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 - Sleepy

Pages: [1] 2 3
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 15, 2019, 06:52:15 AM »
Why are you trolling and derailing several threads in here Ken? And please, I don't need to be informed on where to find links to IPCC, you should be aware that if you read my previous replies to you. Why don't you read the replies, particularly where those 'mysterious' graphs emanates from? Then do the most important part; read the sources and papers.

Especially the one in question, it's open access as well:
Global Rules Mask the Mitigation Challenge Facing Developing Countries
Xuemei Jiang
Glen P. Peters
Christopher Green
First published: 22 March 2019
https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF001078

You obviously ignored the last line in my previous reply:
<snip>
There's more in that thread if someone wish to read it.

Another easy way to understanding that particular graph from the same thread:
<snip>
Glen Peters wrote a mini thread yesteday on this:
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1126030557593382912

Emissions targets by Rystad?? A couple more replies on the real MAGIC(C):
Roughly twelve years late or so... Remember beeing highly annoyed a decade ago about scientific reticence. Still someone told me just a few days ago, that I can't say that RCP2.6 is dead. A trip down memory lane:

Hansen on scientific reticence and sea level rise. (2007)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01210n.html

Van Vuuren from 2007 (a paper preceeding the RCP2.6 one from 2011...).
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9172-9

Adding Fig. 3:  Global CO 2 -eq. emissions (all sources) for the B2 baseline emission and pathways to stabilization at a concentration of 650, 550 and 450 ppm CO 2 -eq.

Edit; also adding Fig. 12 from the Van Vuuren 2011 paper. Emissions for the IMAGE (IM) alternative RCP scenarios.




And:

RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built with fossil fuels. Attitudes must change since we can't create energy, so the only option left is to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible.


Unless you know what's going to happen in the future, you can't say that. <snip>
I don't need the future, just IMAGE.  ;D

Edit; and Ken, all your four posts in this thread are off topic.



Here's the one from 2011:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-011-0152-3

2
BP numbers as presented by Robbie Andrews. Americans who are advocating for increased mass transports, may have a problem explaining how to decrease the US per capita energy consumption at the same time?

3
Knowing how and knowing when: unpacking public understanding of atmospheric CO2 accumulation
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-019-02423-8

One image split in two (snipped out the top and bottom parts) says it all (although current numbers are higher).

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:54:40 AM »
Energy Storage in Hydrogen : Does this beat batteries?
<snip>
Not yet, but we have the Worlds first off grid hydrogen station in Mariestad in operation now, documents attached at the link. The municipality is hoping to reach a fuel cost of 7kr/10km.

Inauguration of the Worlds first off grid hydrogen station in Mariestad on Tuesday (May 28).
https://www.svt.se/nyheter/vetenskap/folj-med-till-varldens-forsta-sjalvforsorjande-vatgasmack
Video at the link, unfortunately in Swedish.

Looks nice, until you start looking at the numbers and realize how many that would be needed.
Document links at the botttom.

Edit; forgot to add the obvious, the winter months here doesn't provide much energy.



5
Roughly twelve years late or so... Remember beeing highly annoyed a decade ago about scientific reticence. Still someone told me just a few days ago, that I can't say that RCP2.6 is dead. A trip down memory lane:

Hansen on scientific reticence and sea level rise. (2007)
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha01210n.html

Van Vuuren from 2007 (a paper preceeding the RCP2.6 one from 2011...).
Stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations at low levels: an assessment of reduction strategies and costs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-006-9172-9

Adding Fig. 3:  Global CO 2 -eq. emissions (all sources) for the B2 baseline emission and pathways to stabilization at a concentration of 650, 550 and 450 ppm CO 2 -eq.

Edit; also adding Fig. 12 from the Van Vuuren 2011 paper. Emissions for the IMAGE (IM) alternative RCP scenarios.

6
Crossposting this by ivica along with my comments.

An effort to raise public awareness about sea level rise, The Royal Institution, published on 2019-05-29, filmed at the Ri on 2019-02-11:

   Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? - with John Englander

   Q&A part
Thanks ivica.

Edit; What's not discussed in the future part at the end is sustainability and resource use. Nothing really new around SLR and glaciers (for those who follow this) but other than that, it's all sound and a worthwhile watch. Adding the key messages below.




7
Yup, and then we also have the worst and unfortunately still present hysteresis, maybe best depicted with Meadows bathtub analogy? First an old quote by Donella and then Dennis version from last year in one image.
http://donellameadows.org/archives/on-bathtubs-carbon-dioxide-and-disrespect/
Quote
–August 23, 1990–
...
The real issues here, the underlying fears that trigger our anger, are that on the one hand a bunch of environmental alarmists will force unnecessary changes in our fossil-fuel-powered way of doing things, and that on the other hand a bunch of technological conservatives with heavy stakes in fossil-fuel industries will drive the climate and the earth’s ecosystems into overheated chaos.

8
Attaching the above paper.

9
This thread is about science, risks and reality Rich, then opinions.

<snip>
The recent SR 1.5 was a jolt which triggered a step up in activism with Greta, XR and the GND but it's not enough yet.
<snip>
I know we're going to figure this SLR shit out. I don't what the range is going to be, but when we do, it's probably going to impact financial markets that will impact billions of people.
<snip>
It's pretty much figured out already, apart from the replies posted above, you can also read what Rignot has published back towards 2013 regarding Antarctica, there's plenty of posts on that in here as well.
And Greta was talking before SR15 and XR, check the date here:

Another from the "We Don't Have Time" series (posted earlier in this thread).

A message to all adults out there who are busy defending an obsolete lifestyle.





Edit; added the quotes for clarity.

10
Rich, the real joke here is that there's little we can do to stop further melting glaciers even 200 years ahead. We can improve scientific projections of SLR but that's merely about when and how much.

We could step on the FF-brakes but few are interested. RCP2.6 is dead and this planet will go past two degrees like nothing since almost everything we build today are built using fossil fuels. Even if we succeed with a 100% PV/Wind/EV World, attitudes must change because we still can't create energy or the resources we need for maintaining our present lifestyles in the west (including current infinite growth mentality).

The only option left would be to cut back consumption and use renewables and the electric transports we can afford, as wisely as possible. And that's exactly what westerners don't want. That's also why we have a multitude of different failed incremental solutions and a new 2018 emissions record.

Adding an older comment of mine because I like this graph by Levermann.
It has no timescale, just temperature correlated to SLR.
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13745.full.pdf
Fig 1E attached.
Quote
Paleo-Evidence
To compare the model results with past sea-level anomalies for
the temperature range up to 4 °C, we focus on three previous periods for which the geological record provides reasonable constraints on warmer climates and higher sea levels than preindustrial: the middle Pliocene, marine isotope stage 11, and the LIG (Fig. 1E).

11
The forum / Re: New participant perspective
« on: May 28, 2019, 06:21:41 AM »
Ironically Rich, the melting season thread around May is probably the worst time and place for new members on the ASIF. It takes a while to understand where people are coming from, and for that there are other threads (like Jim wrote above). Add some(times) cryptic brits, language issues with non native English speakers, individual pet theories, arguing (and worse) along with OT commentary while Neven moderates. It's pretty much the same procedure as every year, James!

12
We are in general, including the experts, notoriously overconfident and optimistic when it comes to predictions.

This article is from 1976, by E.C. Capen and the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
https://doi.org/10.2118/5579-PA
Quote
Handling Uncertainty

Our schooling trained us well to handle the certainties of the world. The principles of mathematics and physics work. In Newton's day, force equaled mass times acceleration, and it still does. The physicists, when they found somewhat erratic behavior on the atomic and molecular level, were able to solve many problems using statistical mechanics. The extremely large number of items they dealt with allowed these probabilistic methods to predict behavior accurately.

So we have a dilemma. Our training teaches us to handle situations in which we can accurately predict the variables. If we cannot, then we know methods that will save us in the presence of large numbers. Many of our problems, however, have a one-time-only characteristic, and the variables almost defy prediction.

You may embark on a new project whose technology differs from that used on other projects. Or perhaps your task is to perform a familiar project in a harsh environment. Try to estimate the total cost and completion time. Hard! You cannot foresee everything. And, for some reason, that which you cannot foretell seems to bring forth more ill than good. Hence, the predictions we make are often very optimistic. Even though we see the whole process unfolding and see estimate after estimate turn out optimistic, our next estimate more than likely will be optimistic also.

Also:
https://metasd.com/2012/07/capen-quiz/
Quote
Ventana colleague Bill Arthur has been giving the quiz to clients for years. In fact, it turns out that the vast majority of takers are overconfident in their knowledge – they choose ranges that are too narrow, and get only a three or four questions right. CEOs are the worst – if you score zero out of 10, you’re c-suite material.
  :)

13
Nice, thanks.
Posting this here as well, about DAC but it also outlines the risks and challenges for the US.
https://rhg.com/research/capturing-leadership-policies-for-the-us-to-advance-direct-air-capture-technology/

Last year, global CO2 emissions reached an all-time high. Recent scientific research indicates that global emissions need to reach net-zero between 2045 and 2055 to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. DAC technology does not make it possible to bypass the difficult work of reducing emissions. We find that even with break-neck electrification of vehicles, buildings, and industry, unprecedented improvements in energy efficiency, completely decarbonized power generation, and carbon removal from enhanced natural sequestration, DAC technology will be essential for the US to decarbonize by midcentury. Our analysis indicates that for the US to reach net-zero emissions by 2045 (our “100by45” scenarios) between 560 and 1,850 million metric tons of CO2 will need to be removed by DAC technology and then permanently stored underground annually, depending on the availability of other carbon removal options, such as bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and natural sequestration, and the pace of electrification in the transportation, buildings, and industrial sectors.

14
Slideshare by Glen Peters.
https://www.slideshare.net/GlenPeters_CICERO/were-so-fucking-late
Adding four selected images below.

15
Glacial cycles simulation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet with PISM – Part 1: Boundary conditions and climatic forcing.
https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2019-71/

Glacial cycles simulation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet with PISM – Part 2: Parameter ensemble analysis.
https://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/tc-2019-70/

Reference PISM simulation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet over the past 210 kyr, mp4 at this link:
https://av.tib.eu/media/41779

16
Adding to ASLR's post above, an mp4 I made of the NASA animation attached below.
Quote
Changes in surface height at Thwaites Glacier's grounding line, 2011 to 2017, with sinking areas in red and rising areas in blue. The growing cavity (red mass, center) caused the greatest sinking. The mottled area (bottom left) is the site of extensive calving. Contours show bedrock topography. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Also, AGGI is now updated with 2018 numbers:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

Edit; mp4 messed up so I had to redo it.

17
v_m, LvdL already posted that twice in here.

Edit; adding this tweet by Aslan Grinsted and the graph for RCP8.5 (RCP4.5 in the tweet).
https://twitter.com/AGrinsted/status/1130819798634573824

18
Not explicitly but that's why we have NET's in the RCP's, I think Reto Knutti (& Rogelj) said this best back in 2015;
A global temperature target implies a CO2 "budget" or "quota", a finite
amount of CO2 that society is allowed to emit to stay below the target.

19
This reeks.
https://twitter.com/neilrkaye/status/1129467029495398400
2018 emissions are equal to 1751 to 1895 total emissions.
Image added below.

Or why not Eric Holthaus comment (that spurred the above):
270 → 280 ppm: ~5000 yrs
280 → 290: ~100
290 → 300: ~40
300 → 310: ~30
310 → 320: ~23
320 → 330: 12
330 → 340: 8
340 → 350: 6
350 → 360: 7
360 → 370: 6
370 → 380: 5
380 → 390: 5
390 → 400: 5
400 → 410: 4
410 → 415.7: 2

We are in a climate emergency.

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 18, 2019, 07:53:14 AM »
I don't know if I should thank you, Tim. I also need straws to cling to. But I'll look into that Cory Morningstar (is that a real name?).
I've never liked Ingmar Rentzhog (We Don't Have Time). The problem I have with Tim's wording is this;
Quote
who stage managed Gretta's meteoric rise to international fame and corporate welcomed acclaim
that's the same wording as from our infamous SD leader, Jimme Åkesson. I never wrote what he said but I did post a comment here in April:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2431.msg196847.html#msg196847

And Greta (or her family) never got any money from that foundation, instead she immediately backed out when that was brought to her attention (which was back in early February):
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2431.msg197579.html#msg197579

Always been a blue eyed silly, naive fool so what would I know? Could dig a bit further but Don't Have Time for this now, going to run a half marathon today and emit some more CO2.  Healthy for plants and other living things, some say.  :P

21
I am.

Nah, expert nominations are presented by Governments, Observer Organizations and IPCC Bureau members. They are requested to submit their nominations via their focal points, for Sweden it's Markku Rummukainen so there's one for each country.

There's a full list of 'everything' at ipcc.ch, well documented for everyone.

22
The risk is unfortunately always there gc, earlier posted by Prokyarotes in this thread:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg170267.html#msg170267

Edit; bummer, made a quick search and ASLR actually posted it earlier:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg160628.html#msg160628

23
Some readers undoubtably think that because the 'Ice Apocalypse" thread is in the Antarctic folder, that this discussion is only related to Antarctic topics.  However, I clearly don't see it that way, as I post about cascades of ice-climate feedbacks throughout the entire gambit of Earth Systems (which includes feedback loops with non-ice related feedbacks). <snip>
Yes, most things are beeing covered here, unfortunately that can also be problematic because many are not reading or responding to more than the last post. It certainly takes some effort but is a really nice repository. Thank you.

24
A short cross post (just because I really liked these two).
Stumbled over these two beautiful precipitation animations:
https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1125790157284696065

Added below (optimized for size, sorry mac users).

25
Science / Re: Precipitation trends
« on: May 10, 2019, 08:23:54 AM »
Stumbled over these two beautiful precipitation animations:
https://twitter.com/Climatologist49/status/1125790157284696065

Added below (optimized for size, sorry mac users).

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 10, 2019, 08:16:29 AM »
You reminded me of this wili:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?topic=2337.0
There's at least three in here who don't consider themselves as fools.  ???

27
As some has noted earlier in this thread, RCP2.6 is no longer attainable.
https://news.agu.org/press-release/new-studies-highlight-challenge-of-meeting-paris-agreement-climate-goals/
A short quote and snipping out the top image from the second study with Peters.
Quote
Stone, with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said Peters’ study shows no one country can slip up in the goal to meet climate goals.

“It is hard to argue against their conclusion that we need to start seriously considering options such as the deployment of solar geoengineering, with all of the risks that entails, if the world is serious about achieving the Paris Agreement goals,” he said.



Glen Peters wrote a mini thread yesteday on this:
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1126030557593382912

28
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: May 09, 2019, 07:11:50 AM »
˅

29
I think anybody who claims a pause need their head examined.




30
Might not be the proper thread but Earth Rights Conference coming up this weekend, this time with online participation.

http://www.earthrightsconference.org/
What idea is powerful enough to heal the relationship between humans and nature?

A space for dialogue and co-creation about the idea that nature, not just humans, have rights.

Can this idea be the foundation for a new dimension of respect and harmony between humanity and the planet? The legal and existential dimensions of this question are raised and examined, in dialogue with leading voices for Earth rights from different parts of the world. This is the second international conference on Earth rights arranged by the Sigtuna Foundation in cooperation with Lodyn and Cemus.

31
<snip>
The fundamental reason I started this thread years ago was to point out that the answer is 'no cars'.  EV technology is fine and the collective we will advance it a long ways over the next few decades.  But it will not save us - thus my atheism.  A world of a couple of billion ev's just justify's extending the standard infrastructure and human footprint.  EV's as they are being approached, especially by Musk - luxury, are another form of BAU and a denial of our desperate situation.

We must change our way of life and our footprint.
<snip>

32
You could replace "GRACE-FO" with "EARTH" in that ^ scentence.

--
Edit; if someone wish to explore the expanding refrigeration market a bit further here's a few useful links:
http://www.iifiir.org/medias/medias.aspx?instance=EXPLOITATION&SETLANGUAGE=EN
https://www.ejarn.com/news_list.php?c=home&t=eJARN-News
Also market report from last year:
https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/refrigerant-market
Leaving this now.

--
Since I usually try to follow up on older comments and check the number of views on posted videos, I'll crosspost this here where the interest might be higher.
Bunch-O-vids from the International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions.
<snip>
Those were all from last years conference:
http://negativeco2emissions2018.com/
Instead of filling this thread with individual videos I'll simply add the url to all of them:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCirbz-iLdizsK2G7lmOgodw/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=1
Very few views on all of them.

33
.ons...

...Everyone in that business knows that CFC is still around and why it shouldn't be used, everyone.
The newer blends is a result of the refrigerant oligopoly defending patented blends.
There has been alternative refrigerants for as long as there has been heat pumps....


Shame they are using CFCs in foam in the building industry in China. Apparently they are very easy to export too, in the form of hydrogenated polyols.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-44738952

Yeah, what's truly surprising (after decades...) is that the "experts" out there are still surprised, gobsmacked and shocked, that R11 is still in use and for sale. It's on frickin' youtube...

What's visible here is one nitrogen and one R22 canister, prior to that he used R11 to clean the pipes. All of it vented into the air.



Edit; correcting the URL.

34
Last year, a coalition of scientists and policy experts at the nonprofit Drawdown ranked the top one hundred climate change solutions by level of impact. No one guessed that refrigerant management, which includes CFCs and two other classes of chemicals known as HCFCs and HFCs, would top the list. But it did.
Heh, refrigerants was once my way into all of this, it started in the early 90s when talking to a really good hvac engineer. Heat pumps was my No1 hobby for many years and I don't need assistance to take care of those I use myself. My oldest in (24/7/365) use, is now 14 years old and even though it is "leak free" it has leaked (manufacturing and installation) and will leak during/after de-installation. All domestic heat pumps will leak at some point in time.
Most during operation thanks to crappy installations...

Everyone in that business knows that CFC is still around and why it shouldn't be used, everyone.
The newer blends is a result of the refrigerant oligopoly defending patented blends.
There has been alternative refrigerants for as long as there has been heat pumps.

Still, CFC is the only real success story we have to date, levels are dropping in the atmosphere.


Edit; instead of just vomiting over these companies I will try to add some more substance. Had breakfast and then checked the main AGGI site but it still wasn't updated with numbers for 2018 so I took a graph for R32 (HFC-32), "the new blue" from the refrigerant industry. It's not new, but comes with the same nasty property like non patended refrigerants like ethane(R170), propane (R290) and propylene (R1270), namely fire hazards.
R32 is also toxic and produces hydrogen fluoride while burning. R32 has been used for a long time in blends like the popular R410a, a blend of R32 and R125.
R125 is useless as a refrigerant, it's used to lower the fire hazards of R32.

Using AR4 numbers:
R410a has a GWP of 2088, R32(675), R125(3500).
R170(6), R290(3) and R1270(2)

Aha, someone says, R410a/R32 must surely be more efficent than the hydrocarbons!?
No. Adding a modeled COP comparison with R410a as baseline, as the second image.

I've used propylene myself in a R410a heat pump, for cooling it's great but for heating it only works really well down to ~0°C, to be able to use it effectively in sub zero temps you need to add ethane to increase the pressure in/of the blend. My problem some years back was that ethane was incredibly expensive, so I shelved further tests. But it will work just fine. In a domestic heat pump there's normally ~1kg of R410a or slightly less.
The fire hazards involved with hydrocarbons are easily fixed with sensors and fans but/and I guess people have a lot more flammable stuff in their homes without thinking about it at all.

The last twist here is that when you use hydrocarbons you lower the charge of refrigerant to roughly ~0,5kg (also visible in the second image). Lastly adding a P/T-comparison made almost seven years ago, when playing with these things. A 80/20 blend would do just fine as a drop in replacement for R410a. You don't even have to change the oil...

Edit2: Forgot the real twist but it's visible if you read carefully and look at the second image. When replacing R410a with a proper HC blend, you will have a better COP on your existing machine.

Hmm, sorry for this lengthy rant of memories...

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: May 01, 2019, 10:17:24 PM »
There's plenty more of that vileness here, I won't go into that, rather display her incredibly privileged background. Yes, her mother and grandfather are well known here but beware, this is scary stuff for grown up men:



Olof Thunberg is, for many here, the voice of "Bamse" The world's strongest bear (cartoon since 1966) and the most scary thing he probably ever did was the voice of Grumpy in Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. He will be 94 this month.

But the Earth might tremble if Greta shares her mothers voice. My place on Earth:


36
One doesn't need models to understand what's behind us. Adding to last years record emissions, this planet passed safe(?) levels forty years ago. Maybe the EPA realized that when writing the 1983 report? What the IPCC really says (considering the RoW) is that the US (and it's western ilks) must be at net zero emissions ~2030.

Adding to my comment here:
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg196975.html#msg196975
Others have argued for SRM as well, recycling an old comment from last year with Kevin Lister:
Kevin Lister, research fellow at Climate Institute, Washington D.C. argues for the need to lower the global average temperature to +0,5°C above pre.industrial. And the use of SRM.



https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/97_Talanoa%20Submission_climate%20institute.pdf

<snipping out the quote, those who are interested will read it anyway>

37
Walking the walk / Re: Top climate-friendly actions
« on: April 30, 2019, 10:51:13 AM »
Or support a value based bank. 55 of 'em around the globe now:
http://www.gabv.org/the-community/find-members



A small but growing issue is that cash payments are on decline and some even refuse to take cash nowadays, Ekobanken (the only one here) doesn't provide card payments.

38
Why argue with someone who denies conclusions by a AR6 author? Let him derail some other thread.

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: April 27, 2019, 10:11:17 AM »
Yesterday I was called a fool because I prefer to use my own two feet. :)
Found this comment very apt:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1121775123005100032
If you are middle class, they call you a champagne socialist
If you are working class, they say it's the politics of envy
If you wear leather shoes, they call you a hypocrite
If you don't, they call you a hippy.
Everyone, apparently, is disqualified from challenging the system.

40
As some has noted earlier in this thread, RCP2.6 is no longer attainable.
https://news.agu.org/press-release/new-studies-highlight-challenge-of-meeting-paris-agreement-climate-goals/
A short quote and snipping out the top image from the second study with Peters.
Quote
Stone, with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, said Peters’ study shows no one country can slip up in the goal to meet climate goals.

“It is hard to argue against their conclusion that we need to start seriously considering options such as the deployment of solar geoengineering, with all of the risks that entails, if the world is serious about achieving the Paris Agreement goals,” he said.

41
Hmm, what will support those luxury rafts in the future, jellyfish?

Edit; I'll cross post this one here because I think it's a little gem.

Wise old words.
"Because when the window opens, you have to know what to do."


99 views.

43
Here (as in many other western countries) we get higher subsidies with more kids. One kid renders SEK 1,250/month and six kids renders SEK 11,740/month nowadays.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/CIA_WFB_TotFertilityRate-GDP-Population_-_Simplified_2016.png

Total fertility rates for Sweden during the last century added below, it didn't take much wealth to drop birth rates here. They were dropping before WW1, GDP per capita doubled between 1876 and 1913. Later/further GDP doubling had much less effect.

44
Walking the walk / Re: When was the last flight you took?
« on: April 18, 2019, 09:33:23 AM »
What that lifestyle looks like deserves more attention than ICE verses EV . What does a less than two ton CO2 footprint look like?
Something like this or less (translation at the link).
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1150.msg143576.html#msg143576


Swedens overshoot day was Apr 4 last year. There's no room left to buy an EV.
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/hard-look-negative-emissions

45
Sweden was Apr 4 last year, twenty days after the US and a boring guess for 2019 globally: Jul 30.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf303

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The Rammb Slider Thread
« on: April 16, 2019, 10:27:19 AM »
People are talking different sizes here, pixel size and file size. Then add animation and canvas size.

If you want a thread primarily using animated images and at the same time optimize loading time for users with low bandwidth you should use a 701 pixel canvas. A 700 pixel image (or lower) with a 701 pixel canvas is exactly as good as an image with an 700 pixel canvas as long as the image itself is the same (original) size, pixelwise...

Your filesizes are also a bit large b_lumenkraft, as an example, NSDust03 above is +14MB, as a comparison I'll attach a modified animation using ScreenToGif and Photoshop with a 701 pixel wide canvas, it's now down to 3,7MB and it doesn't autoplay.

In short; b.c. is happy because loading time and power consumption are improved at his end.
Nevens servers likewise.
You've got more work and increased your own power consumption.
Like I did right now. But I save a lot more by not using a car. ;)

Edit; forgot to add the former standard phrase in here, click to animate.

47
Reply #576 on: February 06, 2019, 08:17:33 PM
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg188317.html#msg188317
Quote
Both DeConto and Pollard were originally co-authors on the new paper. They later recused themselves because they felt the results coming from Edwards’s statistical model were not consistent with what they were seeing from their own physics-based glacier model.

48
Hansen is talking about the effect of ice sheet disintegration and freshwater hosing, which provides the obvious negative feedback and cooling but at the same time increases the planet's energy imbalance. See (b) in the image ASLR posted above, it's in section 3.4 of that paper.

Edit; might as well add the link: https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/

49
Mornin', maybe I still don't follow but a static Antarctica would lower the planet's energy imbalance.

50
I haven't followed but maybe one of the two papers attached below?

Just popped in to post this nice(?) podcast with Glen Peters (one of the lead authors in WG6-AR3-Ch3):
https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/energy-policy-now/hard-look-negative-emissions

Pages: [1] 2 3