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 - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: Today at 03:19:08 AM »
bbr has been placed on moderation again because of his abusive posting style. Hopefully the recent atrocities should die down. If you still run into posts that you find offensive, please "report to moderator".

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 27, 2020, 01:52:42 PM »
ASLR's thread is more of a general blog with others' comments interspersed. At some point he decided to stop posting in most threads, and focus his posts in that one thread. Nothing wrong with that. Decisions of what is on and off topic are left for him to decide.
Besides, higher climate forcing from aviation is certainly relevant to SLR.

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: September 27, 2020, 09:52:57 AM »
Biden is not good, but Trump is terrible.
He can still easily win, despite all the nice charts to the contrary, partly thanks to the rotten and jerry-rigged US election system and partly because of the easily swayed public. And if not, he might stay anyway. I am not optimistic.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 26, 2020, 11:44:29 PM »
No, you should be put (back) in moderation because of an abusive posting style that is not commensurate with the tradition and spirit of this forum.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 26, 2020, 12:58:33 AM »
DMI N80 is weighted by latitude rather than by area. So the circle 89-90 gets the same weight as the 80-81 belt, which has an area 19 times larger. Badly skewed.

Edited into the first post.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:17:33 PM »
One thing that would shrink my killfile is if there were a rule against repetetition.

I see the same posters say the same thing in exactly the same language again and again and again and again and ... sorta like groundhog day ... and my killfile grows.

Repetition is not argument. As I have stated before, one of the biggest reason i killfile people is not that i disagree, it is that they are so, so predictable. Often, i feel i could have assembled their latest posts, entirely cobbled together from previous ones. Reminds me of Louis L'Amour westerns, said to be a favorite of Ronald Reagan's.

At the risk of repetition I wholeheartedly agree. Some prolific members, each in a specific thread, are hashing and rehashing the same positions and arguments regardless of any attempt to engage or inject any information or alternative viewpoints into the process. The posts are completely predictable and do not bring new data or reasoning. I find argument by repetition to be destructive and achieving nothing except to silence the discussion through sheer exhaustion. As I avoid blocking members by principle, I find myself speed-scrolling through such members' posts, and in most cases I have given up on responding.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:03:56 PM »
the weather is totaly nuts on the russian islands
Thank you aslan for bringing these updates. The weather behavior in that region is almost a statistical impossibility. The pattern is stuck.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 25, 2020, 05:02:46 AM »
Sorry, I give up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 24, 2020, 02:40:12 AM »
Indeed, 1992 to 1993 and 2006 to 2007 missing from the fancy analysis. Very bad science.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 23, 2020, 05:18:53 PM »
Ktb could report politics news related to abortions without resorting to telling a personal opinion. Assume that we all know your opinion and no need to retell it. Tom this applies to you as well.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 02:14:51 PM »
oren, are you of the opinion that the energy transition problem has to be solved for all humans and not just for the rich parts?
I presume you do :).
Of course, and I have written along those lines.
Why would you think otherwise?

It still doesn't make ralfy's EROI arguments any truer.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:32:58 AM »
People who argue against abortion while at the same time arguing against contraceptives. The hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
I agree though, nothing good will come out of discussing such divisive and religiously-charged issues on the ASIF.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 22, 2020, 09:07:50 AM »
If you were to drop the irrelevant EROI argument ralfy, stopped claiming solar has diminishing returns, and stopped ignoring the waste heat that comes with FF but is not part of renewable energy, it is quite plausible that most members would agree with your assertions about the need for more energy quantity in the future, the difficulty in making a fast enough transition, and the need to reduce developed countries consumption and overall population growth.
What bothers me is that you make important claims (though rather trivial), but using wrong methods and arguments. In science I think it's not just the conclusion that matters, but the method.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 02:11:55 PM »
There were many reports earlier this year proclaiming the virus natural. Since you make extraordinary claims, feel free to support them.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 02:04:35 PM »
Are you seriously discrediting the Wuhan Institute of Virology connection?
Yes. I'll take scientific consensus over your wild and always super-confident opinions any day of the week.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 01:55:35 PM »
The CCP designed COVID in a lab. 
More idiocy. Getting tired reading your rants.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 21, 2020, 01:53:12 PM »
You do not have to cheerlead Tesla on each and every item. The Solar City acquisition gave a lot of ammunition to TeslaQ at a time when Tesla almost went under. Musk himself said several times how close it was. Besides, the added debt weighed on Tesla, and the loss of management focus and the expenditures on R&D and sales - trying to prove the tiles were real and the whole thing super-justified  - did not help either. Now when money is secure and risk of bankruptcy is nil it looks fine, but between 2016 and 2020 there was a gulf the company barely crossed. Tesla did not need solar during that time, and it probably doesn't need solar even now. It did need to get model 3 successfully out the door and solve production issues before money and investor confidence ran out.

The rest / Re: George Floyd murder and blowback
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:23:18 AM »
Tom, may I suggest something to you? You brought an article and innocently asked for a refutation. I don't think anyone should go medieval on you for it, as you did not realize you were publicizing a biased and malicious source.
(Blum would go medieval, but he would be wrong).
However, it is on you now to remember that the source you read and brought here is indeed biased and malicious. You should stop reading it, and certainly stop posting further articles from it.
I would suggest doing this with all your sources. You shall recognize them by their lies and by their biases. If you want to build a good understanding of the world around you, best stick to the objective sources. Remember - you are what you read.
Just my 2 cents.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 21, 2020, 09:24:59 AM »
Big pharma has manufactured this entire crisis.
Bbr, every time I think some of what you write makes sense, I read some idiocy like this.

Not to mention the Nazi name calling. I would say you should be ashamed, but I can't hope that this will actually happen.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 21, 2020, 08:47:42 AM »
It's time to thank you again uniquorn, for your immense analytic and graphical contribution on this thread and in many other threads. I am sure your time doesn't come free either. The output is much appreciated by me and by many other posters both silent and vocal, as well as by many lurkers I am sure.

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: September 21, 2020, 12:32:25 AM »
Hopefully nobody here is human...
But seriously the USA is so fucked up. This will affect all. Very sad.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 20, 2020, 10:06:47 AM »
It all sounds like a good story but lacking the numbers to back it up. I believe Musk is still trying to justify the disastrous Solar City merger, by talking up Tesla's solar and throwing more development money at the problem. I think the value proposition for residential solar is simply not strong enough, unless the buyer is a die-hard environmentalist. Otherwise this would be selling like hot buns to the general population, which obviously it isn't.
Eventually Tesla might get there, who knows? but they are not there yet, and seemingly quite far away.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 20, 2020, 09:01:19 AM »
I went through the last 45 days of preprints at The Cryosphere journal looking for new Mosaic articles. There was a third one there, another N-ICE2015 piece now five years out, and quite a few others of interest to this and other Arctic forums, select ones below.
Thanks for this. It certainly makes an overworked half-brained layman like myself wish for more available study time. I have marked all articles and will attempt to read them, these seem highly relevant to the melting and/or freezing seasons and to long term forum debates.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 20, 2020, 12:27:30 AM »
A-Team, thank you for the educational posts in this thread.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 20, 2020, 12:26:24 AM »
Walrus, please don't spread nonsense pet theories bordering on denial. Heat is radiated to space in the daytime too, and CO2 does contribute to warming in summer. Temps N of 80 do not cover 14 million km2, and the DMI weighting is further skewed towards the pole. So the region is still refrigerated by sea ice, the loss of which will surely lead to increased summer temperatures.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 19, 2020, 10:10:33 PM »
The reference was clear, 2012 vs. 2020 per the attached Hycom images.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 19, 2020, 06:40:19 PM »
OTG, I will delete further fantasy nonsense posts, be warned.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (September, mid-monthly update)
« on: September 19, 2020, 09:42:14 AM »
This year's mid-Sep update brings with it a measure of confusion - is the minimum in or not. One can see a clear correlation between volume and single-day NSIDC area. It really does not help that NSIDC area for the 16th came in as identical to the data from the 15th - 2,583,432 km2. Has this been updated? Does anyone know what really happened on the 16th?

Assuming the 15th as the day of the minimum, here are some regional charts as well as analysis of expectations vs. outcome.

Time for the prediction of volume for the September minimum. Please zoom the regional charts above to follow the analysis.
Of the seas traditionally participating in the minimum, the Laptev is nearly zero now. The ESS is record low. The Kara is very low. The Barents is on the low side. Chukchi is rather low as well. All are assumed to be zero in September - for some of these seas that is a very common achievement, for some a rather rare one.

We remain with the four unknowns:
* Greenland Sea - has been running high since spring. I expect it to crash at some point due to melting and lack of imports, especially now that most of the thick ice at the export region has disappeared. My bet is somewhere above 2019 but far below 2012. 125 km3.
* CAA - had a very slow start, but a fast decline. Temps have been running very high for a month. I expect a result above 2012/2011 but probably below 2019. 100 km3.
* Beaufort - the most anomalous. Has been running high and getting higher, due to extra imports and lower exports. I can't see it heading towards near-zero, and foresee a high volume, probably somewhere below 2013's 200 km3, but above 2018's 80 km3. 125 km3.
* CAB - naturally the most variable in magnitude. has been running high in winter and spring, only to crash in the last month back into the fold. From where we are now it is quite common to reach 4000-4200 km3. Following the high losses of 2007, 2012, 2016, we might get to 3600 km3, still above 2012's minimum of 3400 km3. And who knows? We might break loss records, and perhaps even reach a CAB record in September.

Summing everything, we get 350 km3 outside the CAB. With a reasonable/aggressive scenario of 3600 km3 in the CAB, we get a total of 3950 km3, a respectable 2nd, lower than 2019's 4050 km3, but still much higher than 2012's 3670 km3.
However, my money is still on a record low volume. I am betting the impact of the GAAC was partially missed by the model, and will be incorporated later when ice area crashes. In addition, early open water on the Siberian side might eat deeper into the CAB than usual. If a CAB record can be achieved, total volume will probably also reach a record low.
Examining my mid-July prediction, things appear to be roughly on track, but "my money" is going down the drain.

* Greenland Sea - I now expect a 100 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 125 km3.
* CAA - I now expect a 150 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 100 km3.
* Beaufort - I now expect a 140 km3 finish, compared to prediction of 125 km3.
* CAB - I now expect a 3550-3600 km3 finish, compared to main scenario prediction of 3600 km3.
* Total - I now expect a 3950-4000 km3 finish, compared to main scenario prediction of 3950 km3.

My hunch that PIOMAS will somehow catch up to the GAAC effects proved false (for now, for now).

The minimum should be with us in the next PIOMAS update - stay tuned. With the non-stop winds over the basin, predicted major storm, and lots of uncertainty about timing of the refreeze, it's not going to be boring.
Examining my end-Aug updated expectations, things have not been going just as predicted. The following assumes day of minimum is 259.
* Greenland Sea - a 120 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 100 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Regional minimum was 105 km3 on day 242.
* CAA - a 186 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 150 km3 and early prediction of 100 km3. Regional minimum was 162 km3 on day 252.
* Beaufort - a 135 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 140 km3 and early prediction of 125 km3. Min on last day.
* CAB - a 3585 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3550-3600 km3 and early prediction of 3600 km3 (reasonable/aggressive scenario). Min on last day.
* Total - a 4059 km3 finish, compared to late prediction of 3950-4000 km3. Min on last day.

Interestingly, compared to July predictions it was almost spot on, except a big miss in the CAA which is what prevented a clear 2nd place and a <4000 km3 result. However compared to my stubborn though irrational expectation of a new record, very poor performance. In my defense, I believe volume north of Greenland is highly exaggerated by the model. Oh well.

If the min was indeed day 259, finish is 3rd place, a meager 7 km3 behind 2019's 4052 km3 (on day 257). For this we will have to wait until the next update.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 19, 2020, 02:42:00 AM »
PIOMAS is quite sensitive to NSIDC area, and I am sure has by now reached its minimum, even if it did not do so on the 15th.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 19, 2020, 01:54:37 AM »
Gandul, what you said about nanning certainly falls outside forum decorum.

 addendum .. agreed ! moderation ?

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:02:54 PM »
"Hall" refers to Charles Hall:

There are different terms employed, from biophysical economics to energy economics, but the assumptions are the same: it's energy that drives economy, and is not only the product of renewable energy components but that's needed to make the same components. That said, there is no such thing as having a positive energy return as good enough. The more you want, and the more sophisticated your wants, then the higher the energy return needed. That's why there is very little chance that the type of lifestyle you have today, which includes accessing this and other sites, could have been achieved with muscle and animal power alone.

Given that, what is the energy return needed to maintain such? According to Hall, it's better than 15:

If you think it should be higher, then you're probably right.

You make an extraordinary claim ralfy - 15 is the minimum EROI to run civilization. I challenge you on it - it seems ridiculous. You heap loads and loads of text but the proof is not in sight, Even your source - a professor who has built his career on EROI, who has invented EROI, who I believe is biased on the issue, does not claim what you claim he claims. And what he does claim refers to fossil fuels in general and to oil in particular.

Please carefully read the source you provided:

For society's energy sources, is it important to consider EROI?
Is there a lot of oil left in the ground? Absolutely. The question is, how much oil can we get out of the ground, at a significantly high EROI? And the answer to that is, hmmm, not nearly as much. So that's what we're struggling with as we go further and further offshore and have to do this fracking and horizontal drilling and all of this kind of stuff, especially when you get away from the sweet spots of shale formations. It gets tougher and tougher to get the next barrel of oil, so the EROI goes down, down, down.

Is there some minimum EROI we need to have?
Since everything we make depends on energy, you can't simply pay more and more and get enough to run society. At some energy return on investment—I'm guessing 5:1 or 6:1—it doesn't work anymore.

What happens when the EROI gets too low? What’s achievable at different EROIs?
If you've got an EROI of 1.1:1, you can pump the oil out of the ground and look at it. If you've got 1.2:1, you can refine it and look at it. At 1.3:1, you can move it to where you want it and look at it. We looked at the minimum EROI you need to drive a truck, and you need at least 3:1 at the wellhead. Now, if you want to put anything in the truck, like grain, you need to have an EROI of 5:1. And that includes the depreciation for the truck. But if you want to include the depreciation for the truck driver and the oil worker and the farmer, then you've got to support the families. And then you need an EROI of 7:1. And if you want education, you need 8:1 or 9:1. And if you want health care, you need 10:1 or 11:1.

Civilization requires a substantial energy return on investment. You can't do it on some kind of crummy fuel like corn-based ethanol [with an EROI of around 1:1].

A big problem we have facing the alternatives is they're all so low EROI. We'd all like to go toward renewable fuels, but it's not going to be easy at all. And it may be impossible. We may not be able to sustain our civilization on these alternative fuels. I hope we can, but we've got to deal with it realistically.

Please focus on what he says. 1.3:1 can get you the refined oil where you need it, but 3:1 at the wellhead (4:1 at the truck site) lets you drive a truck. Have you wondered why? Sure, only about one third of the oil's primary energy goes towards driving the truck, the rest is waste heat. Well guess what? With renewable electricity you barely have waste heat and transportation of the energy is much more efficient too. With solar you could drive the truck on 1.5:1 at most. So treating renewables with the tools developed for oil is simply stupid, I'm sorry, no other words for it.

But in any case, even Hall does not claim the 15 you claimed. At most he claims 10-11:1, for oil. So where did you pull the 15:1 out of?

In addition, Hall treats EROI as reducing over time. For oil he is right. However solar does not have this problem. Again, something relevant for oil is not relevant for our renewable transition discussion.

I suggest to drop the EROI claim from your very circuitous logic. We need to reduce consumption for other reasons, not because of EROI. We have limits to growth for other reasons, not because of EROI.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 18, 2020, 03:12:18 AM »
Here is a chart and table I prepared earlier this year based on PIOMAS volume data that I never got around to posting in the PIOMAS thread. Now that the season is over and discussion of 2007 has come up, I will indulge in digressing.
It is a well known fact that 2007 summer was very bad for the ice. However, when checking relative volume performance in the chart, it appears most of the damage was done in Oct-Dec 2006, when the Arctic failed to gain enough volume compared to other years. I am not sure what happened weather-wise or export-wise, but if anyone can shed light on this anomaly it would be welcome.
As the table shows, 2007 had the highest late summer loss, but in terms of magnitude this pales compared to its lowest preceding winter gain. Note the bold numbers are the highest and lowest per period excluding 2007.

Click to enlarge.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 18, 2020, 02:28:27 AM »
I am not overly concerned with the coexistence, which is why I did not temporarily lock the new thread. I just find it easier to follow one discussion rather than two, at a time when both freezing and melting are going on around the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 17, 2020, 10:18:40 PM »
I see it differently, I think both years were eventually quite similar, when using generalizations:
2012 was sunny and warm and then windy and very stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the ESS but eventually it melted that ice and was left with a compact pack (and an extent record).
2020 too was sunny and warm and then very windy and somewhat stormy. It had some extra fluffy ice in the Chukchi and Siberian facing sections of CAB,  but eventually most of it melted and it was left with a mostly compact pack - except in the CA and the Beaufort arm (and a 2nd place extent finish).

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 17, 2020, 05:48:17 PM »
For an average developed world population it is cca 1%, and for a young, developing world population it is likely 0,1-0,3%.
Yes, El Cid, if you go by age distribution. But medical infrastructure is poorer in developing countries. Wouldn't this raise the IFR somewhat?

India seems to prove that 0,1-0,2% IFR is realistic there even with, how to put it,  not so worldclass healthcare. See Mumbai, Delhi, etc data.

I think, though I am not at all sure about it, that there is not much you can actually do to reduce mortality once someone falls ill. No matter how high tech your hopsital is. It seems to me that all they do is just basic stuff

Oren - here you go, another poster post pointing out an erroneously low 0.1-0.2IFR.

I’m legitimately curious what posters like this would suggest because according to these incorrect numbers we’re at a relatively low risk.
I don't trust the statistics coming out of India. However, the country has only 5% of the population above the age of 65, compared to 20% in the European Union, so I wouldn't be surprised if their average IFR was very much lower than in Europe, as Covid mortality is highly dependent on age.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 17, 2020, 01:40:47 PM »
Welcome back blu_ice !

I hope that some of the readers of this forum agree.


Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 17, 2020, 04:53:17 AM »
We have credible information emerging from Melbourne right now that the IFR is well beyond 1%.

What's the suggestion by posters of the opinion that this virus has an IFR of 0.25 and only affects the elderly, morbid, and frail individuals?

Just open everything back up, take the masks off, and go back to work?
It really does seem that you are obfuscating the issue on purpose harpy. No one said IFR 0.25%.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 17, 2020, 03:20:00 AM »
Thanks FG, let the thread stand but I prefer posts go into the melting season thread for the next couple of days. NSIDC area is still making new lows for the year, and I'd rather wait for the mid-Sep PIOMAS update on the 19th.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 16, 2020, 11:22:09 AM »
I disagree but will not clutter the thread further.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 15, 2020, 08:46:12 PM »
They are aware because of the Internet.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 15, 2020, 06:12:20 PM »
Another Covid success story: Israel is imposing a second lockdown.
But hey, a peace agreement with Bahrain! Two sickest countries in the world at the moment.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 15, 2020, 06:37:06 AM »
The longer this sloshing around goes on, the worse it is. While new thin ice is being added in the Lincoln Sea and in the heart of the pack (and the CAA?), counterbalancing headline losses and halting the official melting season, volume and future resilience could still be going down. The Beaufort arm is a last stand of what used to be MYI, every day leaves a little less of it for next year. The same may be happening on the Atlantic/Siberian front. And now some export has started again into the Greenland Sea, of what is quite possibly ex-MYI as well.
The good news is that the deep cold is now spreading around the central basin, hopefully making a true end to melting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others
« on: September 15, 2020, 04:43:30 AM »
Hello P.r. and welcome. BOE is "Blue Ocean Event", meaning the Arctic Ocean has become virtually ice-free on some date. I can't believe this was missing from the glossary...
Edit: It was there already. Phew.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 06:20:54 PM »
Thank you Bruce for all the detailed info. It appears cost-effective farm transition is farther off into the future, and needs more improvements in technology. Time is what we don't have though, a big bummer.
Hopefully the Tesla Cybertruck will create a market for used electric pickup trucks in about 5 years. Not sure if this will help farmers.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 03:48:34 PM »
Bruce while your take on the food production issuer is spot on, I have some questions on farm costs.
I am trying to understand the difference in costs between FF and renewables options. Whether small-scale farming is possible or not is a much bigger question. But corporate farming should also hopefully be transitioning to renewable electricity at some point, or we are doomed. (I know we are doomed, but still).

In order for a transition to renewables to be economical, the farmer should not be deeply out of pocket compared to the FF alternative. Otherwise it will simply not happen.
Electricity - should be renewable supplied by the grid. One shouldn't have to install one's own panels to get clean energy.
Batteries - same. Grid should iron out intermittencies.
Tractor - EV tractor needs to be priced similarly to the FF variety, taking into account some of the savings related to lower fuel costs and lower maintenance costs of electric engines. What would be the current cost of a 30hp farm tractor? Trying to compare to the $40k figure which I am sure will come down in the future. And what is the annual fuel and maintenance cost?
Truck - same consideration price with operations cost should be similar or better than FF variety. What is the current cost of a FF farm truck? And annually?

In general, a renewable electricity powered farm might be competitive in a decade. I doubt it can be made to work now. This is part of the transition - there should be a crash program in making these things cheaper and better. Waiting for BAU to disappear on its own will not end well.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 13, 2020, 10:02:33 AM »
I happen to agree with both. It seems that region gandul demarcated has the best surviving ice in the Arctic this year (in almost any year with no BOE there will be some region like this). It's better that this ice is where it is rather than in the more vulnerable Lincoln Sea or the Beaufort (or the Greenland Sea...). This ice will be the seed of some decent volume next year, and will need some unlucky weather to float away or melt in situ. However, the deck is progressively stacked against the ice and a serious melting season could do away with the whole lot. This one almost did, judging by the North Pole images we witnessed.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 13, 2020, 09:53:41 AM »
Again it's as if you do not realize fossil fuels and renewables are interchangeable.
Mining equipment can be replaced with electric motor and battery operated equipment. This will enable much better working conditions especially underground, and will be cheaper.
Most manufacturing can be made with electricity.
Trucking can be made electric easily.
Shipping energy is the hardest to replace, but still possible. But then again, solar panels are much lighter than oil and coal and take up much smaller volume so the problem is not gigantic.

All that is needed is first and foremost to deploy renewable electricity production in much larger numbers that cover not just electricity demand growth but also existing electricity production to enable stoppage of new fossil fuel plants and faster closure of existing such plants. Hint: This will happen faster if people from the peak oil crowd and from other agendas stop spreading anti-renewables stuff.

They are definitely not interchangeable unless components like electric motors have been developed that can replace diesel-powered ones for heavy equipment used in mining, for engines in container ships, and more.

As pointed out several times, one study mentioned here states that a full transition is possible, but the lag time is lengthy:

And because energy returns are lower, buffer stocks are needed, which is why several interviewed in a 2006 Four Corners documentary about peak oil argued that the transition should have started in the 1990s.

That doesn't mean, of course, that the move to renewable energy should not continue, but it is very likely that it will not maintain a global capitalist economy that needs a lot more energy and resources, which is the point of this thread.
It is very difficult to discuss, when you continue to rely on sources from 10 and 15 years ago, in a field that is changing so fast.

But let's at least summarize the things we seem to agree on:
* A full renewable transition is possible, but the lag time is lengthy.
* The move to renewable energy should continue, but it is very likely that it will not maintain a global capitalist economy that needs a lot more energy and resources.
* The transition should have started a long time ago.

It seems to me that for you these points stem from physical limitations on renewables. I believe that the main limitation is people's and governments' decision making, and there are no serious physical limitations. It is possible and doable to make a full renewable electricity transition in a decade and a full renewable energy transition in two decades, if humanity decided this was World War III. Then the lag time would not be lengthy, negating the first point. And if that were to be done, the higher needs of the future population could be met from an energy standpoint, negating the second point. Obviously, it would have been easier if we started a long time ago, so the third point needs no discussion.

In the real world this crash renewable program will not be happening due to politics, short-term thinking and human nature, thus the three points stand.

But even if this program was put in place, humanity would still be facing many other obstacles stemming from climate change and carrying capacity limitations, though certainly abundant clean energy could help in facing these obstacles. Human population is simply too high for this planet, but that is the point of a different thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 13, 2020, 12:54:42 AM »
Re this thread's stats, bear in mind many people read and are interested but do not have much to contribute and do not wish to clutter the thread.
Often thumbnails are enough so view counts may mislead.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33