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 - RikW

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: October 12, 2020, 09:27:31 AM »
Nearly 10,000 minks dead from Covid-19 outbreak at Utah fur farms

Research indicates that persons with Covid-19 can infect animals, and some cases of the reverse have been identified in Europe. In May, the government identified two cases in which humans had been infected by sick animals. At that time, they were the only animal-to-human transmissions known since the global outbreak began in China.

Utah agriculture authorities have maintained that animal-to-human infection is unlikely, however, stating: “There is currently no evidence that animals, including mink, play a significant role in transmitting the virus to humans. As it now stands, due to limited information and research, the risk of animals spreading SARS-CoV-2 to humans is considered low.”

We've had mink-to-human transmission in the Netherlands; I think in at least a third of the mink-farms COVID has been diagnosed and all the minks on the farm destructed;

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 24, 2020, 02:33:50 PM »
Eradicating the virus means short-term world wide lockdown, isolation and masks.

False. It  only means lockdown in places that have out of control number of new cases. In places with out of control new cases societal change that results in lower R must be executed. The societal change should be implemented in a maximum effectiveness-minimum harm done basis.

By societal change I mean things like maximum occupancy, mask wearing, and mandatory social distancing in commercial and public spaces.

You need to keep absolutely everyone isolated for weeks, world wide in my view.

My bold. You don't need absolutely everyone. You need enough change like the one mentioned above to pass the "herd immunity threshold.

We still have to eat and go shopping and e.g. essential work, infrastructure/maintenance, food supply and administrative tasks must go on in that situation.

Many, many, many countries have already proven that shutdowns work even if peopl ego out to buy groceries, doctor visits and emergency services. In fact, much less than that is needed( at least during summer), but the will and cooperation of the people must be there. It won't be there if they don't understand the danger and the solutions.

If people think "the virus isn't real but if it is, there is HCQ", then they will make decisions that increase harm to themselves and others simply because they do not understand the risk behind their decisions.

Most people have a low capacity in understanding and a growing group doesn't trust science and government and will not comply.

Most people understand how to keep distance and wash hands. Also most people, although a smaller majority, knows how to use masks well enough.

I don't think that extirpating the virus is feasible in our contemporary economic growth and fake news societies. Alas.

By thinking it's not feasible, you make it not feasible.

But then you don't eradicate the virus, you just keep it sort of under control; You see that happening in New Zealand; They had cases, full lock-down and nobody gets in or out, so virus gone; They reopen borders with strict measures and quarantaine and they had to go into lockdown again. At least their capital and the rest of the country also more strict rules;

So to be honest, unless we go into a world-wide quarantaine for 4-12 weeks, with only vital stuff like water, electricity, food supply, urgent health-care allowed and nothing else, it will just keep coming back I fear. Unless a vaccine is created that will give long-term projection, then something like with the small-pox can be managed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 10, 2020, 08:46:29 AM »
For those who can't wait:

3,860,699 02 sept
3,804,272 03 sept  -56k
3,732,809 04 sept  -71k
3,687,319 05 sept  -45k
3,659,270 06 sept  -28k
3,607,577 07 sept  -52k
3,589,809 08 sept  -18k
3,586,426 09 sept   -3k

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August 2020)
« on: August 05, 2020, 12:35:26 PM »
I've got a slightly different number in the PIOMAS data, so maybe PIOMAS recalculated it, and a day difference, probably because of the leap year?

Don't know if it's better to stick to calender date or to date number; I think with PIOMAS the latter is better, because they don't have december 31st data in leap years...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 04, 2020, 08:54:51 AM »
I thought the CAB area was going up??


No it hasn't.  Clouds and fog have increased blocking the sensor.

Which is why NSIDC area in the cab isn't as effected uses different bandwidth.

NSIDC one day sea ice area change shows a 18,000 square kilometer increase in the CAB.

The Beaufort sea and western CAB have seen periods of below freezing temperatures over the last week. The global model weather forecasts get more favorable for sea ice retention by the day.

Areas of near average surface pressure look to dominate the arctic for the next 2 weeks. The winds appear light and variable.

These next 2 weeks are going to be amazing  ;).

I still expect a sort of extent cliff in the beaufort; I think large parts of the beaufort, the ESS and the canadian/alaskan side of the CAB are currently above the 15% threshold, but when checking on worldview it is shattered and lots of ocean visible; Depending on weather that could just go *poof* in a couple of days

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 03, 2020, 10:35:25 AM »
Well, even those numbers depend on how they register COVID deaths; If I have covid and die because of cardiac arrest; Is that counted as a COVID death? And did I die because of COVID? I could have had the cardiac arrest even if I didn't have COVID; Or not.

Or if I lose my job because of COVID and I can't afford health care anymore and die because of a cardiac arrest, but don't have COVID, is that a COVID death or not?

So even those statistics are multi interpretable, unfortunately;

Global Warming is much easier to prove I'd say and harder/weirder to deny I'd say...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 28, 2020, 11:23:43 AM »
DMI north of 80N temperature and GFS 3-day average wind. Both look unusual.
I've been wanting to post that graph for a few days now, but I was waiting to see how high it would get. It was one of my more crazy predictions for this season that hadn't happened yet, that the temp would go above the green line due to extreme eurasian heatwaves. And now it seems to be happening.

And is this graph prove of what people here have been teaching me, that clouds keep the temperatures high this late in the season, while the GAAC caused temperatures to drop as insolation dropped?

Well, it's sort terrifying to me; If there is ice/snow, it normally won't rise high above melting point; So there was always a sort of ceiling to that graph. That appears to be broken through, so or there is no ice/snow left or the amount of energy/warmth is so high it can break through the ceiling (don't know if that is even possible in such an ice-covered area?).

Seeing a graph like this showing this strenghtens my believe we are in an extraordinary melting season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 23, 2020, 12:28:35 PM »
I fear for the Beaufort and surrounding seas;

Based on the worldview area measurement I did I think there is between 1.1M and 1.3M ice; Clouds make it more diffcult to have a good line :(

And seeing how bad the ice appears to be and how fast other parts of the arctic just disappeared/melted out, I won't be suprised if a large part of it will melt out in the next 2 weeks;

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 21, 2020, 02:00:36 PM »
I made a table of historic melt numbers according to JAXA SIE

I grouped it in blocks of 5 years and 20 days of melting; Starting day 60 until day 260; Extent melting season is mostly between those days (and it made easy grouping...)

Today is day 201.

At the bottom I compared day 60-199 with 200-259 to see how the melt from yesterday till the end compared with the first part of the season;

At the right I made a table with remaining melt for this season and how that would compare with 'early' season melt and long term average. I added the 217k melt we have had already in the calculation. So the formula for the 3M is 3M + 217k / 7.835k = 41.1%

What I thought, early season high melt (till day 200) doesn't lower late season melt numbers. I thought, less ice available to melt, thus less melting. That isn't true when I check the numbers.

Based on the long-term average day I'd expect 3M at least 3M melt since day 200; So 2.8M to go; Based on the long-term percentage (~46%) it's 3.4M to melt. That means we go below 3M SIE...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 01:25:23 PM »
Don’t forget that 2020 is maybe exceptional because of COVID-effects

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 07:17:26 PM »
Don’t forget that seas that always melt out and melt out earlier this year makes it harder to just do some extrapolation; you can’t have negative area numbers

Though the fact that Beaufort is lagging doesn’t bode well... That is a sea that will probably do some catching up

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 15, 2020, 08:41:10 AM »
It's shocking to see how the ice is drifting away from the canadian coast

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 10, 2020, 12:04:39 PM »

Just average for the five lowest extent years puts 2020 298 sq km. below 2019 two weeks from now. Hold on to your hats.

So you take the lowest value for the date (this year) and extrapolate from there the biggest losses, and you get a new record low? Who would have thought?

 :) ;)
Yep, it's not a great mathematical surprise but thinking about it, what are the odds 2020 is not among the top five loss years for the rest of the month? Or the rest of the season?

CO2e forcing is stronger every year, 3 out of last 5 years are among the top five and 2020 has certainly proven to be a strong melt season.

Well, main reason you can't just extrapolate the arctic as a whole that you can't have a negative amount of ice; Especially in the seas that almost/completely melt out every year and 'just' have a headstart in melting out. If seas melt out 2 weeks faster you will have in that melting period a lot of records and the 2 weeks following probably lower melt, because there is less left to melt

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 17, 2020, 06:54:37 AM »
The last 2 Monti’s felt very sunny in the Netherlands and it also entered the recordbooks as most sunny april since we started measuring it.

And at the ‘higher’ areas drought is getting a real probleem; farmers who aren’t allowed to use water for their crops

And last weeks of march and first weeks of march are the same

Just checked some statistics, we had 560 sunhours since march 15th, former record was 503, which was in 2011; and only  23mm of rain

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 16, 2020, 07:21:42 PM »
well, the last 10/20 years have been disastrous compared to what was normal and this year won't be different I guess; How disastrous it will be, depends, among other things, on the weather

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:44:43 AM »
It's creepy and insensitive to say, but the economic impact of this group dying will be relative small; Most of them would have costed society more in the rest of their live then what they pay.

This line of thinking is really beginning to piss me off.
It shows a callous way of looking at human life.

Maybe I have been skewed because I spend a few years living in a Samoan village where the elders were held in high regard, given respect and given due courtesy for the things they have done, and for the wisdom they share that holds much more value than anything a stupid economy has to offer.

Seriously, people just need to stop thinking that it isnt a problem if it only kills old people.

That's why you should read the whole post and not a single sentence.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:24:07 AM »
This is a horrible pandemic.
We must look back to the 1918 influenza to grasp its severity. 

And, our focus should be on the science rather than the blame.

We may never forget those who've failed,  but we must also move on, and right now. 

Support your local healthcare workers if you can.   If the doctors die... what have we???

I think 1918 was much worse. Especially economically. But these days we don't expect such diseases anymore. We aren't, luckily, used to it anymore because our healthcare is and vaccination programs are much better then they were a decade ago.

Spanish Flu:
50-200M deaths, and the young people (20-40 years) were hit hard. World population was around 1.8B, so 3-11% died;

Mortality on the whole population without health care collapsing around 1% at most I think. Based on Taiwan and South Korea numbers, who have the most thorough testing going on.
With health care collapsing it's around 3-5%, but mostly elderly people with a large part of those having health issues already.
In the Netherlands they tested medical staff one of the hospitals and of that group 97% had mild symptoms/ no hospitalization required. And yes, that is a younger aged group, since above 65 most people are retired

So I think the 1% if the whole population gets infected and health care won't collapse is a realistic/ maybe even too high percentage. And when it collapses it will probably 3-5 times as high, with mostly the elderly (65+) and those with health problems won't survive.

It's creepy and insensitive to say, but the economic impact of this group dying will be relative small; Most of them would have costed society more in the rest of their live then what they pay. I don't say we should just let the virus run! But I think the economic impact of this crisis will be minor, if it doesn't take too long.

And yeah, it won't surprise me if western countries will probably be hit harder than developing countries. Because even though we have better health care, it won't be enough in a lot of countries. If you can't help 50% of those who need hospitalization, it doesn't matter for those if your health care is brilliant or the worst of the worst. So then the population composition will have a huge impact. And in the west we are older, have more people having old age ailments and we live unhealthy (lot's of people to heavy f.e.).

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:19:26 PM »
The problem with the pigs isn't only the CO2, but also nitrogen which pollutes our (human-planned...) nature. Almost all pigs produced in those large farms are for the export and probably also with european subsidy. So f.e. China buys our cheaps pork meat, we have the pollution and pay for it also by subsidy's.

The heating should be done by heat pumps. I think the idea is that heat pumps are more efficient than burning fossil fuels, because you also need better isolation. And burning fossil fuels in large plants is most of the time more efficient than doing it at home.

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:44:54 AM »
Well, in the Netherlands we are going off-grid with gas.

If I remember correctly since a couple of years it isn't obligated anymore when building a new houses to connect it to the gas-grid and in 2050 the gas-grid should be gone and everything should be done electric. So the gas network will be written off in 30 years.

Though it's weird our neighbours (germany f.e.) are transition to gas - which is better than what they currently have, but still weird.

We have too much people for the area of land we have/ are too efficient in using things/ are too rich compared to other countries thus our emissions are relative high, even though we are also relative clean. And the focus is too much on nations and not on continents/globally.

When we close steel factories in IJmuiden and the coal-power-plants, our emissions drop significant, but global emissions will probably be rise, because we need to buy our energy elsewhere and there still is demand for steel.

So I want us to give the good example and take action, but it shouldn't make the global situation worse. So which is the lesser evil to choose from? Do nothing or do something, but increase global emissions...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 18, 2019, 01:28:03 PM »
Finally a century increase, first of this melting season;

In the last 30 years (1990-2019) only in 1996 the first century increase was later, november 26th, but 1996 also had the highest minimum in the last 3 decades.

Another maybe interesting fact, since minimum the gain was 1.271.299; When we check other years, the gain from minimum was till october 17th was on average 2.1M. (90's: 2.18, 00's 2.09, 10's 2.07). That it is the lowest gain from minimum till october 17th in the last 30 years; 2018 2nd in that ranking, 2007 3rd;

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 19, 2019, 09:00:39 AM »
with only 1 day after minimum with a not-so-large increase, I wouldn't call minimum yet personally. Yeah, it's possible, but we are in a fluctuating period. A drop today isn't unlikely

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 21, 2019, 09:59:14 AM »
Yeah, the difference between 2012 en 2019 is small and a huge cap with all other years; Based on this I expect that area/extent numbers will continue to show at least average drops. Low Volume should become visible in extent/area I'd say

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August)
« on: August 04, 2018, 04:38:09 PM »
I think PIOMAS overestimates the ice at the ESS, it looks really fractured at worldview on the 31st, and it doesn’t improve last days...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 02, 2018, 10:39:28 AM »
Clear worldview images :) One advantage of clear skies. Unfortunately it's probably bad for the ice...

I think everything to the left of the red arrow is, especially if melting conditions aren't unfavorable, at risk to completely meltout, seeing the state of the ice. Luckily only about 6 weeks till melting season ends.

And the part between the orange lines doesn't look that good either, if that melts out the CAB falls apart...

Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: July 31, 2018, 04:02:55 PM »
Yeah, same here; I live near the largest 'forest' in the Netherlands, but it's all sand where it's growing on, so it's extremely dry. Lot's of small fires in the region along the roads/train tracks. All the heath is dried out and a ticking time bomb. Too often cigarettes thrown away by people...

Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 20, 2018, 04:34:53 PM »
does the atlantic ocean communicate freely with the other oceans?

Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 19, 2018, 09:08:38 PM »
So massive thickening in the CAB, so I presume melt season somehow ended already?

Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 13, 2018, 03:04:24 PM »
It measures thickness in a reliable way if there are no melt ponds and/or open water is absent. So underestimation in the summer. Although it gives an indication if melt is happening, because when thickness decreases fast during summer, there are either a lot of melt ponds, a lot of open water between floes or thickness is really decreasing.

So based on the satellite images you can safely state the ice is in a bad condition

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 13, 2018, 11:42:13 AM »
Yeah, Kara is spectactulair/terrifying to see on Worldview when you animate last weeks

Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 13, 2018, 11:35:49 AM »

How reliable is this animation? Because if this is true almost all ice outside 80 degree is below 1m, thus doomed. Or there is a lot of open water, which lowers the ice thickness, which also isn't very good news I'd say.

Too bad we have a lot of clouds on Worldview. Any suggestions for layers/overlays to increase the visibility? I've been checking worldview and animated last month for some parts, I can only say for sure that Kara sea is doomed, which isn't a big surprise and I think the beaufort isn't an ice sheet but just a lot of floes, most of them much smaller than I would like.

For example 2 pictures of beaufort/cab 4 days ago, low on clouds, doesn't look that good. I think it's among the worst years for this region around this date (2015 and 2016 beging the other 2 worst years) but I think the 'bad' region extends closer to the pole (but those clouds...)

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2018, 10:25:42 AM »
I go for 2018-2020;

I can't believe this year will be the year, although the ice is falling apart in small parts quickly, the melt season will be too short/ freezing will start soon enough, but based on the graphs/ satelite numbers etc. I think the state of the ice is changing so fast the models overestimate ice-quality and it's much worse than it appears to be.

And even then I think/fear we will reach record low numbers end of august/ in september.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July)
« on: July 05, 2018, 01:16:00 PM »
I also really really like them, the more charts, the better :)

Arctic background / Re: 2018 north pole expeditions
« on: June 11, 2018, 08:50:13 AM »
If they don't go this year, why do they need ice-breakers? ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: June 08, 2018, 02:21:55 PM »
Or we are quickly heading to an enormous cliff. Partial melted out areas don't show up that easily on the charts, especially is there is lots of dispersion going on.

Weaker ice is easier dispersed I guess, since it will probably be more mobile. And it doens't matter if the ocean has a lot if ice that is 200cm thick or 20cm thick, it still is 100% ice-covered. Till it goes *poof*.

Which I fear is something we will see happening

Pages: [1]