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 ... 31
1
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

2
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 10, 2021, 02:47:29 PM »
Here are a couple of examples of what happens when one case is found.
1/ One student returning to school after the holidays had caught Covid19 while in Seoul.
Immediately the case was detected all schools in a 10km radius were closed.
All students in  the sick student's class were tested the same afternoon. They went into two week isolation.
All students at the sick student's school were tested the next day. They did online school for two weeks.
The parents at the sick student's school were asked not to go to work until the negative results came out.
Hence a large number of people stayed at home that Friday.
Every test was negative. All other schools reopened on the Monday.

That's the way to do it. That is what Europe should have been doing

3
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.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33768536/

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

4
France to Declare Agricultural 'Disaster' Over Spring Frost
An Extreme 100+ mbar Pressure Difference Releases a Historic Arctic Cold Blast Towards Europe: Damaging Frost Expected Across Central Europe

vox

this thing has already hit most of Europe. C.Europe had snows in the past 3-4 days, temps fell to -2 to -8 (this morning was the last frosty one for a while). This killed apricot and in many places peach flowers but caused no other harm here as far as I know/see. Not too many apricots and peaches this year. It also hit Germany and Italy and I heard Italian orchards were quite badly hit, but mostly only early flowering stonefruits

5
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 08, 2021, 10:17:25 AM »
Once our vaccines more or less eradicate the original and "British" variant in US and Europe (by June/July), we will have a new problem: unless we test everyone at the border (a la Iceland), the Brazilian/S.African, whatever new variants, that are not so well handled by our current vaccines will get here and become dominant. and then we can start everything all over again In October/November.

I don't think our politicians (or the general population) understand this (yet again!)

6
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 06, 2021, 04:58:07 PM »

I feel that you are being too pessimistic.  It is neither genocide nor economic collapse.  A death toll of 0.02% is hardly genocide

Millions of unnecessary deaths. What do you call that? An accident?
The solution was obvious from the beginning and yet, they failed to implement it.

If you , in your line of work, act so stupidly that it leads to somebody dying, that is called negligent homicide.  If millions die because of the stupid way you do your job (and as an added bonus you create a huge recession) I don't know what that should be called.

Anyway, we can argue about nomenclature but it is sure as hell that our "leaders" did an extremely shitty job. As a minimum all of them should be rid of their political power

7
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 06, 2021, 07:57:49 AM »
Rodius,

I agree with you. (Almost) all European politicians failed badly . The March-April lockdowns almost eradicated the virus here. All they should have been doing was extreme testing and contact tracing and selective lockdowns where and when needed and they could have kept the both the continent's economy humming and saving its population. Instead, the economy tanked and hundreds of thousands died needlessly: lose-lose. I say this is negligent genocide.

(and no, it is not the benefit of hindsight, it was obvious by last May that huge test-capacities and contact-tracing abilities need to be built during the summer (and testing everyone at the EU borders just like Iceland did) to avoid a fall/winter massacre...I tried to nudge my government into that direction....to no avail: no we have 22 000 dead out of a bit more than 9 million, 8 000 more will die in the next 2 months...and the economy collapsed of course).

8
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 01, 2021, 08:36:41 AM »
Quote
... We also know that SARS 1 and MERS immunity lasts many years.

MERS & SARS didn't have the case count to mutate.

And in the case of MERS, 30% to 40% of those infected died so reinfection was impossible.

Seriously guys. Of course NOONE WAS REINFECTED with MERS. They used blood samples to study how long immunity lasts.

The question was about the expected length of immunity which has nothing to do with mutations. That would be a totally different question: "how efficient vaccines are vs various mutants?". That was not the question.

9
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 31, 2021, 09:39:05 PM »
I quoted a coronavirus immunity study upthread. 4 coronaviruses causing the "common cold" were tested in a real life study. Immunity lasted anywhere from 3 months to 5 years, median was 1 year. We also know that SARS 1 and MERS immunity lasts many years.

Based on this I would expect at least 1 year immunity from COVID infection.

A UK study says that nurses who were infected by Covid had 80% less chance (within 6 months) to catch it than those who were not infected previously. Even better: 70% of those reinfected had no symptoms!


Also, vaccines seem to give you a much higher level of antibodies than natural infection, so immunity should be longer.

All in all 2-3 years would not surprise me on average for the better vaccines

10
vox

that chart is great...I guess it is the longest "sort-of-temperature" series in the world. Pretty hard data, actually!

11
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 31, 2021, 08:38:40 AM »
In the US, J&J is apparently 72% effective, higher than elsewhere.

If 30% get J&J and 40% get Pfizer / Moderna, and another 20% have been infected, we are up to 77.6% blocked from infection (or maybe 75% if some in the 'infected' group can be reinfected). Combined with summertime reductions in R-naught, that takes new infections to negligible levels IMMINENTLY, and ends the pandemic, even if 28% of the J&J recipients can still transmit.

Your calculation seems right. Still, you will need to use guns eventually as guns are better than arrows :)

12
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


13
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 30, 2021, 08:40:38 AM »
What is bigger? 2*x or y? You need data on y as well to answer that. There's more than the vector to a vaccine. There's the dose, the adjuvants, the inserted COVID sequences and J&J has done some of that stuff differently to AZ and so far its stood up better to the challenge of escape variants as a result.

But Richard we DO have phase 3 (interim) results for J&J and they exactly show what I said:

"The vaccine candidate from Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies was 66% effective overall in preventing moderate to severe COVID-19 28 days after vaccination."

That is very much in line with PFE and AZ first shot results.

And that is my statement: J&J one shot results = AZ/PFE one shot results.

14
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 29, 2021, 08:08:25 AM »
I don't know enough to quantify it and say how much advantage there is for a vaccine that requires half as many shots to keep pace with the virus,...

It seems we won't agree on this, exactly because of your quote. You say that this vaccine "requires" just one shot while I say that they give you one shot not because that is how many are "required" but because they decided to give you one shot.
Just like AZ or PFE or Sputnik developers could have decided to give just one shot and then they would be called one shot vaccines - and as Uk studies show they give you protection (attached, cca 60-70% reduction of getting symptomatic covid and if you have covid, cca 40% reduction of getting into hospital). J&J has no design/developement advantage. It's a half solution for desperate situations but not a final solution. You can probably expect pretty much the same real life results from it as getting one shot from AZ or PFE (as seen in the attachements)

15
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 28, 2021, 09:21:31 PM »
Richard,

J&J is almost the same as getting one AZ and the same as one Sputnik shot (J&J actually uses the same human adenovirus Ad26 as Sputnik's first shot).

It is NOT at all any better than using one shot of any of the known vaccines (its efficacy was measured 66% globally). That is why I call it a scam. They did not invent anything to make their vaccine any better than one shot of any of the others. They just say that one shot will be enough.

Why would we use this vaccine when we have better alternatives???

And don't forget that even if eg 80% of the population is vaccinated with a 70% effective vaccine, you still won't have herd immunity, but you will have complacency. 
J&J one shot should not be used. Or people should get a second shot a couple of months later when they have enough vaccines

 

16
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 28, 2021, 10:19:39 AM »
bbr,

The Johnson & Johnson single shots are not at all the same as 2 Pfizer shots.
I basically think that the single shot solution is a marketing scam. We know that its efficacy is similar to one shot from either Pfizer or AZ, or Sputnik. It is just a half dose vaccination programme masquarading as if it was a full double shot protection.
PFE or AZ could have also said that one shot is enough and that's it. There's your one shot vaccination

17
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 27, 2021, 08:50:31 PM »
Hungary reached 7 day deaths of 237 on population of 9.6m ...
1. Is all of this due to the mutants, or are people so tired of the fear factory that they are resuming with their conditioned behaviour?
2... over here in Austria and in the Netherlands the virologists in power are suggesting that measures (aka the bureaucrat's wet dream) will have to be upheld well into summer. Which to me is insane, given that one would expect that last year's summer has provided some lessons wrt seasonality, etc.

1. It is due to mutants partly but mostly due to complete incompetence. If you watched the TV Series Chernobyl, you can imagine what is going on in Hungary: fake-news government propaganda, lies, incompetence, red tape, etc. This was completely avoidable. By my projections, we will hit 35 000 dead by May. (that is equal to the US having 1.2 million dead, or the UK 240 000. And we had almost no first wave deaths (by luck)!

2. As for staying closed for the summer, that is also totally unbelievable to me : seasonality, vaccination and further infections will mostly exhaust the virus during May/June.   Virologists still stick to 70-80% herd immunity as if this number was fixed and not seasonal

18
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 24, 2021, 10:21:22 AM »
A look at their Covid-19 info page (http://abouthungary.hu/news-in-brief/coronavirus-heres-the-latest/).

It seems like the entire government, the pandemic response team and everything else consists of a single person, "PM Orbán", and apparently he is doing an amazing job.

This is absolutely so...The EU not only let an autocratic government (actually a thieving one-man show) take hold in Hungary but kept filling Orban and his cronies' coffers with wads of euros. Orban's good friend from high school, a not so clever gas repairman became Hungary's richest person in 8 years (his son in law, his brothers and his father also all became multimillionaires). Truly a land of opportunities!

And it was all good until they had nothing else to do than do extreme brainwashing propaganda and stealing billions of euros, but now they finally met a real (and not just imagined) enemy: COVID. The result is:

19
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 22, 2021, 10:03:44 AM »
. Indeed not only vaccination, but also the field of testing (as well as tracking) is where Germany still has great deficiencies, which is all the more frustrating as everything has been reminded for months by many.

LOL. You haven't heard about Hungary yet. Absolutely nonexistent contracttracing (from the very behinning), test results back in 3-7 days (!!!), stupid rules, incompetent leaders, zero organizational skills, etc.

Result: A proud 5th place globally in deaths / 1 M population and counting. During the last few days we are in the first place! (and all the while the government proclaiming in its propaganda media that our healtcare results are worldclass). 

Epic winning




20
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 21, 2021, 08:17:41 AM »
Archimid, research shows that your graph is totally, 1000% wrong. The smooth temperature line in the past was not smooth at all, there were huge swings in it in short time frames. I know you don't like it, I know you can not accept it because of your preconceptions.

Let me summarize research: during the last 2 interglacials there likely were near or total (we don't know for sure) BOE conditions in the Arctic. The loss of ice and warming happened fast both in the Arctic and NH mid/highlatitudes, raising Arctic temperaures by 5-10 C within decades and by various amounts (1-5 C) in Eurasia and N.America. We also know that these sudden warm snaps brought wetter conditions. That's it.  That's what we know.


21
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 20, 2021, 07:33:04 AM »
https://www.science20.com/news_articles/arctic_ocean_ice_during_recent_holocene_climate_optimum_it_was_half_what_it_today-81458

" “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:"

22
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 19, 2021, 03:12:52 PM »
The focus, resources and collaborative efforts across the planet shows what can be done when we put our best minds on a problem.


Oh yes. We put our best minds to the problem: Trump, Johnson, Merkel, Macron, Bolsonaro, and my very own Viktor Orban.

This virus should have been destroyed in spring 2020 just like the Chinese did. Instead we let it run rampant, we let it mutate, we let it kill millions. Instead of a problem for a few months we opened Pandora's box.

Oh yes, Covid is a total cautionary tale: even though our scientists know the answers, even though anyone who can think knows the answers, we know what to do, we will not do it. We will do the opposite and cause immense and unnecessary suffering.

Never underestimate human stupidity

23
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 19, 2021, 03:06:23 PM »



Another question is what it will look like. I think that big areas of open water will allow storms to mix up heat from below thus creating areas which will resist refreeze for a long while (or in the worst case all through winter). This will mean that the hole will be back the next year and it will be relatively quick.


I am not sure at all. We had a natural experiment in 2012. It was a BOE for many seas and a huge loss of ice in a very short timeframe, I attach 1985 Sep vs 2012 Sep. You could have argued in 1985 that if we lose more than half of Arctic Ice then a) runaway processes will occur b) the mixing up of bottom heat will cause very late or even no refreeze

BUT! After the huge 2012 event, there was a recovery. There are not only positive but also negative feedbacks up there. The 2012 storm used up a lot of "reserve heat" to melt the ice and therefore 2013 could recover.

I still see no special process from a BOE that we have not yet seen in 2007/2012/2016/2020. These events also led to a total or partial loss of ice. What is so special in losing the CAB ice from losing the Siberian Seas and the Chukchi?

24
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:

25
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 18, 2021, 12:27:35 PM »
You provide  0 evidence of fast warming during the Eemian or Holocene Maximum. Your first two links describe D-O events. Your third link only says that it was very hot during the eemian. It says nothing about the speed of warming.

Archimid, this is getting ridiculous. You asked for evidence that previous warming events in the Arctic (and consequently all over the NH) were fast and furious. They were. Nothing more to prove here.
There likely WAS a BOE, it happened FAST, and temperatures rose a LOT. And it did NOT lead to runaway events. I know it goes against your beliefs but it is time to give in to science 

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2021 melting season
« on: March 16, 2021, 08:37:31 AM »
It looks like the weak ice in the ATL front is a relic of the weak ice along the Siberian front last winter (19-20). I wonder if there is a multi-year cycle here, if so, weak ice in X region (in this case Siberian shoreline) could portend a weak front in Y region thereafter under ordinary conditions.

The 365-day animations provided in this thread show this to be the case re: the ATL front and its origination.


It seems like every year a different area is weaker if you can find a pattern that would be interesting.

Absolutely! I can't see that pattern but it may be there. Worth examining.

27
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:

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/29576-greenland-ice-core-points-to-rapid-climate-change

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/the-rapid-climate-changes-of-the-last-glacial-period

"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

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180604151150.htm

"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


28
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 15, 2021, 12:10:14 PM »
Please address your understanding of time scales before further proceeding with your argument.

 The eemian and the Holocene maximum temperature unfold in a matter of millennia. We are experiencing Arctic change in a matter of years and decades

Archimid, I quoted research FOR YOU many times on various threads that showed that warmings during the Eemian and H.Optimum happened in a matter of DECADES. You keep ignoring this.

Your view seems to be that there will be some sort of catastrophic-cataclysmic event once BOE happens.

My view is (based on many papers I read) that there was probably very little summer ice in the Arctic during the Eemian and Holocene optimum. Changes happened fast just like now. There definitely were consequences (both tempereturewise and precipitationwise) but not the sort of consequences that destroyed NH mid/highlatitude ecosystems. Biomes did change, no question about that and they will this time as well.

AGW could tip the planetary system into chaotic, life-threatening events if we keep pushing it - I never denied that, but BOE by itself will probably not do that. (because it did not happen the last times either)

29
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 15, 2021, 10:07:18 AM »
Will there by some sudden impact upon a BOE? Science says no.
Here is a reconstructed history of ice in the Arctic:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwin6rWO5bHvAhWx3OAKHXiMCNEQFjAKegQIChAF&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.geo.umass.edu%2Ffaculty%2Fjbg%2FPubs%2FPolyak%2520etal%2520seaice%2520QSR10%2520inpress.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1zyrQLvhkjRUiwHYh2lWMW

Some quotes indicating that during the Eemian and Holocene Optimum, there was very little ice during summer (and as we know this did NOT lead to some unstoppable kind of climate catastrophe):

"interglacial and major
interstadial intervals are characterized by higher marine productivity
suggestive of reduced ice cover. The most prominent evidence
is that planktonic foraminifers typical of subpolar, seasonally open
water lived in the central Arctic Ocean during the last interglacial

(MIS 5e)...given that
one of these areas, north of Greenland, is presently characterized by
especially thick and widespread ice, most of the Arctic Ocean may
have been free of summer ice cover during these intervals
"

"intertidal snails found near Nome, just
south of the Bering Strait, suggest that the coast there may have
been annually ice-free
"

"Deposits near Barrow include at least one
mollusk and several ostracode species known now only from the
North Atlantic."

Holocene optimum:

"Probably the most spectacular evidence of low-ice Arctic
conditions in the early Holocene comes from Northeast Greenland
(Fig. 8; Funder and Kjær, 2007; Funder et al., 2009). At this northernmost
coast in the world, isostatically raised ‘staircases’ of welldeveloped
wave-generated beach ridges investigated along a total
coastline stretch of several hundred kilometers document seasonally
openwater as far north as 83oN....Presently the entire Northeast Greenland coastline is permanently
surrounded by pack ice
with numerous pressure ridges and rare
locked-in icebergs, with coastal melt occurring maximum to 76oN"

"Bowhead bones
are most commonly found in all three CAA regions in early Holocene
deposits, 11–9 cal. ka. At that time Pacific and Atlantic bowheads
were clearly able to intermingle freely along the length of the
Northwest Passage
, indicating at least periodically ice-free
summers."

"A more continuous reconstruction of ice conditions in central
CAA is now available based on IP25, a biomarker of ice-related
diatom spring blooms (Vare et al., 2009). A downcore IP25 record
from the central archipelago demonstrates little ice during the early
Holocene,
an accelerating increase in ice occurrence between 6 and
3 ka, and high but variable occurrence since then"








30
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 15, 2021, 08:34:55 AM »
I keep emphasizing that losing Arctic Sea Ice does not mean that we lose all ice up north, as Greenland will still be covered by ice. Most people do not consider this. A BOE is not equal to losing all ice. 2,1 M sqkm will still be covered by very very very thick ice.

31
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 15, 2021, 08:31:36 AM »
IFR is around (maybe somewhat below) 1% for developed countries. We settled on that already in May. Using that number we can roughly calculate how many people have been infected. Every country is far from herd immunity: usually 15-25% infected naturally.

T-cell immunity. The Swedes put their faith in this last April, expecting that herd immunity was just around the corner. They thought that many more people are immune than you would expect based on antibody tests. Turned out they were spectacularly wrong.

32
Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: March 14, 2021, 01:58:45 PM »
Thanks.
The first thing I realized is that collecting rain water is much more useful than before.

Since the roof of your greenhouse is slanted that should not be difficult!

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Casual 2021 melting season predictions
« on: March 14, 2021, 01:56:57 PM »
The river valley analogy is pretty good actually!

34
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 14, 2021, 01:51:45 PM »

You haven't been paying attention.   A BOE is an inflection point on a continuum that started around 2007.

Now that is up to debate. I think BOE is part of a continuum that accelerated in 2007. There is nothing special about a BOE. Parts of the Arctic Sea are already open during summer (that used to be frozen).

The changes we've been seeing in the past 14 years are likely going to continue. But BOE is not a breaking point. Why would it be? Greenland will still be covere by ice for a very long time, so what is happening is nothing less and nothing more than less and less ice during summer and autumn. Nothing magical about BOE

35
Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: March 14, 2021, 07:21:35 AM »
Etienne,

This is great! My experience with cold frames/unheated greenhouses is that it gives you 3-4 weeks at the beginning of the planting season, so you can plant things directly that much earlier. And in our/your climate it makes it possible to harvest greens during the whole winter.

Also, growing transplants (eg. warm-loving tomatoes, melons, but also broccolis, etc.) in an unheated greenhouse is much better than inside our homes, as greenhouse-grown transplants are much stronger as they experience bigger temperature swings and if you open the doors during the day (which you will have to anyway on sunny days or the plants could cook!), they experience wind as well. Theses tranpslants are very hardy and need no pampering.

(Inside a very simple cold frame I grow my transplants I usually see nighttime temperatures 2-3C above outside temps, but daytime it could be 10-20 C more if the sun shines strongly)

So, all in all, great job!

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: March 13, 2021, 08:16:03 AM »
     This is just speculation piled on top of speculation, but to the extent to which any of this is valid, it suggests that while the 2020-2021 freezing season left the ASI in decent condition in terms of the metrics, when you factor in the positioning of the ice, things may be more precarious for the coming melt season than the Volume and Extent numbers by themselves indicate.

Very interesting thoughts Glen! Could even be true! :)

37
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.


38
Policy and solutions / Re: The hydrogen economy
« on: March 13, 2021, 07:59:54 AM »
We can already very efficiently create energy from the sun (even up to 40% efficiency) with solar panels.
I think he only point in using hydrogen would be storing this energy, because that is the weak point of renewables (lithium batteries are not a viable solution for storing big amounts of energy).

39
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 11, 2021, 09:39:34 PM »
you are right kassy, agriculture is somewhat offtopic here...but I have already said what i expext due to BOE, and these are pretty likely in my view:

- more precipitation (rain and snow) in NH high/midlatitudes (with less ice this should be obvious)
- long autumns and warmer winters (already evident) due to an open Arctic pushing heat back into the atmosphere
- heatwaves during summer (already evident)

Other than these, I am not sure at all

40
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2021, 09:30:07 PM »
It's a weak virus. Much weaker than smallpox for example. So why worry?

BTW, our hospitals in Hungary are now full for the second time and close to breaking down with cca 20% of the population having been infected. WEAK!

41
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 11, 2021, 12:54:33 PM »
Bolsonaro should stand a trial for mass murder and crimes against humanity.

You could say the same for most of Europe and America. BTW, the US or the UK has more dead per capita than Brazil.

42
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 11, 2021, 12:50:50 PM »
Archimid

The fact is that yields and production is going up, all else is just speculation, conjecture.

You may think that if we had no AGW, yields would be even higher but that is impossible to prove.

I, however, see Polish and ex-Soviet states growing corn at pretty acceptable yields. These guys could never even think about growing corn 40 years ago. They used to grow (spring or autumn) wheat or rye. Corn has more caloric value per hectare because it is a C4 plant (meaning it utilises sunlight more effectively) so it is pretty clear to me that warmth means more food in the mid/high latitudes (as long as there is no lack of rain).

As for "extreme and changing weather", I studied the relevant timeseries and see no sign that would make growing things more difficult. Even more important, I do not hear anything like that from actual producers. No unusual late frosts that kill the crop, no early frosts, no lack of precipitation. At least nothing more than in the "good old days". One exception is apricots (but that is a very-very minor product): warmer winters make them flower earlier and spring frosts arrive just like they used to but now apricots are in flower whereas earlier they were not. 

43
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.

44
Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: March 10, 2021, 08:18:45 PM »
Hey everyone!

Spring is upon us. I have already planted some new trees and berries. Prepared all the vegetable beds, coppiced many trees (will be chipped down soon), pruned the fruit trees and ornamentals, planted in the mini-greenhouse (radishes, salads and broccolis came up a few days ago), made some hügel-beds and did many more things.

Get working, a glorious summer and fall with huge harvests and beautiful shapes, colours and flowers will be the result!
:)

45
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 10, 2021, 08:10:36 PM »
But do check out soil degradation, changes in water tables, chemical pollution etc.
None related to BOE effects btw...

That is exactly what I wanted to get to kassy. We do have numerous problems facing us in agriculture. I think AGW is CURRENTLY not a big issue. Loss of soils is. Probably the biggest. That is also caused by us, humans though.


As for "climatic effects of BOE", I do not believe that anyone knows exactly how this will play out. Based on analogues I think more rain in NH high (mid?) latitudes, longer, warmer autumns and probably winters are pretty safe bets. Summer heat waves in NH mid/high latitudes seem also very likely. Also, less snow cover, but deeper snows in NH high latitudes (already a trend) during spring is likely but I do not know how that will effect midlatitudes...

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: Casual 2021 melting season predictions
« on: March 10, 2021, 07:42:18 AM »
Gerontocrat,
If you were a 'true believing' member of this community you would include an ice free option as a possibility. ...

Absolutely. A true believer would say:

The Atlantic regions and the North Pole is exteremely weak/thin so will obviously melt out. The Russians say that Siberia will be warm, so your Siberian Seas will also melt out like last year. What remains? The Beaufort? Surrounded by warm open seas? No matter how thick it is, it will melt out in September.

And there's your BOE!

47
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: March 10, 2021, 07:38:05 AM »
How many years after a BOE would it take for famines to start happening?

Most posters here would answer that immediately (or that it already should be happening except that despite AGW agri-yields and harvests are ever bigger).
I see our local climate models unable to correctly hindcast conditions from a few thousand years ago (especially precipitation-wise) and draw the conclusion that you should not trust them, because they can't tell you what will happen.

 My answer is that famines won't happen. Famines will only happen IF major agricultural regions will see very much reduced rainfall OR extreme cold. During known history, it was almost always extreme cold or lack of rain that brought food shortages, not warmth

48
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.

49
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.

50
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.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31