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 - gerontocrat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 12, 2019, 04:51:09 PM »
Tesla just changed their battery and drive train warranty mileage limit from "unlimited" to "120,000 miles"...
...probably cuz the battery is even better than claimed!  ;)
A fact from GSY!! And not just the USA, where the Tesla owners' club has a lot of owners somewhat annoyed.

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/vehicle-warranty
Quote
New Vehicle Limited Warranty
Your vehicle is covered by a New Vehicle Limited Warranty for 4 years or 50,000 miles, whichever comes first. The Battery and Drive Unit in your vehicle are covered for a period of:

Model S and Model X – 8 years (with the exception of the original 60 kWh battery manufactured before 2015, which is covered for a period of 8 years or 125,000 miles, whichever comes first).

Model 3 - 8 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

Model 3 with Long-Range Battery - 8 years or 120,000 miles, whichever comes first, with minimum 70% retention of Battery capacity over the warranty period.

These warranties cover the repair or replacement necessary to correct defects in the materials or workmanship of any parts manufactured or supplied by Tesla, which occur under normal use.

On the other hand, here is a study of battery degradation of 500 Tesla vehicles...
looks like 7 years 150,000 miles = 90% battery capacity on average.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-7764529/US-study-claims-Tesla-batteries-lose-just-1-performance-year.html
Quote
Study claims Teslas lose just 1% performance every year caused by repeat charges
- It says Tesla batteries show slow levels of deterioration for first 150,000 miles
- After 7 years, the average Tesla car battery loses 7% capacity, researcher found

To review the condition of batteries, researchers downloaded owner-submitted information for around 500 Tesla Model S cars.

This also included the purchase date, battery size, EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) range and, for the date of submission, the odometer reading. 

It had to use both full-range and partial-range estimates to take into account that some owners do not charge the vehicle's battery to 100 per cent capacity.

The study found that battery degradation is impact by the number of charges it endures and higher mileage models - which would have been plugged in more often - had reduced capacities.   

The research reveals that the average Tesla Model S battery provides more than 90 per cent of its original range up until around 150,000 miles.

However, beyond that mileage the range starts to noticeably drop off.


NimbleFin's report said: 'It's interesting to see that a car with unusually high mileage for the age (over 143,000 miles for a car less than 5 years old) has more significant battery deterioration than a typical car of the same age.

The vehicle with the highest mileage of all in the survey sample was a Model S 85P with 232,442 miles on the clock. Even after that duration of ownership, mileage and recharges, it was found to still be able to cover 220 miles on a single charge, which works out at 83 per cent of its original 265-mile range.

and here is the experience of a company driving their Tesla fleet really hard - some real battery problems that seem to have mostly disappeared as Tesla improved the software.
A fleet of Teslas drove 300,000 miles. Here’s what broke and what didn’t
https://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/tesla-electric-cars-surpass-300000-miles-in-shuttle-service/

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 12, 2019, 03:28:44 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 11 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,974,223  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,974,223    km2      
-114,553    km2   <   2010's average.
-137,694    km2   <   2018
-455,132    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change    84    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    34    k   gain
Central Seas__   -3    k   loss
Other Seas___    53    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -5    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____    10    k   gain
Greenland____    13    k   gain
Barents ______    16    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -10    k   loss
CAA_________   -3    k   loss
East Siberian__    3    k   gain
Central Arctic_    9    k   gain
         
Kara_________   -2    k   loss
Laptev_______    1    k   gain
Chukchi______   -1    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    6    k   gain
St Lawrence___    1    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    47    k   gain

Daily gain 84 k, 7 k LESS than the 2010's average of 91 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 115 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 138 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,001 km2
- 2019 area 4th lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +3.2  to +2.3 celsius over the next 5 days. Very high +ve anomaly on the Alaska North slope and the Chukchi Sea.

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Atlantic Front.
________________________________________________________________________
The seas with significance for early melting in 2020 are principally the Bering, Greenland and Barents Seas.

The final maximum sea ice area and extent result also depends on those seas and the Okhotsk, St. Lawrence & Baffin Bay

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: December 12, 2019, 01:53:00 PM »
Who needs Martians when we are developing our very own home-grown autonomous monsters of destruction?

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: December 11, 2019, 10:15:30 PM »
SST anomalies from Aug 6 to Dec 10

plays 3 times then stops.

5
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2019, 09:44:27 PM »
It's notable that 2016 had a lot of below average losses in the coming month, allowing minimum extent to remain reasonably close to other years. Could the 2019-2020 freezing season embark on the same path and not smash the records?

That is a very possible outcome - though my guess is for a record low, but not by much.

6
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2019, 09:30:33 PM »
Shouldn't the legend for the pink line on your latest Ant2.png be 2016/7 not 2012/3?
Well spotted, that man.

There is me, trying to rationalise my web of spreadsheets, so a couple of entries tells them to show two years during the transition, and then switch back in early 2020, and change all the dates to the new year.

The inevitable price of developing spreadsheets like topsy (i.e. they just growed). There will be more gremlins, I am sure. Half the time I have forgotten how I did the algorithms.

Corrected.

7
The faster we decarbonize the better off we will be. Even if things get really bad, they could always get even worse.
I've posted on Arctic Permafrost CO2 emissions at...
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2546.msg240382.html#msg240382

Things certainly could get a good deal worse.

8
Permafrost / Re: Permafrost general science thread
« on: December 11, 2019, 08:58:09 PM »
The essay linked below is in the NOAA 2019 Arctic Report Card https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019
Basically, winter CO2 emissions grossly underestimated and more than CO2 capture in the Summer by 0.6 petagrams of CARBON per annum.

To us simple people it is 0.6 x 3.67 = 2.2 GT of CO2 - a significant amount meaning a carbon sink is a actually a carbon emitter.

Extracts.....
https://arctic.noaa.gov/Report-Card/Report-Card-2019/ArtMID/7916/ArticleID/844/Permafrost-and-the-Global-Carbon-Cycle
Permafrost and the Global Carbon Cycle

Quote
Highlights
- Northern permafrost region soils contain 1,460-1,600 billion metric tons of organic carbon, about twice as much as currently contained in the atmosphere.
- This pool of organic carbon is climate-sensitive. Warming conditions promote microbial conversion of permafrost carbon into the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane that are released to the atmosphere in an accelerating feedback to climate warming.
- New regional and winter season measurements of ecosystem carbon dioxide flux independently indicate that permafrost region ecosystems are releasing net carbon (potentially 0.3 to 0.6 Pg C per year) to the atmosphere.
- These observations signify that the feedback to accelerating climate change may already be underway.

Introduction
The Arctic continues to warm at a rate that is currently twice as fast as the global average (see essay Surface Air Temperature). Warming is causing perennially-frozen ground (permafrost) to thaw, with permafrost in many locations currently reaching record high temperatures (Biskaborn et al. 2019). Organic carbon contained in soils of the permafrost region represent a climate-sensitive carbon reservoir that is affected by warming air and ground temperatures and permafrost thaw....

The northern permafrost region holds almost twice as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere. Additional net releases of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) to the atmosphere as a result of warming and faster microbial decomposition of permafrost carbon have the potential to accelerate climate warming. ....

Permafrost carbon pools: How much permafrost carbon is available to release into the atmosphere?
The new, best mean estimate of the amount of organic carbon stored in the northern permafrost region is 1,460-1,600 petagrams (Pg; 1 Pg = 1 billion metric tons) (Hugelius et al. 2014; Schuur et al. 2015). Of this inventory, 65-70% (1,035 ± 150 Pg) of the carbon is within the surface layer (0-3 m depth) (Fig. 1). Soils in the top 3 m of the rest of Earth's biomes (excluding Arctic and boreal biomes) contain 2,050 Pg of organic carbon (Jobbagy and Jackson 2000). The soil carbon from the northern circumpolar permafrost region adds another 50% to this 3-m inventory, even though it occupies only 15% of the total global soil area (Schuur et al. 2015).

Ecosystem-atmosphere carbon exchange: Is the Arctic currently releasing additional net carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere?
....
A new comprehensive synthesis study of non-summer ecosystem CO2 fluxes across the circumpolar region showed that carbon release during the Arctic winter was 2 to 3 times higher than previously estimated from ground-based measurements (Fig. 3) (Natali et al. 2019). This circumpolar estimate suggests that carbon release in the cold season offsets net carbon uptake during the growing season (derived from models) such that the region as a whole could already be a source of 0.6 Pg C per year to the atmosphere.

9
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 11, 2019, 07:20:55 PM »
Article also comes with a map....

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: December 11, 2019, 06:52:30 PM »
Energy hogs

When it comes to AI, recent research found that training a large AI model—feeding large amounts of data into the computer system and asking for predictions—can emit more than 284 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent—nearly five times the lifetime emissions of the average American car. The results of this work show that there is a growing problem with AI's digital footprint.
Total CO2 emissions divided by Human Population = circ 5 tonnes per capita
High Income countries 11 tonnes per capita.
USA ? 16.5 tonnes per capita

Perhaps we should put an average human to work for 50+ years on each AI application. After all, the mice used earth for 10? million years to find the answer was "42", and that it was the wrong question.

So who decides the question shoved at the AI application? Another AI?
But then who decided the question shoved at that AI application?

I can feel an infinite chicken and egg loop emerging.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2019, 04:39:55 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 10 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,889,910  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,889,910    km2   
-108,018    km2   <   2010's average.
-137,557    km2   <   2018
-467,802    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change    107    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    34    k   gain
Central Seas__    20    k   gain
Other Seas___    54    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -2    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____    13    k   gain
Greenland____    10    k   gain
Barents ______    13    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -3    k   loss
CAA_________   -1    k   loss
East Siberian__    6    k   gain
Central Arctic_    7    k   gain
         
Kara_________    4    k   gain
Laptev_______   -3    k   loss
Chukchi______    9    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    3    k   gain
St Lawrence___    4    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    47    k   gain

Daily gain 107 k, 17 k MORE than the 2010's average of 90 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 108 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 138 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,028 km2
- 2019 area 4th lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +3.1  to +2.3 celsius over the next 5 days. Very high +ve anomaly on the Alaska North slope and the Chukchi Sea.

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- at the Pacific Gateway and especially at the Atlantic Front, which probably contributed to the recent large and even extreme sea ice gains

Very cold in Hudson Bay - extreme sea ice gains there contributing to the extreme sea ice gains over the last week or so.
________________________________________________________________________
The final maximum sea ice area and extent result and the seas with significance for early melting are principally the Bering, Greenland and Barents Seas, with the Okhotsk & Baffin Bay of secondary significance

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 11, 2019, 02:11:49 PM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :-  21,574,429 km2(December 10, 2019)

On this day well above average Antarctic extent loss and by very low Arctic extent gains. resulted in an extreme extent loss.

- 2019 is 2nd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 267 k, 128 k more than the last 10 years' average of 139 k,
- Extent loss to date 3.03 million km2, 0.22 million (8.0 %) more than the 10 year average of 2.80 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1.60 million km2 greater than 2016,
- 30.8 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 66 days to the average minimum date of 13 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

Still extremely early to take this seriously. Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 15.27 million km2, 0.28 million less than the record low in early 2018.
_____________________________________________________________

13
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2019, 01:37:24 PM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 10,478,488 km2(December 10, 2019)

A triple century extent loss is unusual, though not rare at this brief period of maximum extent loss
- 2019 is 2nd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 310 k, 61 k more than the last 10 years' average of 249 k,
- Extent loss to date 7.87 million km2, 0.87 million (12.4%) GREATER than the 10 year average of 7.00 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1,080 k more than 2016 on this day,
- Extent is 503 k less than 2018 on this day,

- 44.0% of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 72 days to the average minimum date of 19 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

We are into the period of maximum daily extent loss. This makes projections even more perilous.

Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 1.56 million km2, 0.59 million less than the record low on 1st March 2017, which would be more than astonishing.
______________________________________________________________

15
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: December 10, 2019, 11:49:15 PM »
Re: ogallala

In my trips out west i spoke to many farmers reliant on pumped irrigation from the aquifer. Their major concern at present is not running out of aquifer, rather running out of money to pump from deeper and deeper wells ...

sidd
sidd,

to my surprise some farmers have got the message and are trying to do something about it.

https://civileats.com/2019/11/18/high-plains-farmers-race-to-save-the-ogallala-aquifer/
Quote
BY GRETA MORAN
Climate, ENVIRONMENT, FARMING, Regenerative Agriculture, Water
Posted on: November 18, 2019  |  Leave a Comment 
About a decade ago, Chris Grotegut realized that he had to start pumping much less groundwater out of his wells. It dawned on the cattle rancher and grain farmer that if he didn’t act soon, there may not be enough water to sustain his 11,000-acre farm in Hereford, Texas—much less to support the next generation on his land.

It’s well-documented that the Ogallala Aquifer, which supplies water to Grotegut’s land, is rapidly depleting. Nearby farms in the High Plains of the Texas Panhandle have experienced worse—many of their wells are going dry. As the aquifer draws lower, the future of agriculture in the region becomes an open question—and the answer depends, in part, on whether enough farmers can shift their practices to sustain on less groundwater.

“We must live within our ecological means in order to give those same ecological opportunities to the next generation,” said Grotegut, who is as much a self-taught ecologist as he is a farmer. “The ethical problem is, what are we leaving our kids?”

read on, worth it

But I lost a farmer's blog on how no-till farming + other stuff (especially mulch) meant water levels in his wells are rising.


16
Greenland is melting faster..

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48387030
Climate change: Greenland ice melt 'is accelerating'
Quote
Greenland is losing ice seven times faster than it was in the 1990s. The assessment comes from an international team of polar scientists who've reviewed all the satellite observations over a 26-year period.

They say Greenland's contribution to sea-level rise is currently tracking what had been regarded as a pessimistic projection of the future.

It means an additional 7cm of ocean rise could now be expected by the end of the century from Greenland alone. "Storms, if they happen against a baseline of higher seas - they will break flood defences," said Prof Andy Shepherd, of Leeds University. "The simple formula is that around the planet, six million people are brought into a flooding situation for every centimetre of sea-level rise. So, when you hear about a centimetre rise, it does have impacts," he told BBC News.

Greenland is reacting to the Arctic's rapid warming. This is a part of the globe that has seen a 0.75C temperature rise in just the past decade.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1855-2  Paywalled
Quote
Abstract
In recent decades, the Greenland Ice Sheet has been a major contributor to global sea-level rise1,2, and it is expected to be so in the future3. Although increases in glacier flow4–6 and surface melting7–9 have been driven by oceanic10–12 and atmospheric13,14 warming, the degree and trajectory of today’s imbalance remain uncertain. Here we compare and combine 26 individual satellite measurements of changes in the ice sheet’s volume, flow and gravitational potential to produce a reconciled estimate of its mass balance. Although the ice sheet was close to a state of balance in the 1990s, annual losses have risen since then, peaking at 335 ± 62 billion tonnes per year in 2011. In all, Greenland lost 3,800 ± 339 billion tonnes of ice between 1992 and 2018, causing the mean sea level to rise by 10.6 ± 0.9 millimetres. Using three regional climate models, we show that reduced surface mass balance has driven 1,971 ± 555 billion tonnes (52%) of the ice loss owing to increased meltwater runoff. The remaining 1,827 ± 538 billion tonnes (48%) of ice loss was due to increased glacier discharge, which rose from 41 ± 37 billion tonnes per year in the 1990s to 87 ± 25 billion tonnes per year since then. Between 2013 and 2017, the total rate of ice loss slowed to 217 ± 32 billion tonnes per year, on average, as atmospheric circulation favoured cooler conditions15 and as ocean temperatures fell at the terminus of Jakobshavn Isbræ16. Cumulative ice losses from Greenland as a whole have been close to the IPCC’s predicted rates for their high-end climate warming scenario17, which forecast an additional 50 to 120 millimetres of global sea-level rise by 2100 when compared to their central estimate.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 10, 2019, 12:52:22 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 11,052,722 km2(December 9, 2019)


- Extent gain on this day 84 k, 6k less than the average gain of 90 k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 7,088 k, 436k (6.6%) MORE than the average gain to date of 6,652 k.
- Extent is 5th lowest in the satellite record,
- Extent is 687 k more than 2016
- Extent is 90k more than 2018
- Extent is 11 k (0.1%)  more than the 2010's average.

- on average 67.6 % of extent gain for the the season done, 93 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 14.24 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.36 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.8  to +2.2 celsius over the next 5 days. However, these +ve temperature anomalies appear to have no effect on sea ice gains.

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- at the Pacific Gateway and especially at the Atlantic Front, which are probably contributing to the recent large and even extreme extent gains.

On this day sea ice extent gain a trifle below average - what next?
_____________________________________________________________

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 09, 2019, 08:30:16 PM »
Beware share price in December.

Everybody on Wall Street wants their Xmas bonus. Bad news is spun into good news.
Shorties usually go away and hope for the January hangover.


19
Evidence for increased submarine melting of tidewater glaciers (& ice shelves?)


Geophysical Research Letters
Meltwater intrusions reveal mechanisms for rapid submarine melt at a tidewater glacier
R.H. Jackson  J.D. Nash  C. Kienholz  D.A. Sutherland  J.M. Amundson  R.J. Motyka  D. Winters  E. Skyllingstad  E. Pettit
First published: 25 November 2019 https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085335
Quote
Abstract
Submarine melting has been implicated as a driver of glacier retreat and sea level rise, but to date melting has been difficult to observe and quantify. As a result, melt rates have been estimated from parameterizations that are largely unconstrained by observations, particularly at the near‐vertical termini of tidewater glaciers. With standard coefficients, these melt parameterizations predict that ambient melting (the melt away from subglacial discharge outlets) is negligible compared to discharge‐driven melting for typical tidewater glaciers. Here, we present new data from LeConte Glacier, Alaska that challenges this paradigm. Using autonomous kayaks, we observe ambient meltwater intrusions that are ubiquitous within 400 m of the terminus, and we provide the first characterization of their properties, structure, and distribution. Our results suggest that ambient melt rates are substantially higher ($\x100$) than standard theory predicts and that ambient melting is a significant part of the total submarine melt flux. We explore modifications to the prevalent melt parameterization to provide a path forward for improved modeling of ocean‐glacier interactions.

Plain Language Summary
Tidewater glaciers discharge ice into the ocean through iceberg calving and submarine melting. Submarine melting has been implicated as a driver of glacier retreat and sea level rise, but melt rates have been difficult to directly observe and quantify. As a result, melt rates are typically estimated using a theory that has not been tested with observations at any tidewater glaciers. Two types of melting are expected at tidewater glaciers: where subglacial discharge drains from outlets in the terminus, energetic upwelling plumes rise along the ice face, and theory predicts vigorous melting. Away from discharge outlets, weaker plumes form from ambient melting, and theory predicts that these ambient melt rates are effectively negligible compared to discharge‐driven melting. Here, we present new data from LeConte Glacier, Alaska that challenges this paradigm. Using autonomous kayaks, we observe intrusions of meltwater ‐‐ the product of ambient melt plumes ‐‐ that are only found within 400 m of the terminus, and we provide the first characterization of their properties, structure, and distribution. Their ubiquity suggests that ambient melt rates are substantially higher than standard theory predicts and that ambient melting is a significant ‐‐ but often neglected ‐‐ part of the total submarine melt flux.

20
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 09, 2019, 04:42:54 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 8 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,664,730 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,664,730    km2      
-166,371    km2   <   2010's average.
-190,639    km2   <   2018
-552,635    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change    121    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    24    k   gain
Central Seas__    39    k   gain
Other Seas___    58    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____    25    k   gain
Greenland____   -12    k   loss
Barents ______    11    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    0    k   gain
CAA_________    6    k   gain
East Siberian__    6    k   gain
Central Arctic_    1    k   gain
         
Kara_________    12    k   gain
Laptev_______   -9    k   loss
Chukchi______    22    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -4    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -2    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    64    k   gain

Daily gain 121 k, 51 k MORE than the 2010's average of 70 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 166 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 191 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 971 km2
- 2019 area 4th lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +1.5  to +2.5 celsius over the next 5 days. However, these +ve temperature anomalies appear to have no effect on sea ice gains.

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front, which are probably contributing to the recent large and even extreme extent gains.

Very cold in Hudson Bay - extreme sea ice gains there contributing to the extreme sea ice gains over the last 5 days
________________________________________________________________________
The final maximum sea ice area and extent result will depend on seas on the periphery or outside of the main Arctic Ocean, namely..
- The Okhotsk Sea,
- The Bering Sea,
- Baffin Bay,
- The St. Lawrence Sea,
- The Greenland Sea
- The Barents Sea.

So the current very rapid freeze of Hudson Bay is essentially irrelevant.

As far as the 2020 melting season is concerned, it may be that the seas with significance for early melting are just the Bering, Greenland and Barents Seas.

21
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 09, 2019, 02:52:34 PM »
Staying at or below 1.5°C requires reducing global greenhouse gas emissions  to 45 percent below 2010 levels by 2030

In 2010 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 33 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 38 GT
In 2018 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 37 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 42 GT

(**assumes no change)

So how are we doing in 2019? I sent an e-mail to ENERDATA.com
I got an answer. 2019 emissions from energy estimated to rise by 1 to 1.5% in 2019.
The main conclusion for me is that the drop in CO2 emissions from the reduction in coal + increase in energy from renewable sources is less than the increase in CO2 emissions from growth in Natural Gas and oil.

So assume
In 2019 CO2 emissions from fossil fuels & industry were circa 37.5 GT + **land-use changes 5 GT = 42.5 GT

For total CO2 emissions to reduce by 45% by 2030,
- 2030 total emissions down to 21 GT,
- 2030 emissions from fossil fuels & industry 16 GT (assumes no change in land-use changes)

That is a reduction of 58% in CO2 from fossil fuels & industry from 2019 to 2030..

It also assumes that emissions from land-use changes will not increase and the carbon sinks will not deteriorate.

Meanwhile..
Climate change: UN negotiators 'playing politics' amid global crisis
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50706236

22
Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: December 09, 2019, 12:23:11 PM »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union%E2%80%93Mercosur_free_trade_agreement
European Union–Mercosur free trade agreement

Blindly continuing down the path of mutually assured destruction......

It is just possible that the actions of Bolsonaro will force the EU to think again. Hope dies last.
Quote
According to Jonathan Watts ‘negotiations took almost two decades, which may explain why the outcome signed last week reflects the pro-industry values of the past rather than the environmental concerns of the present’.[12] An editorial in The Irish Times states “EU countries are committing to achieving net-zero carbon by 2050, but this will prove meaningless if the planet’s greatest carbon sink is destroyed.”

The deal is expected to trigger a huge surge of Brazilian beef exports to all EU countries.[8][12] Under the agreement, the EU will open its markets to a quota of up to 99,000 tonnes of beef per year at a preferential rate of 7.5% tariffs.

Cattle farming is the single largest driver of Amazon deforestation, and has been responsible for as much as 80% of the deforestation

Opposition
The deal has been denounced by European beef farmers, environmental activists and indigenous rights campaigners.[5][9] Protests against the deal have taken place.[5][10] After Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro received much criticism concerning the protection of the Amazon rain forest, both Ireland and France voiced concern, and threatened a veto on the agreement unless action is taken by the Brazilian government.[11]

European farmers
The deal is expected to trigger a huge surge of Brazilian beef exports to all EU countries.[8][12] Under the agreement, the EU will open its markets to a quota of up to 99,000 tonnes of beef per year at a preferential rate of 7.5% tariffs.[5] Farmers throughout the EU oppose this, particularly smaller farmers who fear being undercut on price.[5] The COPA-COGECA union, which represents 23 million farmers across the EU, warned the deal “will go down in history as a very dark moment”.[5] The Irish Farmers' Association denounced the deal as a “disgraceful and feeble sell-out”.[13]

Of concern also is the potential environmental impact of the agreement, in particular that it could represent a setback in the fight against climate change.[12] The Amazon rainforest is one of the world's largest carbon sinks.[14] But the amount of carbon that the Amazon is absorbing from the atmosphere and storing each year has fallen by around a third in the last decade.[15] This decline in the Amazon carbon sink amounts to one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – equivalent to over twice the UK’s annual emissions.[15] Since the election of Jair Bolsonaro as President of Brazil deforestation of the Amazon has intensified.[12] The deforestation of the Amazon is now at its highest rate in a decade, with 2018 seeing a 13% increase in deforestation.[12]

Cattle farming is the single largest driver of Amazon deforestation, and has been responsible for as much as 80% of the deforestation.[12][16] The current increased rate of rainforest destruction comes at a time of record beef exports from Brazil.[12] The fear is that the deal could lead to even more deforestation as it expands market access to Brazilian beef.

23
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: December 09, 2019, 11:58:03 AM »
https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current - 4 Dec

Qu: But how much melt before the next blast ?
_____________________________
https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current - 8 Dec

A:  Quite a lot (North America and Eurasia)

My speculation that belongs to me (mostly stolen from real scientists) - for North America especially ↠↠
Global heating ↠ Weak Polar Vortex
↠ ↠ large slow-moving Rossby Waves 
↠ ↠ influx of cold & snow from the North
↠ ↠ followed by influx of warmth from the South

= record snowfall & storms followed by strong melt = overall average snow cover.

24
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 09, 2019, 07:48:12 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 11,073,060 km2(December 8, 2019)

- 2019 is 3rd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 274 k, 70 k more than the last 10 years' average of 204 k,
- Extent loss to date 77 million km2, 0.71 million (10.8%) GREATER than the 10 year average of 6.56 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1,097 k more than 2016 on this day,
- Extent is 36 k more than 1982 on this day,

- 41.1% of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 74 days to the average minimum date of 19 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

We are into the period of maximum daily extent loss. This makes projections even more perilous.

Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 1.68 million km2, 0.46 million less than the record low on 1st March 2017, which would be astonishing.
______________________________________________________________

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 08, 2019, 11:40:00 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 10,805,648 km2(December 7, 2019)

A fourth day of extreme extent gains.

- Extent gain on this day 153 k, 99k more than the average gain of 54k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 6,841 k, 335k (5.2%) MORE than the average gain to date of 6,506 k.
- Extent is 4th lowest in the satellite record,
- Extent is 628 k more than 2016

- Extent is 7 k more than 2018
- Extent is 85 k (0.8%)  less than the 2010's average.

- on average 66.1 % of extent gain for the the season done, 95 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 14.14 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.26 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +1.3  to +2.5 celsius over the next 5 days. However, these +ve temperature anomalies appear to have no effect on sea ice gains.

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front, which are probably contributing to the recent large and even extreme extent gains.
_____________________________________________________________

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: December 07, 2019, 09:09:18 PM »
I was hoping I would be dead before someone would do something really, really stupid with AI and robots.

Unfortunately, progress has been far too rapid in developing capability.
Some general somewhere.......

27
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: December 07, 2019, 09:01:56 PM »
Yeah not things you would ever think you would see.

And no, i live in the city so i don´t have much direct reports myself (just that the ducks are having new chicks in september which is a little later then usual).

They were new then so that was rather late in september or beyond the normal system.
I have seen chickens starting in february years ago in years where we have an early spring that starts after a balmy version of winter. 

So yesterday i walk around a corner and there is momma duck with 4 new ones. Real new ones about 2 weeks old. In december! Guess

That was quite unexpected. Wonder how well they will do. We had one coldish day and for the rest it is balmy. Tree looks like it is in spring mode too...

BTW location netherlands.
Quacky weather? (sorry for that)

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 07, 2019, 08:20:12 PM »
The 2019-20 Freezing season is about half-done in elapsed days, and about 2/3rds done in extent gains. During the freezing season, AREA is a lagging indicator, so here are EXTENT graphs looking at the whole freezing season - September to March

CANADIAN SEAS
Baffin Bay
A surprise this year - early to melt, late to freeze. Will the maximum also be a record low?
Of interest (at least to me) is that over the years the March sea ice maximum is declining much faster than the September minimum (which still does not reach zero). This is in contrast to the overall trend in the Arctic Seas. The Atlantic warmth is pushing north?

Canadian Archipelago (CAA) Is frozen completely pretty much on schedule, or maybe 5 days late?

Chukchi Sea Freezing is late, very late, but looks like the only question is how late the complete freeze-up will be.

Hudson Bay Freeze started late but is now playing catch-up with a vengeance. But will final freeze be early, on time or late?
[/quote]

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 07, 2019, 04:03:26 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 6 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,430,332 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,430,332    km2      
-263,872    km2   <   2010's average.
-330,827    km2   <   2018
-660,630    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change    90    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    6    k   gain
Central Seas__    35    k   gain
Other Seas___    49    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    5    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    23    k   gain
Greenland____   -21    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    6    k   gain
CAA_________    5    k   gain
East Siberian__    7    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -8    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -0    k   loss
Laptev_______   -1    k   loss
Chukchi______    26    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    2    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    48    k   gain

Daily gain 90 k, 24 k MORE than the 2010's average of 66 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 264 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 331 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 812 km2
- 2019 area 5th lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +1.1  to +2.8 celsius over the next 5 days, -

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front which are probably contributing to the recent large extent gains. You can see the switch from gains to losses and vice versa by looking at the previous days data in the tables.

Note also 48k gain in Hudson Bay
________________________________________________________________________

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 07, 2019, 03:20:06 PM »
Well found, dnem

A pity that most of the powers that presume to govern us prefer Binntho's view.

31
Consequences / Re: IPCC Ocean & Cryosphere Report 2019
« on: December 07, 2019, 02:05:46 PM »
Welcome to the Dead Zones

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/07/oceans-losing-oxygen-at-unprecedented-rate-experts-warn
Oceans losing oxygen at unprecedented rate, experts warn
Quote
Dead zones – where oxygen is effectively absent – have quadrupled in extent in the last half-century, and there are also at least 700 areas where oxygen is at dangerously low levels, up from 45 when research was undertaken in the 1960s.

https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2019-048-En.pdf

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 07, 2019, 10:06:50 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 10,652,265 km2(December 6, 2019)

A third day of extreme extent gains.

- Extent gain on this day 106 k, 43k more than the average gain of 63k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 6,688 k, 236k (3.7%) MORE than the average gain to date of 6,452 k.
- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record,
- Extent is 568 k more than 2016

- Extent is 65 k less than 2018
- Extent is 175 k (1.6%)  less than the 2010's average.

- on average 65.6 % of extent gain for the the season done, 96 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 14.04 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.16 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +1.1  to +2.8 celsius over the next 5 days, -

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front which are probably contributing to the recent large extent gains.
_____________________________________________________________

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 06, 2019, 04:01:46 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 4 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,340,320  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,340,320    km2      
-287,888    km2   <   2010's average.
-398,041    km2   <   2018
-693,555    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change    75    k   gain
Peripheral Seas   -1    k   loss
Central Seas__    30    k   gain
Other Seas___    46    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    4    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    18    k   gain
Greenland____   -16    k   loss
Barents ______   -6    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    8    k   gain
CAA_________    4    k   gain
East Siberian__    8    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -8    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -6    k   loss
Laptev_______    0    k   gain
Chukchi______    25    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    5    k   gain
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    40    k   gain

Daily gain 75 k, 10 k MORE than the 2010's average of 65 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 288 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 398 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 767 km2
- 2019 area 5th lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +0.9  to +2.5 celsius over the next 5 days, -

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction - especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front. You can see the switch from gains to losses and vice versa by looking at the previous days data in the tables.
________________________________________________________________________

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 06, 2019, 02:19:52 PM »
Quote
Year zero failed the last time it was tried and millions died as a result .......
KiwiGriff, the only "Year Zero" I am familiar with is "Panic in the Year Zero", an old movie about a nuclear war.
Is that what you are referring to here?
If you want to make yourself really ill, read all about it.......

Year Zero (political notion) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Year_Zero_(political_notion)
The term Year Zero applied to the takeover of Cambodia in April 1975 by the Khmer Rouge, ... Perpetrators. "Angkar Leu". Pol Pot · Nuon Chea · Ieng Sary · Khieu Samphan · Son Sen · Ta Mok · Khmer Rouge · Communist Party of Kampuchea .

Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia - John Pilger
johnpilger.com › videos › year-zero-the-silent-death-of-cambodia
John Pilger's shocking 1979 documentary Year Zero: The Silent Death of Cambodia alerted the world to the horrors wrought by Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: December 06, 2019, 01:48:34 PM »
To me it looks like the MOSAIC project has had some windy times but not a real humdinger. So I did a google to see if they should expect one.

Perhaps they should, especially in this month.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45574-5
Winter storms accelerate the demise of sea ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic Ocean
Introduction

Quote
The strongest storms in the Arctic Ocean typically occur during winter and originate from the North Atlantic Ocean1,2 (Fig. 1). The number and intensity of Arctic winter storms has increased over the period 1979–2016. These storms often generate strong southerly winds that transport heat and moisture into the Arctic from the mid-latitudes, contributing to record breaking winter temperatures.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7def
Extreme cyclone events in the Arctic: Wintertime variability and trends
Abstract

Quote
Typically 20–40 extreme cyclone events (sometimes called 'weather bombs') occur in the Arctic North Atlantic per winter season, with an increasing trend of 6 events/decade over 1979–2015, according to 6 hourly station data from Ny-Ålesund. This increased frequency of extreme cyclones is consistent with observed significant winter warming, indicating that the meridional heat and moisture transport they bring is a factor in rising temperatures in the region. The winter trend in extreme cyclones is dominated by a positive monthly trend of about 3–4 events/decade in November–December, due mainly to an increasing persistence of extreme cyclone events. A negative trend in January opposes this, while there is no significant trend in February.

36
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 06, 2019, 12:48:59 PM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 11,767,601 km2(December 5, 2019)

A third double century extent loss on this day
- 2019 is 2nd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 241 k, 56 k more than the last 10 years' average of 185 k,
- Extent loss to date 6.58 million km2, 0.57 million (9.5%) GREATER than the 10 year average of 6.01 million km2 by this day.
- 37.7 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 77 days to the average minimum date of 19 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

We are into the period of maximum daily extent loss. This makes projections even more perilous.

Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 1.83 million km2, 0.31 million less than the record low on 1st March 2017.
______________________________________________________________

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 06, 2019, 12:34:03 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 10,546,431 km2(December 5, 2019)

A second day of extreme extent gains.

- Extent gain on this day 134 k, 65k more than the average gain of 69k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 6,582 k, 194k (3.0%) MORE than the average gain to date of 6,389 k.
- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record,
- Extent is 500 k more than 2016

- Extent is 95 k less than 2018
- Extent is 209 k (2.6%)  less than the 2010's average.

- on average 64.9 % of extent gain for the the season done, 97 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 14.00 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.12 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.

GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +0.9  to +2.5 celsius over the next 5 days, -

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front which are probably contributing to the recent large extent gains.
_____________________________________________________________

38
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: December 05, 2019, 08:15:06 PM »
A recent study on the USA by The Century Foundation is at...
https://tcf.org/content/report/robots-beginning-affect-workers-wages/?agreed=1.&agreed=1

At the moment the low-paid uneducated doing routine repetitive jobs in industry are most likely to be displaced. No surprise, easy to automate. But 'tis early days yet.
______________________
The quote and table below are 3 years out of date but quite scary (at least to me).

https://ifr.org/ifr-press-releases/news/robot-density-rises-globally
Quote
The top 10 most automated countries in the world are: South Korea, Singapore, Germany, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, USA, Italy, Belgium and Taiwan. This is according to the 2017 World Robot Statistics, issued by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR).

“Robot density is an excellent standard for comparison in order to take into account the differences in the automation degree of the manufacturing industry in various countries,” says Junji Tsuda, President of the International Federation of Robotics. “As a result of the high volume of robot installations in Asia in recent years, the region has the highest growth rate. Between 2010 and 2016, the average annual growth rate of robot density in Asia was 9 percent, in the Americas 7 percent and in Europe 5 percent.”

The development of robot density in China was the most dynamic in the world. Due to the significant growth of robot installations, particularly between 2013 and 2016, the density rate rose from 25 units in 2013 to 68 units in 2016. Today, China’s robot density ranks 23rd worldwide. And the government intends to forge ahead and make it into the world’s top 10 most intensively automated nations by 2020. By then, its robot density is targeted to rise to 150 units. Furthermore, the aim is to sell a total of 100,000 domestically produced industrial robots by 2020 (2017: 27,000 units from Chinese robot suppliers, 60,000 from foreign robot suppliers).

Worldwide, the Republic of Korea has by far the highest robot density in the manufacturing industry – a position the country has held since 2010. The country’s robot density exceeds the global average by a good eight-fold (631 units). This high growth rate is the result of continued installations of a high volume of robots particularly in the electrical/electronics industry and in the automotive industry.


39
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ as at 4 December 2019


Accumulated Data 1 Sept to 4 December

Melt From now of zero consequence until next April, but today a bit of sublimation in the SE

and

PRECIPITATION up & down like a yo-yo as usual, and i the last few day very much up - result.....

SMB abovt average - with the average much less than average on the west and the average much above average in the East (especially SE), and a the blob of above average SMB in the **NW becoming more substantial.

**Might be something to do with open water above average in Baffin Bay reaching as far as the Nares strait along the West coast.
________________________________________________________________________
Quotes from DMI
Quote
The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance (SMB) is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet – excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

Melting does not in itself necessarily give rise to mass loss, however. Much of the meltwater will refreeze in the surface snow layers rather than running off the ice sheet, and this process is included in the calculations of surface mass balance which is why the melt area plot may differ from the areas of negative mass balance seen on the map “Daily change”. Likewise, sublimation does not count as melting and surface mass balance can therefore occur with the surface temperature being far below the melting point.
_______________________________________________________________

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: December 05, 2019, 06:41:22 PM »
It seems the Russian icebreaker, "Kapitan Dranitsyn" has now left port  (Tromso) and is on its way.

It also seems it will divert, if necessary, to help getting Horn and Ousland off the ice, and maybe rescue  the Norwegian research ship «Lance» which has got stuck trying to get to the two men.

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2019/12/russian-icebreaker-set-out-tromso-course-ice-locked-german-research-ship
A Russian icebreaker set out from Tromsø with course for ice-locked German research ship
The «Kapitan Dranitsyn» is bringing equipment, supplies and 95 researchers to the «Polarstern» as part of great international research expedition MOSAiC.


'Tis the "Law of the Sea" - both written & unwritten.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 05, 2019, 03:20:46 PM »
Well, I could make several points, such as the following:

1) GDP is obviously not a measure of happiness. But it is the closest we've got.

2) There is no research that supports the claim that happiness and life satisfaction stalls when basic material needs have been met. This sounds more like a dystopian trope of the kind common in extistentialistic literature.

3) The richer a society is (i.e. the higher it's GDP), the better off its citisens are. They have better housing, better health care, better food, better clothing, better education, safer environments, less sickness, less likelyhood of violent death, more leisure time, and are more interested in the good things in life such as red wine by candlelight, hiking, skiing and other outdoor sports, and much more interested in nature preservation. Perhaps this doesn't add up to happiness, but to me it definitely smells like it.
1) GDP was never designed to be a measure of happiness. It is designed to measure economic activity in financial terms. It does not look at the "worth" of that activity. That it is used as a measure of happiness is just one of the really dumb things in the world.

2) There is evidence to suggest that when a society moves up from poverty to a "reasonable" standard of living discontent can emerge. "Man does not live by bread alone".  In South Korea as the economy improved so did the demand for political freedoms. The link tells you all about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising

Note that the expenses of the Government to suppress the people increased GDP.

You may wish to consider the situation in China & Hong Kong. I am sure the Central Party Committee are doing so.

1) again...GDP "is the closest we've got" to a measure of happiness. Rubbish.

UN Measures
Human Development Index (HDI)

Quote
The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. The HDI can also be used to question national policy choices, asking how two countries with the same level of GNI per capita can end up with different human development outcomes. These contrasts can stimulate debate about government policy priorities.

The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of average achievement in key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and have a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the three dimensions.

The health dimension is assessed by life expectancy at birth, the education dimension is measured by mean of years of schooling for adults aged 25 years and more and expected years of schooling for children of school entering age. The standard of living dimension is measured by gross national income per capita. The HDI uses the logarithm of income, to reflect the diminishing importance of income with increasing GNI. The scores for the three HDI dimension indices are then aggregated into a composite index using geometric mean.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/human-development-index-hdi

there are others such as the UN's Gender Inequality Index, and... also from the UN....

https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/#read

Other Indices
Freedom / Civil Liberties
list at this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

That's me lot. Sorry about all this off-topic stuff, but I thought that the posts by Binntho needed a thorough debunking as that which he states as facts are so - wrong.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 05, 2019, 02:20:01 PM »
Surveys done amongst people who have won large sums in the lottery show that they are mostly much happier than they were before, and happier than other people, even many years after winning. And the happiest countries in the world (as self-reported in surveys) are also amongst the richest countries in the world.
Why do you not quote your sources?

So we've had the "broken window fallacy" - on economic growth. That one has been debunked since 1833, but will not die. And now you come along with lottery winners - I see a large herring coloured bright red.

Next post looks at GDP

__________________________________________________-
https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/10.1162/REST_a_00114
Review of Economics and Statistics
Volume 93 | Issue 3 | August 2011
p.961-969
Abstract

This paper examines whether giving large cash transfers to financially distressed people causes them to avoid bankruptcy. A comparison of Florida Lottery winners who randomly received $50,000 to $150,000 to small winners indicates that such transfers only postpone bankruptcy rather than prevent it, a result inconsistent with the negative shock model of bankruptcy. Furthermore, the large winners who subsequently filed for bankruptcy had similar net assets and unsecured debt as small winners. Thus, our findings suggest that skepticism regarding the long-term impact of cash transfers may be warranted.
__________________________________________________
https://wolfstreet.com/2018/04/17/nearly-one-third-of-u-s-lottery-winners-declare-bankruptcy/
In fact, nearly one-third of lottery winners declare bankruptcy, and it doesn’t end there. It’s usually followed by depression, drug and alcohol abuse and estrangement from family and friends.
________________________________________________________

43
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: December 05, 2019, 01:58:14 PM »
the (UK) average cost of electricity per kWh is 14.37p, and the average gas cost per kWh is 3.80p.

I know gerontocrat, we haven't even touched on the fact that with the current power market, gas is massively cheaper than electricity.

Also the drive to CO2 neutral is pushing the short term electricity costs up, not down. Which increases resistance.

I can't see the stay warm initiative for pensioners doing quite so well without cheap gas to source the heat.

Promises need to come with a solid foundation of calculations to back them up.  Today, in the UK, we are doing "look after you leap" in the renewable energy space.
Isn't the high price of electricity due to the construction of new nuclear power plants like Hinckley C?  If the UK switched to renewables they'd find electricity prices going down.

Many utilities in the US have announced plans to retire coal plants well before the ends of their useful lives and switch to wind and/or solar with battery back up to save billions of dollars.

A new solar or wind farm can be built within two years of permitting and portions of it can be added to the grid before the entire farm is completed.
There is no doubt that Hinkley C when completed is going to be a weight on the electricity consumer for the next 40 to 50 years. But it is not in the current tariff. We don't know if the UK Government will push any more new plants.

Existing nuclear plants are not - construction costs have been largely written off and now the taxpayer is being stuffed with the decommissioning costs.

However, electricity generation cost itself is much less than half of the electricity bill. Even though, unlike NeilT I believe that we will see some reduction in electricity generation costs as wind+solar+battery (and maybe tidal) form the basis of UK electricity generation, gas for heating will still be much cheaper. We have a Gas national grid built in the 1960s to the 1980s and apart from asset replacement all construction costs are written down through deprecation / amortisation.

The Electricity National Grid has to be redesigned and rebuilt for a massive number of sources of electricity generation and consumption, many with 2-way traffic from the existing grid of a few large power sources and one-way traffic down to the consumer. Who will pay for the legacy costs of dumping redundant structures and building new structures?

The people who run our National Grid say that there are existing practical measures that will allow the UK to run a 100% renewable electricity supply. But it won't be cheap and it is not a case of simply building solar + wind farms and having a big plug to connect to the grid.

Meanwhile, signs of new life in the UK renewable industry.  - Solar+Wind+Batteries

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/04/scottish-power-build-solar-panels-windfarms
Scottish Power plans to build solar panels beside windfarms
Quote
Scottish Power plans to squeeze more renewable electricity from its onshore windfarms by covering the ground beside the turbines with photovoltaic panels and batteries.

The wind power firm has applied for permission to build its first solar power projects beneath the blades of its existing windfarms in Cornwall, Lancashire and Coldham.

Scottish Power says it hopes to include solar panels in the vast majority of its future onshore windfarms across Scotland and Ireland, depending on whether the ground conditions are suitable for panels.

Keith Anderson, Scottish Power’s chief executive, said: “Every green megawatt of electricity will be crucial if we stand any chance of hitting net zero in 2050. This means squeezing the absolute maximum potential out of every clean energy project that we consider.”

The Guardian revealed last month that Scottish Power had kicked off plans for an expansion of onshore windfarm projects across Scotland in anticipation of an expected government U-turn on support for wind power projects.

The company’s renewable energy division has considered almost 100 sites in Scotland and Ireland for a new breed of windfarm that uses fewer powerful turbines and can be fitted with solar panels and batteries.

In some cases, adding 10MW panels and 10MW of energy storage could double the green energy capacity of small windfarm sites.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 05, 2019, 10:58:57 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :-   22,420,949 km2(December 4, 2019)

- 2019 is 2nd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 107 k, 25 k less than the last 10 years' average of 132 k,
- Extent loss to date 2.18 million km2, 0.13 million (6.5 %) more than the 10 year average of 2.05 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1.65 million km2 greater than 2016,
- 22.5 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 72 days to the average minimum date of 13 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

Still extremely early to take this seriously. Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 15.36 million km2, 0.19 million less than the record low in early 2018.
_____________________________________________________________

45
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 04, 2019, 09:51:12 PM »
Aussie Wildfires - & only one week into summer....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/04/living-through-endless-weeks-of-dirty-air-it-does-your-head-in-and-your-lungs#comment-136174805
Quote
Post your comment

hawkeye634m ago

You do wonder if everyone in power today watched a film like The Day After Tomorrow and shouted at the screen "Why is no one listening to Dennis Quaid?"

Sunhead Darkspear6m ago

Remember kids.
ScoMo is an End Times Evangelical. He believes now is the time of Revelations, and they sky is black and the star are gone and the moon is red are all there in the 'prophecy' he believes in. This is good for him, he is Gods Elect Chosen to be Raptured to create The Earth anew after it is destroyed.
Sounds like a demented fairytale.

 hawkeye637m ago

The reason nothing gets done is because people in power think that human ingenuity will sort things out when the crises stop. They don't ever think there will be a day when they simply. don't. stop.

FriendlyFerret15m ago

Welcome to our world. Now it has come to the cities. No-one was worried elsewhere while the people of the Latrobe Valley lived int his for weeks and weeks while the mine was on fire. They didn't evacuate then, as they didn't care.
They can't evacuate now, as there is nowhere to go. Truth coming home.

LovelyDaffodils21m ago

I love a fire burnt country,
a land of searing plains,
of smoke-filled air and dust storms,
and a PM with no brains

Ingenui22m ago

Yep and we can still use open fireplaces and slow combustion wood heaters in the home on smokey winter days.
And gardeners can also continue to whip up more dust and pollution on these smokey windy days.
Who cares that the people can't breathe doggie?
gerontocrat28m ago

And only at the start of the summer.
When what were one-off events go on and and on...... - welcome to Global Heating.

Mark24635m ago

Are we actually allowed to talk about the fires yet? I mean, has the PM given his personal blessing for the conversation to begin? Or is it just too soon still?

marcusaureilius36m ago

Thought and prayers ffs

Scummo's nuremberg saluting in the house of the tongue talkers , pleading for a seat in the rapture.

Can it get worse?

Yes there's remnants of the east coast yet to burn.

Coming to a place near you over a summer of hell fire and brimstone.

daleaway41m ago

...And Australia is exporting its pollution:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/117907806/how-australias-bushfires-turned-new-zealands-snowcapped-glaciers-red

We do wish you wouldn’t. We liked the Southern Alps the way they were.

indelibleink41m ago

Oh Dog, you tried to tell them what was coming. The scientist have been trying to tell them.
The Greens tried to tell them. Greta tried to tell them. The school kids tried to tell them. Extinction Rebellion tried to tell them. Old people and young people all over the world have tried to tell them.
But the denial message paid for and delivered by Murdoch and the others of the 1% over-rode the millions of voices who could see what was the eventual unthinkable truth.

And the political lemmings believed the denials. They responded with fervour to the smug dismissal of the putrid pollies that kids should be in school learning to dig coal, Adani is a 'good' foreign Australian, that Extinction Rebellion are a bunch of unemployed 'terrorists' who'll smack a fine police officer horse and want to steal your weekend.

What price the weekend now? You can still drive your ute.... but you cannot go outside because of the toxic air, and there is nowhere to go because all the good places are burning.

46
In the early 1980's Hansen warned policy makers that the atmospheric CO2 concentration should not exceed about 350 ppm.

Didn't Hansen give this warning in 2008? See:
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Hansen_ha00410c.pdf

Before then I think he warned to not exceed 450 ppm, but maybe I'm mistaken.

1967 - Hansen warns Congress - but no number. Instead debate was about  what would happen if CO2 ppm doubled to 550 ppm.

2007 - 350 from which came 350.org

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122701942.html?

Remember This: 350 Parts Per Million
By Bill McKibben
Friday, December 28, 2007
Quote
This month may have been the most important yet in the two-decade history of the fight against global warming. Al Gore got his Nobel in Stockholm; international negotiators made real progress on a treaty in Bali; and in Washington, Congress actually worked up the nerve to raise gas mileage standards for cars.

But what may turn out to be the most crucial development went largely unnoticed. It happened at an academic conclave in San Francisco. A NASA scientist named James Hansen offered a simple, straightforward and mind-blowing bottom line for the planet: 350, as in parts per million carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's a number that may make what happened in Washington and Bali seem quaint and nearly irrelevant. It's the number that may define our future.

Twenty years ago, Hansen kicked off this issue by testifying before Congress th
at the planet was warming and that people were the cause. At the time, we could only guess how much warming it would take to put us in real danger. Since the pre-Industrial Revolution concentration of carbon in the atmosphere was roughly 275 parts per million, scientists and policymakers focused on what would happen if that number doubled -- 550 was a crude and mythical red line, but politicians and economists set about trying to see if we could stop short of that point. The answer was: not easily, but it could be done.

In the past five years, though, scientists began to worry that the planet was reacting more quickly than they had expected to the relatively small temperature increases we've already seen. The rapid melt of most glacial systems, for instance, convinced many that 450 parts per million was a more prudent target. That's what the European Union and many of the big environmental groups have been proposing in recent years, and the economic modeling makes clear that achieving it is still possible, though the chances diminish with every new coal-fired power plant.

But the data just keep getting worse. The news this fall that Arctic sea ice was melting at an off-the-charts pace and data from Greenland suggesting that its giant ice sheet was starting to slide into the ocean make even 450 look too high. Consider: We're already at 383 parts per million, and it's knocking the planet off kilter in substantial ways. So, what does that mean?

It means, Hansen says, that we've gone too far. "The evidence indicates we've aimed too high -- that the safe upper limit for atmospheric CO2is no more than 350 ppm," he said after his presentation. Hansen has reams of paleo-climatic data to support his statements (as do other scientists who presented papers at the American Geophysical Union conference in San Francisco this month). The last time the Earth warmed two or three degrees Celsius -- which is what 450 parts per million implies -- sea levels rose by tens of meters, something that would shake the foundations of the human enterprise should it happen again.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 08:18:08 PM »
Latest from them:
Quote
450 million years ago, CO2 levels were between 2000 and 8000 ppm. Earth did not turn into Venus then, either. In fact there was an ice age.
Interesting, huh? It's been both warmer and colder with far higher CO2 levels than we are at now.
Sounds to me like CO2 levels don't control Earth's temperature as much as some would like us to believe.
Anyone want to take it?
"Sounds to me like CO2 levels don't control Earth's temperature as much as some would like us to believe." TOTAL & UTTER CRAP.

Read & Inwardly digest

You are being lazy, to the point of insufferably lazy. It took me less than 5 minutes to google the links. You've got some grey cells between your ears - use them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/500-million-year-survey-earths-climate-reveals-dire-warning-humanity
https://sci.waikato.ac.nz/evolution/AnimalEvolution.shtml#footontheland
Quote
Colonisation of the land

Fish continued to evolve during the Silurian period (440 - 410 million years ago). At the same time some groups of plants and animals took a major step as they colonised the land for the first time. We are not sure why this advance occurred, but it was probably the result of competition in the marine ecosystems, plus the opportunity to escape predators and the availability of new terrestrial niches.

Arthropods, which had ventured temporarily onto land 100 million years earlier, were the first animals to become more permanent colonists. Fossil footprints made in the sandy flats surrounding temporary lakes dating back about 420 million years have been found in Western Australia.

The arthropods were pre-adapted to life on land. By the time they moved ashore, they had already evolved lighter bodies and slim, strong legs that could support them against the pull of gravity. Their hard outer exoskeletons provided protection and would help to retain water, although the development of a waxy, waterproof cuticle was necessary for efficient water conservation.

Spiders, centipedes and mites were among the earliest land animals. Some of them were giants: the largest was Slimonia, the size of a man and a relative of the scorpions. This animal was still too big and too heavy and the walking legs too small to venture onto land for any length of time and so they lived in marginal marine (deltaic) environments.


48
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (December 2019 )
« on: December 04, 2019, 04:08:04 PM »
You always know that a linear fit is not good when the first half of the data are (mostly) above the trendline and the second half is (mostly) below it.
I suggest that there was not much trend on your chart until the beginning of the 90s, then you had a steep downtrend till cca 2010 and now you have a less steep downtrend since then
Don't matter - the only trend is down.

I posted a load of stuff on "when will the Arctic go Ice-Free" about outliers. Using the standard methodology (sort-of) I isolated the outliers for extent and volume and the linear regression fit much better. First 3 attachments (September volume only).

I also looked at trends in area, volume & thickness for September using unadjusted data. Attachment 4.

The only trend is down.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 04, 2019, 03:41:08 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 3 December 2019 (5 day trailing average) 9,190,262 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 9,190,262    km2      
-307,310    km2   <   2010's average.
-544,906    km2   <   2018
-720,632    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    84    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    5    k   gain
Central Seas__    40    k   gain
Other Seas___    39    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    4    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    12    k   gain
Greenland____   -4    k   loss
Barents ______   -6    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    10    k   gain
CAA_________   -0    k   loss
East Siberian__    13    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -6    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -5    k   loss
Laptev_______    3    k   gain
Chukchi______    25    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    9    k   gain
St Lawrence___    3    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    27    k   gain

Daily gain 84 k, 16 k MORE than the 2010's average of 68 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 307 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 545 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 731 km2
- 2019 area 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.1  to +1.1 celsius over the next 5 days, -

Winds still highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front.
________________________________________________________________________

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2019)
« on: December 04, 2019, 01:03:40 PM »
Yet again, this person does "have use for the updated regional data files" from Wipneus:

PIOMAS Volume as at 30 November 2019  10.349 km3 '000
The standard graphs and tables as I use for the JAXA extent data are attached.

Volume gain in 1st week of November well above average.
Volume gain in 2nd week of November well below average.
Volume gain in last 2 weeks of November well above average declining to average by end of the month..

2019 volume is still 3rd lowest in the satellite record, by 211 km3 above 2012, and 965 km3 above 2016, and less than 2018 by 1,104 km3.
_______________________________________________________________
The last table is a look at projections to the next maximum. Far too early to take it seriously.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 31