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 ... 14
Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 08, 2019, 08:09:22 AM »
Seriously excellent stuff, baking. Thank you.
Note the slower gifs are much clearer.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 06, 2019, 11:08:00 PM »
G, thanks for this graph.
Share of renewables appears to be higher than 25% (wind, solar, hydro, geothermal). Not too far to 33% (but it should be 100%!).
The good news is that absolute fossil fuel generation is slowly shrinking.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 06, 2019, 10:30:11 AM »

- More of the same; still cars etc. but greener. Still a high-energy lifestyle. Green BAU. GDP growth. More and more resources and waste. Microplastic etc. (In my view the whole global emergency sistuation screams for this system to STOP NOW).


- Radical change, which, I am certain, is absolutely necessary. And supported by the alarmcalls from the science community.
Nanning, to be clear - I agree with you completely. But while the radical solution is not happening, I prefer Green BAU over plain BAU. EVs still have many environmental problems (tires, batteries, mining, and much more) but they are better than ICE cars.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: November 06, 2019, 07:50:47 AM »
Greta should this and Greta should that. And yet she has 100 times the impact of other climate activists, so perhaps she is doing something right??
Ah yes I forgot, she is co-opted.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 02, 2019, 05:40:25 PM »
I'll take Elon's numbers with a large grain of salt. After all that happened with the Solar Roof, I'll believe mass installaltions when I see mass installations.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: November 02, 2019, 10:04:31 AM »
I should think the Freeezing Season thread. But recently discipline has been flagging.

It would be nice not to have to read denier texts in this forum.
To the point, carbon taxes should be coupled with a dividend or some other form of distribution/relief to the population, especially to the poor, or otherwise they risk running into serious opposition. But it doesn't make them wrong, unless in the eyes of a denier.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 28, 2019, 01:56:34 AM »
For those like me who are unfamiliar with the N Indian Ocean terminology, a Super Cyclonic Storm is Cat5 or high Cat4.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 25, 2019, 04:20:04 PM »
I'm looking for recent methane concentration data from the Tiksi weather station, but the most recent data I can find on the NOAA website is over a year old.

Is the station still operational? Is NOAA still collecting this data? Or am I just being impatient?
Welcome to the forum Alumril. (Sorry I can't answer your question).

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 25, 2019, 02:16:51 AM »
This is tiresome, bluesky talks about a scientifically exceptional rain event, which you continue to ignore with your ripostes. Will you mention ACE next?

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 24, 2019, 10:03:02 AM »
Thanks, but I'm not counting on it to balance things. :(

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 23, 2019, 06:42:11 PM »
Thanks Archimid and all for the details.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 23, 2019, 12:39:30 PM »
Without knowing much on the subject, I would guess a solar system needs to go on your roof and the building owner/s should put it there. Putting such a system on a small balcony and connecting it to your electricity system would not be cost effective and could be dangerous.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 20, 2019, 10:46:20 AM »
Wow. This thread is really depressing. Maybe it should be retitled to people doubling down on climate change. Many of these locations should be evacuated, rather than cool the outdoors and truck in water for toilets.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 18, 2019, 12:19:09 PM »
Personally I would not use the word significantly in that context, but bear in mind that 95 or 99 instead of 100 MPU might seem significant to some. It's subjective.
Personally I would also avoid nitpicking this to death and beyond...

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 17, 2019, 11:52:04 AM »

Tesla is examining the Israeli car market for the possibility of direct entry into marketing in Israel
Automotive industry sources have said in recent months that Tesla's European division has been reviewing the conditions of the local car market, among others, the country's charging infrastructure and their engineering conformity to Tesla's rapid charging stations modeled by Superchargers and dedicated to the company's vehicles. In addition, various logistical options and conditions for activity in the country were examined, and inquiries were also made to managers in the automotive industry for the purpose of examining the possibility of a transaction in Tesla's administrative and operational system, if and when the activity begins here. It should be noted that so far no official approval of the company has been granted.
It should be noted that until recently, Israeli transport regulations prevented the possibility of importers / manufacturers not registered as an Israeli company importing vehicles into Israel; However, amendments that are currently included in the traffic regulations will soon allow a vehicle to be imported into Israel by a company / importer owned by a foreign corporation registered abroad.

Finally (though just rumors at the moment).
Israel is very small, quite flat, and very crowded with lots of stop-and-go traffic. Fuel is very expensive. EVs are a no brainer, especially considering taxes.
Israel has a ~70% import duty on ICE vehicles, but only 10% on mass market BEVs, very few of which are actually imported. The tax is planned to go up in the next few years, with the expected rise in sales.
Unlike the US, most Israelis live in high rise buildings so don't have their own garage. However, many buildings have underground parking lots with access to electricity.
The car market is very robust, a lot of which has to do with insufficient public transport. To add insult to injury there's no public transport on the Sabbath. Local politicians are hell-bent on doing evil, so solutions for actual problems are always late and partial.
In addition, there's a large hi-tech sector, relatively well-to-do and open to innovations, and a lot of awareness to environmental issues.
I expect Tesla to find quick success in Israel.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 15, 2019, 11:54:55 PM »
Fukushima, the disaster that keeps on disastering.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 06:10:14 PM »
Solid scientific evidence... ignoring the difference in advance warning and weather forecasting since 1880.
It's getting quite tiresome to witness your constant axe-grinding.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: October 13, 2019, 09:26:30 AM »
On this forum you learn something new every day. I just realized I have never heard of Hopen before.
Hopen is an island in the southeastern part of the Svalbard archipelago (Norway). Hopen was discovered in 1596 by Jan Cornelisz Rijp during the third expedition by Willem Barentsz, trying to find the Northeast Passage. Later, in 1613, its name was given by Thomas Marmaduke of Hull, who named it after his former command, the Hopewell.

The Norwegian Meteorological Institute operates a manned weather station on the island with a staff of four persons. For the welfare of the crew, there are three cabins available on the island for their use.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2019, 12:49:41 AM »
As much as I admire the NSIDC for the important work they do, I think they are erring in their analysis by focusing on:
* Extent, rather than also area, and volume based on modelled and measured thickness.
* Total extent, rather than also regional behavior.
* September, rather than all months. Separately, grouped seasonally, and annually.

Were they to widen their focus, they would find the "hiatus" since 2007 is not cobfirmed by many of the sub-trends.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 05, 2019, 06:55:53 PM »
The level of discussion here is not very high unfortunately. As Tesla is a very polarizing subject, it seems haters gonna hate, lovers gonna love, almost no matter what. I would strongly recommend the strong believers on both sides to avoid reacting to opposing one-sided posts. This will greatly simplify and shorten this thread, and innocent bystanders can still read both sides and form their own opinions.
If someone solely posts positive comments on Tesla, or solely negative comments, no need to react with a countering comment. I am sure the readers already know who is who, and can filter accordingly. I am also sure each poster is certain his/her position is objective while the other is totally irrational. Just leave it at that.

Myself, I try hard to avoid reacting to unbalanced posts, unless I feel I have something to say that merits breaking the vow of silence, or when my resolve weakens. Even then I try hard to make responses short. Give some peace to those innocent bystanders.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 04, 2019, 04:04:47 PM »
One could look at that image and say "Wow, data for last 10-15 years BELOW the prediction every single year."  One year also blasts way below the uncertainty estimates for the model.

Never mind that RCP 4.5 is now fantasyland.
My thought exactly!

Yeah, I thought it was transparency. But the 3 melt lakes in the upper left were in exact same location 20 years ago. It's the underlying topography of course, but still notable.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 03, 2019, 09:47:53 AM »
Nanning - you set a high example, and you are certainly no loser. I do not see you as the enemy - on the contrary. But the issue at hand is not personal - it's global. There are nearly 8 billion humans, roaring on 10 within a few decades.
30 years is not far away, nor comforting. In fact it's frighteningly close. I will probably still be around, not to mention my teen-aged children. But even if not - I do not hold to "Après nous, le déluge", and I think it is everybody's moral duty to take care of future generations and of the whole planet.

Yes, I have considered and am aware of all your points.
No, I do not believe humanity as a whole will make a radical change in time. But if you believe collapse is coming in 5 years, no radical change will prevent it anyway - the system's inertia is simply too large. Might as well "eat and drink, for tomorrow we die". 30 years - while a blink of an eye - means large-scale action could still make a difference, though not enough to prevent the disaster IMHO.

But large scale action requires the participation of tens of millions of people at least, better yet hundreds of millions, and they need to be those that are causing most of the problem in the first place - the high consumption high energy people. What will cause such large numbers of people to change their ways, reducing consumption by 10%, 20%, 30%? Or do you think such numbers will convert to your current lifestyle, reducing consumption by 90% or more? I don't expect this to happen. But will they reduce by 10%-30%? Maybe. Depends on many factors, but one of them is the availability of alternative solutions that reduce the impact on their current lifestyle. Yes, the affluent lifestyle is addictive, and most people in it would not let go of it willingly, and most other people strive to reach it. That's human nature for you. The environmental movement has been active for 50 years, and has not managed to sway most people to give up this lifestyle or the aspiration to it, although it has managed to cause many to temper their consumption.
If half the global affluent population reduced their consumption by 20%, this would make a much bigger difference than if thousands of people reduced theirs by 99.9%. So I cheer chances of such massive but partial reduction. For example, I prefer that billions consume themselves to oblivion using solar energy, rather than coal energy. Of course I prefer even better that they don't consume, but I recognize the benefit of even partial reductions and I don't toss it to the wind just because I don't like it.
Yes, my personal actions could help sway some others, and yes I strive towards doing better. Had I been living alone and childless, I would have made much bigger changes already. But even if this whole forum went to a monastery tomorrow, the global outcome would still be more or less the same. So again, I take the global view and I try to think what will change this global view. This is not instead of changing my own lifestyle. It's an orthogonal problem.

Other points you might not be fully considering: Despite your personal preference to the contrary, a lot of currently poor people are actively striving to live an affluent lifestyle, and a lot of them will reach that situation over the next 30 years, mainly in China and India but also in various other countries. These countries are still massively building new coal plants of all things, regardless of your or my ramblings on this forum. So anything that potentially idles these coal plants gets my cheers.
What the currently poor people are contributing to our mess is a high birth rate (not always correlated for each subgroup, but overall yes it is) of babies who will potentially consume quite a lot as they get older. 10 billion people is a massive number, even if they all lived your lifestyle I am not sure if they could live sustainably on this Earth and in harmony with the rest of the biosphere, in fact I strongly doubt it.

I hope the above helps clarify my take on things, it is not structured properly and somewhat repetitive. My apologies to all, I will refrain from further hijacking of this thread.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: October 03, 2019, 04:42:17 AM »
Thusly, if Greenland melt has an impact on oceanic currents (and it definitely does) one would think the impact of seasonal meltflux across North America and Eurasia is actually even greater than that of Greenland.
One would think so, but as usual one would have to ignore the much bigger size of the North American continent (not to mention Eurasia), the various directions the meltwater can take due to the topography of the continental divides and of the surrounding seas, the sublimation, ground infiltration, and evaporation (and even damming and irrigation) that work to reduce the amount reaching the sea, the much higher temperatures of the meltwater, and probably other factors that diminish the effect of NA SWE, and make it not comparable to the Greenland figure which is a net figure of surface mass lost.
One could, if one desired so, to prove one's claims by analyzing river discharge into the various surrounding seas, and quantifying the effect. I hope one does so at some point.

The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: October 03, 2019, 04:27:07 AM »
A. Lots of self-admiration on the blog. Very tiring to read.
B. Taking turns shooting at climate change activism, renewable energy, and nuclear energy, although making sure to acknowledge that AGW is "a real and serious issue". Strongly smelled of disguised denialism.
C. A whole blog post about the catastrophe of Peak Oil yet not a single mention of the remote possibility that electricity could be an alternative to oil, or of the very existence of Battery Electric Vehicles (even managed to take a potshot at Elon Musk without mentioning EVs).
D. Freely mixing energy consumption and oil consumption, with not a single mention of natural gas as a possible alternative to oil for some uses.

I am deeply unimpressed. While the blogger seems to have the economic cycle of oil prices and production analyzed and understood properly, and the finiteness of the planet etc., all the rest is contrived IMHO. Ignoring EVs is such a serious flaw in the analysis of demand destruction that it has to be intentional. And the disguised denial overtones made me sorry I clicked the link.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: October 03, 2019, 02:45:45 AM »
Hello A-Team! Your posts are always welcome. Astounding visualization.

I was wondering if Mosaic might make their thickness measurements available. I am more interested in the many floes they skip, rather than the one floe they finally select (if they even manage to find a suitable one). I see this a a very rare opportunity to compare direct local measurements to SMOS remote sensing and to PIOMAS modelling.

I hope he recovers soon and continues campaigning.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: October 02, 2019, 12:08:16 PM »
Thanks for sharing your experience Bruce.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: October 01, 2019, 07:49:31 PM »
A strange piece which was a surprise hit back in 1981, and is indeed very catchy.
Laurie Anderson with cryptic lyrics which appear to be about the Deep State, among other things.

'Cause when love is gone, there's always justice.
And when justive is gone, there's always force.
And when force is gone, there's always Mom. Hi Mom!

So hold me, Mom, in your long arms. So hold me,
Mom, in your long arms.
In your automatic arms. Your electronic arms.
In your arms.
So hold me, Mom, in your long arms.
Your petrochemical arms. Your military arms.
In your electronic arms.

Not many, a few listed in this link:
Including at Summit and at EastGRIP, a couple of others, and a second webcam at Freya.

More Arctic webcams in this link but no additional ones in Greenland itself:

There used to be the Hotel Arctic webcam (Ilulissat Ice fjord) but it seems to gone and the link is dead:

And the Helheim Glacier webcam also appears to be offline, maybe Espen knows more:

Big Kudos to Andreas Muenchow and his team for this super-important work. Grants should be 10 or 100 times as large, more holes should be drilled near the grounding line, and in other ice-shelf glaciers where physically possible (Pine Island Glacier? Nioghalvfjerdsbrae 79N?) to monitor the situation and collect data sets over a long time span. This should be a top priority project for humanity.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: September 30, 2019, 08:46:10 PM »
Thank you for these updates!

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 29, 2019, 05:21:28 PM »
Nanning I agree, of course these issues are very important and need to be discussed, they just belong better in an appropriate thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 29, 2019, 05:00:14 PM »
Looking at UH AMSR2 area data, the Laptev is at 7000 km2 and losing 30% per day in the last few days. Not sure if it will go to full zero though.

Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: September 29, 2019, 09:50:03 AM »
Greta a climate debate tipping point?
I have never seen so many articles on climate change and associated topics, as I see now. She has certainly tipped the scales. Will it help? I certainly hope so, though the old and greedy people's inertia is very strong.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 28, 2019, 07:33:52 PM »
In case you mean i.e. a Model 3 or a Model S Tesla, they way 1 Ton more and transport the same number of people and a similar payload over a similar distance.

Result is that the battery has to be twice as big, materials need are almost double, rubber (micro plastic) production is almost double, space on roads needed is almost double, electricity needed to move the car is double (42kw against 95kw battery back for the same achievement) etc. etc.

Numbers and factors i mentioned are rough estimates, no time and no mood to make huge calculation only to find someone who will moan over a second digit after the comma

My dear philopek, you are strongly opinionated yet not very accurate in some of your posts.
Yes, the new Zoe Electric is a great car and I hope it sells in the millions.
It just so happens that its battery is 52 Kwh, while the Model 3's battery is 50 Kwh (with a slightly longer range, so more efficient than the Zoe).
Better to stick to facts, that's all.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: September 28, 2019, 12:54:32 PM »
No chance of blocking now, the ice is not thick and strong, and the "arch" can't freeze deeply into place. This usually happens in Jan-Feb, though Dec is possible too (maybe even Nov?)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: September 26, 2019, 01:36:33 PM »
The "slush floes" that dominated large parts of the CAB (facing the Laptev and the Beaufort) managed to survive thanks to the poor melting weather in August. This saved the melting season, but also gave a jumpstart to the freezing season, as cold fresh water intermixed with spread floes can freeze very quickly. Thus the very quick rise in area in the CAB. The CAA has seen a similarly quick refreeze around the surviving ice. Now that this process is (probably) over, it's gonna be mighty interesting. I expect a relatively slow refreeze especially in the ESS and Chukchi, as this summer they have been ice free longer than usual, giving the surface water time to heat and especially to mix.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: September 26, 2019, 11:05:42 AM »
Not to mention this one by the amazing Mr. Cohen.
"I've seen the future, brother
It is murder"

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 26, 2019, 06:09:11 AM »
KK, indeed it is a wonder why the Thames barrier was built, given that the elevation of London is 12m above sea level. These UK folks must be stupid.

The Thames Barrier prevents the floodplain of most of Greater London from being flooded by exceptionally high tides and storm surges moving up from the North Sea.

Rivers overflowing?

Antarctica / Re: The Amery Ice Shelf Thread
« on: September 26, 2019, 03:46:50 AM »
A quick and dirty Worldview animation shows that the ice shelf forward progress since the year 2000 was less than half of the calve width, so I would say this sets back Amery ~40 years. Hopefully this is cyclical and the next 20 years will see Amery back to its year 2000 position.
If someone has access to older satellite images of the shelf this could be improved.

In addition, this article (linked from Wikipedia) says the following:
Australians to study giant Antarctic ice cracks
Updated 20 Dec 2006, 7:39am

Hobart scientists are heading to Antarctica to study the cause of enormous cracks forming in the Amery Ice Shelf.

The cracks began forming around a decade ago and are growing at three to five metres a day.

The fractures threatened to break off a 900-square-kilometre piece of the Amery Ice Shelf, which is about the size of Tasmania.

Scientists want to know what is causing these cracks, as the last recorded activity in this part of eastern Antarctica was in the 1960s.

The head of the research, Professor Richard Coleman, says there is not enough evidence to blame global warming.

"It may be in a 50- to 60-year cycle but we would need more data to say whether it's increasing in terms of calving events due to warming of the ice shelf," he said.

Professor Coleman says with the ice already floating, it will not increase ocean levels.

As the new calving is roughly 900 km2 (eyeballing maga's image), this could be the result of a very long process.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 25, 2019, 08:44:40 PM »
Totalitarian ?

YES, it's necessary but you don't get it

Democracy at it's current stage is bankrupt and doomed and will lead to less benevolent totalitariism than my totalitarian proposal to put limits to private transport.

You want changes but refuse anything that has a REAL effect which is why nothing happens, hence you are guilty hypocrites.
I am not sure who the bolded statement refers to, but as it's plural I'll make a response.
Pardon me but I think this statement is not logical. Is the reason that nothing happens really because WE want changes but WE refuse radical solutions with REAL effects? Or maybe because so many OTHERS don't want changes, don't see the need for changes, and don't bother to read your posts or mine on the ASIF?
I would love radical solutions with REAL effects that would actually be deployed. But shooting down partial solutions that can actually get implemented (with severe limitations: too slow, requiring new resources etc.) - just because someone thought of a better and more radical solution that will not actually get implemented - is not logical. In fact, I think it's a bit hypocritical, stopping a small improvement because it's not a big improvement, while the big improvement does not have wide support and is therefore imaginary.
WE are not stopping the radical solutions. WE know they are needed, WE advocate for them, but WE also note they are not happening at the present time, and are not expected to happen in the near future, so WE also support something very partial - but REAL - while still hoping for the radical solutions to find wide support in the future.

Note: I happen to agree that benevolent totalitarianism could be a solution out of the current problem, and that humanity will probably devolve to non-benevolent totalitarianism when the problem plays out in its full manifestation. But how will you achieve this benevolent totalitarianism? Is this a REAL solution with a REAL effect that will be deployed tomorrow? I think not.

Note 2: I support a tourist flight ban, a big home ban, a big car ban, a general luxury ban, a big family ban etc., despite the personal pain it might cause me or my family. But can I use these ideas to prove that nothing else needs to be done? No, because there isn't wide support for these, ergo they will not get implemented, and we are left with the partial and poor solutions.

Note 3: Trying desperately to tie this discussion somehow to the thread's topic, I think there are posters here who truly believe that because of Tesla the radical solutions are not implemented. But these posters are wrong, people support Tesla not because they think this is a complete solution, but because they think a partial solution is better than no solution at all. So best use this thread for its purpose, discussions on Tesla's success or failure.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:22:38 PM »
Thank you Tom.

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:10:55 PM »
My answer is not directly.  I stand behind my claim that CO2 captured is a function of the concentration in the atmosphere, not the amount emitted.  When the captured amount exceeds the emitted amount, then the atmospheric concentration will decrease.  That will subsequently lead to decreased capture.  
KK you insist on ignoring the other factor, ocean surface concentration. The uptake of CO2 by the ocean in the near term is proportional to the atmospheric concentration less the ocean surface concentration (including the slower downward flux from the ocean surface to the deep ocean).  But the ocean surface concentration is a function of the past emitted CO2. Thus scrubbing of the CO2 from the atmosphere will be dependent on slower processes (assuming emissions stop at some point).
I expect that as a chemist this really should be crystal clear to you. The ocean surface equilibrates fast, and has already swallowed a lot of CO2, so further fast uptake is dependent on further increase in atmospheric partial pressure.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:12:22 PM »
Can we therefore say with 100% certainty that all the ice in the CAB is now "Multi-Year Ice"? I see all the time from members that all or most of the MYI is gone. Well, about 4 million square km survived the summer...therefore...
Obvious, all area at the end of the season becomes MYI, same as other years. And still the MYI keeps dwindling in amount and especially in age.
This should be discussed in the freezing season thread though.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:50:36 AM »
I think Tesla should open the Supercharger network to other cars, probably at a higher price than for Tesla cars. The network is subsidized by the purchase price of the cars, so expecting the same price would be unreasonable. I hope they do so ASAP.
I also think thete should be a lot more public chargers installed proactively, so that EV owners will not have to compete with each other.
OTOH, I don't think the 240-mile M3 SR+ has a too-large battery. Tesla's goal has always been to build cars that are desired and bought by normal people, and not just die-hard environmentalists and EV enthusiasts who might settle for any inconvenience. This way there is a better chance of mass deployment of EVs. The performance versions (and Models S, X) are over-specced but they fund the cheaper models, so I think it's unfair to blame the company as elitist for building such models and for not opening their network, while wondering when they will stop losing money.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 23, 2019, 10:55:47 PM »
Yeah, it won't help or matter much. But will doing nothing be any better? Will throwing money at defense budgets and corn subsidies and bailing out coal plants and fracking produce better results? One can keep one's eyes wide open and still support incremental and very partial solutions, when the apparent alternative is doing nothing at all. Revolution? I am all for it. Is it happening? Not yet anyway.

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 23, 2019, 10:37:35 PM »
KK, I know that you strive hard to prove that things are better than they seem, a commendable goal when sincere, but I feel that in this case you are wrong. As the CO2 is equilibrated into the ocean, its rate of oceanic uptake slows down, in opposition to the way you describe it and to the math you presented above.

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: September 23, 2019, 08:43:07 PM »
Google to the rescue.

How the oceans absorb carbon dioxide is critical for predicting climate change
Air-sea gas exchange is a physio-chemical process, primarily controlled by the air-sea difference in gas concentrations and the exchange coefficient, which determines how quickly a molecule of gas can move across the ocean-atmosphere boundary. It takes about one year to equilibrate CO2 in the surface ocean with atmospheric CO2, so it is not unusual to observe large air-sea differences in CO2 concentrations. Most of the differences are caused by variability in the oceans due to biology and ocean circulation. The oceans contain a very large reservoir of carbon that can be exchanged with the atmosphere because the CO2 reacts with water to form carbonic acid and its dissociation products. As atmospheric CO2 increases, the interaction with the surface ocean will change the chemistry of the seawater resulting in ocean acidification.

Evidence suggests that the past and current ocean uptake of human-derived (anthropogenic) CO2 is primarily a physical response to rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Whenever the partial pressure of a gas is increased in the atmosphere over a body of water, the gas will diffuse into that water until the partial pressures across the air-water interface are equilibrated. However, because the global carbon cycle is intimately embedded in the physical climate system there exist several feedback loops between the two systems. For example, increasing CO2 modifies the climate which in turn impacts ocean circulation and therefore ocean CO2 uptake. Changes in marine ecosystems resulting from rising CO2 and/or changing climate can also result in changes in air-sea CO2 exchange. These feedbacks can change the role of the oceans in taking up atmospheric CO2 making it very difficult to predict how the ocean carbon cycle will operate in the future.

Ocean Acidification: The Other Carbon Dioxide Problem
Fundamental changes in seawater chemistry are occurring throughout the world's oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) from humankind's industrial and agricultural activities has increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. The ocean absorbs about a quarter of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere every year, so as atmospheric CO2 levels increase, so do the levels in the ocean. Initially, many scientists focused on the benefits of the ocean removing this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere.  However, decades of ocean observations now show that there is also a downside — the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14