategy was based on science. Sweden's strategy was based on hope. But as they say in financial markets: hope is not a strategy...

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 06, 2021, 07:28:19 AM »
RE: Italy/British mutant

The same seems to be happening in many parts of C.Europe (see charts about case numbers in Hungary).

Hungary (very belatedly) started a lockdown (no high school and university, no mass gatherings, 8 pm curfew) at the beginning of November, which is clearly seen on the chart . R fell below 1, to cca 0,9 then it started to creep up above one as the British version arrived here and spread and now that it is the dominant version here, R is between 1,3-1,5.

The British versions' major "skill" seems to be in its enhanced ability to infect younger people. Hungarian primary schools stayed open after the November lockdowns but that was not a problem until January. After January, especially during February more and more schoolchildren got infected and then infected their parents in turn. As schools became the major source of infection serious measures had to be done. So from Monday all schools and kindergartens are closed for a month, all government officials must use a home office, all services (barbers,etc) are suspended for at least two weeks and all non-essential shops will be closed.

My modelling tells me that this will reduce case numbers sharply and swiftly: I think infections will fall by 90% in 6 weeks. Also, there is a rush of vaccination here with Sputnik and Sinopharm (besides EU procured vaccines) so by the middle of April this will mostly be over as cca 20-25% will be vaccinated and 20-25% will have natural immunity.

/long-term problem: no more than 50% of the population wants to get vaccinated which means that after disappearing in April/May, COVID will be back with a vengeance next winter here.../

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 02, 2021, 07:18:46 PM »
I dont even understand what this discussion is about any longer.

Thomas came out of nowhere, proclaiming that the virus is "weak", which is basically a meaningless statement and we have been chewing over that statement which is by nature subjective and is an opinion. Discussing opinions, subjective impressions is quite pointless in my view. Discussing data and facts instead could lead somewhere...

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 01, 2021, 07:17:31 AM »
 @TB / Rodius

Excess death is by definition excess above normal. Normal in this case includes previous socio-environmental issues and health.
Explaining away excess death by "pollution", "obesity", etc. is not valid, as previous years also had an obese population and pollution and whatever. If and when you have  excess death you need to find a specific cause for that. 

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 28, 2021, 08:05:00 AM »
@Jim Hunt:

I liked the video and as simple as the model is, I am convinced that it is right: to protect the vulnerable you need to vaccinate the "mixers" first, those who are in contact with many people. Problem is: it is not so easy to say who the mixers are, other than some obvious professions like policemen, teachers, shop assistants. But yeah, they should get priority


Total populationwide IFR is cca 1% for COVID, at least 10x that of the flu. For above 60s it is at least 3% and above 70s 5-10%. That is not "stunningly low".
Other than that, please stop running amok on the freezing thread.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 22, 2021, 07:40:11 AM »
there has been a small survey in Croatia (non-governmental, of course, because the government doesn't want to know about seroprevalence) and preliminary results show that 40% of the population have been infected with SARS-CoV-2.

I very much doubt that 40% number. All seroprevalence studies pointot IFR still being cca 1%.

The UK does a weekly study on antibodies:

For example they show England to have cca 15,3% antibodies. Enfland's population is 56 M, so 15% of that is cca  8 M. With a 100 000 dead, that is 1,25% IFR.

You can also see that at the end of summer 6% had antibodies, so that is a rise of 9% during the fall/winter period, that is 5 million new infected during the same period. and cca 65 thousand dead. So even during the second wave it was still 1,3%

Northern Ireland: 9,2%, ie. 173 000 infected. Dead: 2029. IFR: 1,17%

Spain did a study in December, the result is similar: cca 1% IFR.

Croatia has 5500 dead, so no way have they got anything above 600 000 infected. With a population of 4 million, that is only 15% serprevalence. That is pretty consistent with what C/E Europe has by the way: 15-20%.

40% is a pipedream.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 21, 2021, 08:20:20 AM »

Elsewhere I have seen that a colder stratosphere tends to favour a stronger polar vortex.

But the fact remains that temps at 10hpa are about 20C below average, and 10C below average at 30hpa. This is at a time when rapid temp increases is the norm. Has anybody any thoughts on the effect of a "sudden stratospheric cooling" on lower altitudes?

I know nothing about this but I guess the current cooling is due to the polar vortex finally "restarting" after having collapsed spectacularly in January (and it stayed collapsed for unusually long). So it is a sort of pendulum-effect: it was down and out for long so it returned in strength.
Now a strong vortex favours ice retention if I am correct BUT with the current extreme heat intrusion into the North Pole region that might not be true.
Anyway, the Pole-region seemed very vulnerable even before this event and now looks even more so.
So, as I said I know nothing.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 18, 2021, 06:53:34 PM »
Now the situation in Texas is definitely not the same as -15 C and 50 cm of snow in Moscow. Texans are not really equipped to handle the situation.Whereas in Russia...

I studied in Moscow many years ago. Snow fell on Oct 1. When I asked about heating, they told me that the heating season starts on Oct 15 and I should bugger off, it's only two weeks until they start heating, so what is the problem??? We slept in wintercoats and 3 socks :)

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: February 11, 2021, 08:57:19 AM »
The Oxford/AstraZeneca affairs smell politics, or corruption, or both.
Was the European pushback (for over 65) simply corruption to favor the more expensive vaccines? Or was it science-based?

A WHO panel just declared the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine effective for people over 65. Now we have contradicting "science".

Maybe we should read the phase 3 study and draw our own conclusions:

The AstraZeneca vaccine is one of the poorer ones with quite low efficacy. The study was not well done and modified during phase 3 trials:

"The 18–55-year-old cohorts were originally planned as single-dose efficacy cohorts. However, the protocol was modified on July 20, 2020, to offer a second dose to the participants in these cohorts as a result of robust booster responses identified in the evaluation of the early immunogenicity cohorts (version 9.0; appendix 2 pp 331–332).5
Boosting began on Aug 3, 2020, resulting in a longer gap between prime and booster vaccines in these cohorts than for those aged 55–69 years and those aged 70 years or older, as these participants were enrolled into two-dose groups from the start."

Besides, they screwed up and one cohort got a half dose. Excluding this screwed up cohort REDUCES efficacy further.

Also, older people were included only later and few in numbers making statistics more difficult:
"Those aged 56 years or older were recruited later and contributed 12·2% of the total cohort"

Among the normal dose participants (but don't forget that second shot timing was variable because they oroginally planned to make only one shot!, so comparisons are tricky) efficacy is 62%.

Also, there is no breakdown in the study as to the efficacy among older people (probably due to low participation)

This study was very badly done and even then the results are not very encouraging.
Would I take it? Yes, but I would much rather take Sputnik, Pfizer, Moderna.
Would I give it to the elderly? Yes, but I think it is a wise choice that they are vaccinated by mRNA vaccines which are proven to work much better.

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero
« on: February 09, 2021, 03:30:14 PM »

Thank fuck I have never breed I would not wish the inevitable dark future for humanity on any offspring of mine

Thank fuck I have. The future is always inevitably dark. Has been for millenia.

Science / Re: Global Warming Would Stop Quickly After Emissions Go To Zero
« on: February 06, 2021, 10:21:42 AM »
We are already at +1,25 and during the last 20 yrs global temperatures rose cca 0,5 C. I see absolutely no chance of this stopping before +2 C. Emissions will be higher during 2020-40 than 2000-2020, there is also some lagging effect and then you have your Arctic feedback cycle. I think we will hit +2 C by 2040. Maybe we can limit this to +2,5 C. maybe. And then there are myriads of other problems as kassy said: plastics, soil erosion, loss of biodiversity, etc.
See attachement (3yr running mean of global temperatures), especially the last 10 years!

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 05, 2021, 10:26:58 PM »
Ok, so this is the company I talked about:

This is a Hungarian geothermal company. There were significant cost overruns, and quite a few unexpected difficulties that cost lots of time (and money). You can read a bit about the projects. They provide heating to cca 40 thousand homes and a number of industrial end-users (eg. Audi Hungary, which employs 11000 people).

These projects used EU-funds/grants and cheap government loans and despite this although profitable, its rate of return is really not very high...

My experience is that geothermal is great, it's clean, wonderful for heating, but much more difficult than people presume.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: February 01, 2021, 10:58:18 AM »
HYCOM ice movement and thickness for the month of Januari.
The thickest ice could be located in the Beaufort sea in summer. Not a safe place though

The CAB will be fair game this summer. If the Siberian Seas melt out early like in 2020, then  BOE becomes a possibility

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 31, 2021, 08:10:53 AM »
Baseload is fiction? Pretty amazing. I attach (just as an example) Denmark's energy demand intraday throughout the week. The same would be true for almos all countries.

There clearly is a constant demand ("baseload") and there are peak demand periods during the day. Baseload is NOT meaningless

Science / Re: Paleoclimatology papers
« on: January 29, 2021, 10:00:34 PM »
Palaeoclimate puzzle explained by seasonal variation
Scientists have long been baffled by the mismatch of climate simulations of the past 12,000 years with temperature reconstructions from geological records.

I have seen this one and I call it bullshit. They find that reality and models don't match so they try to tweak reality to fit the models (instead of the other way around!).
Never mind that models don't replicate the Green Sahara or Holocene Optimum European and American temperature and precipitation matters. Never mind that treelines were higher in the mountains and more to the North by hundreds of kms than now during the Holocene Optimum. Hundreds of papers show that H.Optimum vegetation signals (often significantly) warmer temperatures than now (eg.trees instead of shrubs/tundra, broadleaf forest instead of conifers,etc.). Instead of drawing the glaringly obvious conclusion that our models are very poor, they realign reality. Amazing.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 28, 2021, 08:20:44 AM »
Ok, let's say that coal goes. It's out.
1) You will need to partially replace it with gas peakers as renewable storage is not solved. Let's say not all, but half of it will be replaced by gas.
2) Energy consumption per capita is still growing in the developing world, you need to address that somehow. If you are overly optimistic you can say that all of it will be wind/solar and peaks troughs are not a problem. it's a stretch, but let's say.
3) Oil: All those cars on the road will consume oil for at least 1-2 decades. Plus 95% of cars/trucks, etc produced are NEW oil consumers. So even if you are very very optimistic you could say that oil consumption will be stable until 2030.

That still leaves you with the same oil emissions as now, some more for gas (partially replacing coal) than now, and zero from coal. That would still be 25 bln t co2 emissions vs 35 currently.

I really don't think you can make an argument that most Arctic ice will be gone by 2050, especially year-round, based on a few pictures

noone does...people mostly talk about autumn/summer ice free...only you keep bringing up an all year around ice free state state - for the second time

Thank you Ken, that is exactly what I was writing above. The 20s and 30s will see pretty much as much in emissions and likely more warming (due to Arctic feedbacks) as the 10s.


I am pleased to see someone else argue optimistically that BAU has changed dramatically. Too many around here believe in climate catastrophe is imminent.


Being realistic is not equivalent to expecting climate catastrophe. I, for one, am quite cynical about politicians, but at the same time expect humanity to completely give up fossil in due time. I expect no catastrophe whatsoever. But I expect decades of warming still, because going to zero carbon is a very long process.

- 95% of cars sold in 2021 are using gas/diesel. Those cars will still be on the roads in 2050 (in India, Africa, etc).
- many industrial processes are hard to decarbonise
- gas turbines are needed to counterbalance volatile solar/wind
- newly built coal plants will NOT be closed for a long time (at least a decade) due to sunk costs

Will emissions start to go down some time in the 20s? Hopefully yes (but considering that oil will at least be stable, gas will go up, coal down and industrial and agri likely up that is not sure at all). Shall we hit zero by 2030-40? Absolutely not. Not even by 2050.

2015-20 warmed +0,29 C vs 2005-10. Considering Arctic feedback, it is hard to see how that will not be more in the next decade, since emissions are higher now than 10 yrs ago. We are already +1,2 C above pre industrial. This means that by 2030 we shall hit at least +1,5 C. If you are optimistic then you can argue that warming will slow after this, so maybe +0,2 C and +0,15 C and +0,1 C the following decades. This still means that we will reach around +2 C by 2060 - provided that there are no sudden climate impacts.

I don't think this will make the Earth unlivable. I even think that it will be positive agriculturally for many NH midlatitude countries as they will warm by another 1,5-2 C.


Because businesses are exiting coal at a rapid rate, sparked in part by Blackrock:

Also, the Dems can use reconciliation in the Senate to achieve most of Biden's goals:

Manchin will go along with a great deal of it as long as he gets some "pork" for West Virginia.
Interstitial should have mentioned these things instead of his or her innate pessimistic view

Oh, that's cute. Have you  heard about China and India?

Especially China. They added plenty of new coal capacity in the very near past and those plants will keep producing Co2 for a long long time. (1/3 of their capacity was built between 2010-20 and more than 40% between 2000-2010). 60% of India's capacity was built in the past 10 years. They won't close those for a long time, too much sunk cost.

Then: transportation. Most of Asia will not drive Teslas. They will drive gas and diesel cars. They don't buy new cars every 2 years. And after that, Africans will drive those used Asian cars even in 2040-50. We will need oil for decades for transportation, although likely less as time goes on

Then: renewables. To balance out renewables you need lots of gas-turbines. Better than coal but still co2 emissions.

Building/industry: we do not even know how they would reduce co2 emissions.

Agriculture: we know how to but they  are pretty reluctant to do it.

So blu ice IS totally right. This will be a very hard and slow road to reduce emissions. And BTW when a politician says "carbon neutral by 2050" it means: "yeah, I'll pay lipservice and do something that does not hurt much, but basically I don't give a damn"

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 15, 2021, 08:23:02 AM »
This thing will be mostly over by the end of May. 20-30% of the American/European population will have been infected by then and at least 20% will get the vaccine (even in Europe where there is a scarcity of vaccines). Since COVID is highly seasonal, summertime R is definitely lower than wintertime R. Last summer R was 1,2-1,5 in Europe with basically not effort, no masks, nothing. This means that even vaccinating 20% (plus 20-30% who got it before) will be enough to push it back into the shadows (because R will be lower than 1, even with the mutant version).
Then, during summer and autumn you will have to vaccinate the rest of the population which will happen.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 14, 2021, 08:25:11 AM »
Jesus, harpy, just give it up are plain wrong about most of the things you wrote about the virus the past few weeks/months

Neither fearmongering nor belittling the virus is a good soultion. This is a science site, let's try to stick to the facts. Steve is definitely right.

I have always been curious about this chart, specifically the spike that occurred in the 1940's and the drop following it.

Industrial production spiked during WWII and a decade long worldwide recession followed it. Wouldn't CO2 emissions track with this? The steep climb in temperatures beginning around 1970 coincides with the rapid industrialization of much of the third world. Does this trend suggest that temperatures are much more sensitive to current CO2 emissions?

Interesting study about the early 20th century warming and its causes:

Basically we do not know what caused it, and climate models do not replicate it.

My conclusion has long been that our models are still very very bad, they can not replicate even quite well documented changes in climate (eg. green sahara, Holocene optimum precipitation and temperature, early 20th c. warming, etc.)

I do not trust them a bit. Climate is much more complex than we currently figure

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: January 10, 2021, 04:27:22 PM »
. However, I drew attention to the Russian nuclear submariners and navy GCMs which I cited last summer who expect major mid-winter recirculation this year from around December 2021  that moves the typical storm tracks north of the British Isles to the latitude of Gibraltar with Pleistocene rains pouring in Sahara.


Yes you did write about these GCMs that predicted changed storm tracks but I never found any quotes  (by you or anyone else) to any studies that showed this. Can you point me to the right direction?

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: January 09, 2021, 10:10:46 AM »
I do not remember if this article has been quoted before in this thread:

This is a truly interesting article (with scientific research quoted), detailing how late stone age Europeans relied very much on semi-wild/semi-cultivated hazel groves for a significant portion of their diet and how climate changed destroyed these ancient, sustainable forest gardens, leading our ancestors to (unsustainable) grain production and working only a few hours a day to toiling all day.

I more and more believe that our whole agricultural system is based on the phallacy of annuals while truly sustainable systems are almost always tree-based / agroforestry systems with mostly perennial produce (various nuts, eg. hazel, chestnut, pecan, walnut etc and fruits) and some annual vegetables in between (and possibly small animals raised in theses groves).

However, as our diet is very much based on grains, we would also have to change our dietary habits, which is a very hard sell...

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 07, 2021, 08:12:37 AM »
C'mon, this is sort of a science site. Reading and understanding a Phase 3 abstract is not that difficult.

Pfizer's research is quite clear: most of the immunization is done by the first shot, and you clearly have very strong protection two weeks after the first shot. So, yes, Britain is right ( a rare occurance these days :) vaccinate as many as you can with one shot and worry about the second shot later.

Agriculture is responsible for 11% of all Greenhouse Gas emissions globally. Together with related emissions from changing land use and cutting down forests, it accounts for around 30% of GHG emissions globally.

How do they make that part of the pie disappear.

Regenerative agriculture can make the soil a net carbon sink

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 04, 2021, 10:08:54 AM »
Same in Hungary. Officially 10000 dead (population 9,7 million), but excess mortality has been 50% above reported numbers, so true mortality is likely 15000, ie. 0,15% population-wide mortality. Oh yeah, hospitals almost overflowed during the peak of the second wave (end Nov-beg.Dec)

Would you call that mass psychosis or is it a bit more serious than that?

(if the British mutant version spreads here widely then the above numbers will easily double by May)

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 03, 2021, 02:19:06 PM »
So a cancellation due to lightning certainly would have made sense.  Now, what will the weather be in 28 days?    :-\

Well, actually, they made a movie about that:

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 02, 2021, 08:49:55 AM »
The local Health Dept. phoned about an hour ago giving us (wife and me) appointments to receive our first Moderna vaccination shot, tomorrow mid-day.

The nurse, working at 8 pm on New Year's Day, chuckled when I answered the phone (not knowing who it was) with a cheery "Happy New Year!"

Forecast is for rain all day, maybe some lightning, so appointments could get cancelled...

Didn't know that rain or lightning made vaccination impossible. In my country they usually administer it indoors

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 31, 2020, 09:29:16 AM »
For anti-vaxxers:

I don't know about your country but in my country infants get COMPULSORY multiple shots against a number of diseases. I can not fathom why adults would not get the vaccine. This is a classic case of freeriding for antivaxxers.
Every society has rules that you must adhere to and those rules were created so that we could all live a better life. If you drive a car after drinking half a liter of whiskey and go thru many red lights you will be arrested and put into jail - because you endanger everyone else. This is the same with the vaccine: if you don't get vaccinated you endanger everyone else.
Solution is simple: if you don't get vaccinated (have no "vaccine passport") then you don't get to fly, you can not go into any place where there are more than 10 people, etc. Your choice.

As for the "risk" of these vaccines: If for some weird reasons you don't trust the relatively new mRNA technology, you can choose from a variety of adenovirus vector vaccines (AstraZeneca or Sputnik V, etc) that have been around for much longer.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 23, 2020, 08:40:54 AM »
RE:Dickson (and Siberian Islands) high temps during autumn, early winter

I think we have a new pattern here (my pet theory). With the Siberian seas melting early, then warming up and accumulating huge amounts of heat during summer, they can not freeze until Nov/Dec. The huge open seas are very much warmer than surrounding landmasses, so cold pours into this "warm gap" , warms up and rises, creating a huge low pressure system. I think that in the future there will be an 'Arctic Low" instead of the classical Icelandic Low due to this. (I theorized about this before, but this year) we finally saw this happening during October/November. This low creates wind patterns that "protect" Dickson. See schematic picture...

My conclusion: this will likely be a regular feature in the following years

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 21, 2020, 08:38:13 AM »
"Forecasting is difficult especially when it concerns the future."
Pierre DAC
 ;D    :-X

Not only that! Models can not even recreate known (regional) past climates, especially precipitation. So why would we think they can forecast the future???

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 16, 2020, 08:29:17 AM »
As climate models can not even "backcast" localized Holocene Optimum conditions (especially precipitation, eg Europe, Green Sahara, Fertile Crescent etc.), I have not a bit of confidence in them saying anything about future California winters.
In my opinion it is much more useful to study Eeemian and Holocene optimum conditions to judge what is likely to come

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 13, 2020, 09:04:16 AM »
This is why I believe in the free market approach. Don’t close down restaurants, make them and their patrons liable for damages related to coronavirus infections acquired in their location.

 Then each of them can figure out their individual risk and act accordingly.


I believe that free markets can solve many things much better than governments, but there are some glaring inefficiencies and externalies related to free markets. That is when you need a strong government. This is one of those cases. This thing should have been stopped long ago by able governments. Alas, we don't seem to have those in the West.

Meanwhile... Taiwan has 7 (seven!) dead and 736 infected. 1% mortality suggests that they found basically ALL cases. That is how you do it. Act early, act fast, act forcefully.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 09, 2020, 09:01:40 PM »
Oh, and before you think that maybe Zimbabwe is not very good for agriculture, let me show you its climate (ie. the climate of Harare, its capital). This is the most perfect climate for man (no wonder, we all come from the highlands of Africa). No frosts, rarely above 30 degrees, 10-15 C in the morning, 20-25 in the afternoon. A rainy season of 5-6 months. Even without irrigation you should have at least one great harvest. If you have irrigation you can harvest at least twice per year, or even thrice.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 09, 2020, 08:51:43 PM »
Yesterday there was an article about deforestation in Zambia on Al Jazeera. They cut down 3000 square kilometers a year. So i went to take a look how big the country is. And to my surprise it's 750 000 square km. For a population of just 17 million people. And they have more rain than we have. And still many go hungry. So why many go hungry if you can turn any soil into a good soil. Is it just a lack of knowledge ?

It is a lack of knowledge, corrupt government, stupid laws, etc.

Case in point is Zimbabwe, once called the breadbasket of Africa. 390 000 km2. Has 14 million population. Could easily sustain 50 million. Easily!

After a so called landreform, they drove away white farmers, dividied up the land to smallholders and cronies of the maffialike government and the result is:

"Zimbabwe's commercial farming sector was traditionally a source of exports and foreign exchange, and provided 400,000 jobs. However, the government's land reform program badly damaged the sector, turning Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products.[2] For example, between 2000 and 2016, annual wheat production fell from 250,000 tons to 60,000 tons, maize was reduced from two million tons to 500,000 tons and cattle slaughtered for beef fell from 605,000 to 244,000.[102] Coffee production, once a prized export commodity, came to a virtual halt after seizure or expropriation of white-owned coffee farms in 2000 and has never recovered"

Just like the kolhoz system in Russia. Russia was a food importer in the 70s-80s!!! With the world's best soils and huge agricultural areas.

There was a saying in Hungary during my youth: start socialism in the Sahara and soon you will need to import sand. So true.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 09, 2020, 04:52:58 PM »
I have another blog post over on netweather. Looking at some examples of how Arctic Amplification is altering mid-latitude winter weather and contributing to more extremes.

This theory (waccy weather, wavy jetstream leading to extreme winters) was quite popular at the beginning of the 2010s (after a few cold winters) but I think it's been largely discredited by the very warm winters in Europe. I don't know about NA in detail, but Europe has seen very warm winters in the past 7 years, and what's more, winter minima were significantly higher than previously, ie: no extremes at all. I believe that the opening of the Chukchi/Bering modified the circulation, favoring a colder NA, warmer Europe. I wrote about that (charts, data) in the atmospheric connections thread

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 07, 2020, 04:20:28 PM »

One thing i am interested in the micronutrients in the food. Must be less then when grown from some good soil?

I would never want to eat food made in these factories. Pretty sure things grown there have no taste. The things I grow (in very rich soil) are full of taste. Humans by taste can tell lifeless, nutrient-poor food from good food. One of the main reasons for growing my own food is that I want to eat good tasting fruits and veggies and if you buy your food in supermarkets you can not. These artifical light/zerosoil plants must be even worse than supermarket food.
You must taste a fully ripe (grown in rich, natural soil) tomato, peach, apricot, melon or even apple, straight from the tree to know the difference. Fruits/veggies sold nowadays are usually just plain terrible - no wonder children don't want them.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10