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 ... 35
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: January 26, 2021, 03:44:32 AM »
Interesting paper. Another graphic caught my eye, showing the changes in front positions over a few decades for selected glaciers.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 25, 2021, 11:11:42 AM »
SarahShards, welcome. I note that this post is a bit odd, it does not relate to the thread's subject of global sea ice (global=Arctic+Antarctic) and it does not give the reason for the stated expectation. However, I give more leeway and encouragement to new members, so I've approved it anyway.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 23, 2021, 05:45:13 PM »
Cross-posting from one of the Cryosphere threads.

    Back in November, I posted a chart showing predicted end-of-year 2020 annual NASS GISS-Temp (global average surface temperature) anomaly vs. 1850-1900 average AFTER removing short-term influences of ENSO (El Nino/La Nina), solar cycle, and aerosol (Mauna Loa).  The final two months of 2020 came in slightly warmer than expected.  Here is how 2020 looks with all 12 months of NASA GISS values.

     The observed 2020 value was a statistical tie with 2016 (with 2020 at 0.014 C warmer) as the warmest year in modern record (since 1880).  But when you subtract out temporary influences of ENSO/solar/aerosol, to estimate an underlying systemic temperature, then 2020 was the warmest year by a larger margin.  2020 was 0.109 C warmer than 2019, which replaces 2016 in 2nd place when you filter out the estimated effects of ENSO/solar/aerosol.

     In the Real Climate blog, Gavin Schmidt of NASA says the uncertainty in the annual GISS-Temp annual anomaly is 0.05C.  The uncertainty for estimates that include additional factors (ENSO/solar/aerosol) each with its own uncertainties is probably larger.  But at least Schmidt's 0.05 uncertainty for annual GISSTemp anomaly gives us a frame of reference. 

     At 0.109 C warmer than the previous warmest year, it seems likely that 2020 was indeed the warmest year in the modern record.  Schmidt also said that the estimate of global average surface temperature itself has an uncertainty of ca. 0.5C, so this conclusion may be a distinction without a meaningful difference.  Especially when you remember that the surface temperature does not equal the temperature of the planetary system as whole.  There is a lot more heat energy stored in the ocean than in the atmosphere.  But for tracking the climate change influence driving Arctic Sea Ice, the NASA GISSTemp may be as good an indicator as any (says a guy with no training in climate science).

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 22, 2021, 11:28:58 AM »
The false hiatus was not born in 1998-9, it was born in the mid-2000s, just as the current false hiatus was born in 2020. I haven't been around then either, but this site and the Internet was full of discussions about said false hiatus ("faux hiatus" would get you many search results). Ignoring a monster El Nino that comes along every couple of decades and natural variability that has swings of several years and naming a short term hiatus is denialism by the book.

Coal in the US was largely replaced by natural gas, leading to reduced CO2 but higher methane. Solar and wind took up the increase in energy demand in the last few years, but did not replace existing demand - yet. In China and India coal has not been replaced at all - yet. There are good reasons to be optimistic about a transition in electricity production, as Ken Feldman and others (and Bob Wallace when he was active here) have been pointing out for quite some time. And yet, seeing is believing. I would rather see these changes taking place rather than understand that they are about to happen. I would like to see countries both developed and developing installing huge amounts of wind and solar and shutting down fossil fuel generation prematurely, so that fossil fuel use in electricity generation actually drops rather than plateaus.
As for other sectors the picture is much less rosy. In transportation we have an economic solution of EVs, currently more expensive but soon to reach parity with ICE cars. It's already being adopted by some consumers despite the cost, but globally the numbers are still minuscule.
Sales of electric cars topped 2.1 million globally in 2019, surpassing 2018 – already a record year – to boost the stock to 7.2 million electric cars. Electric cars, which accounted for 2.6% of global car sales and about 1% of global car stock in 2019, registered a 40% year-on-year increase.
It appears the economics are there for a fast transition to occur in global sales and later in global stock. But how fast is fast? I think it will take two decades at the least to replace most stock, and that it should take one decade at most.
A lot of industry can be shifted to electricity, but not all. Construction? Agriculture? Shipping? Some of these can be shifted by using cheap electricity to produce synthetic fuels. All this will take lots of time and lots of money. The electricity system should be transitioned very very fast, and result in very cheap prices for renewable electricity, to encourage the transition of the other industries. But mindsets change slowly and investment decisions affect results years ahead, so this may take at least another decade after transitioning of electricity, which itself could take two decades to mostly complete even if politicians across the globe do the right thing, which they often don't.
Some industries cannot be transitioned at all using current technology and economics.
In the meantime, warming accumulates, with natural feedbacks kicking in and taking up some of the slack in emissions. And summer Arctic sea ice will very probably disappear in the meantime, adding to the forcing due to a strong albedo feedback. Cleanup of energy will sharply reduce amount of aerosols, whether as a spike or as a long process doesn't matter too much for the end forcing result.
Should we be optimistic? Maybe. I think yes. Are we safely out of the woods? Hell no. The main ingredient here is time, which we don't have much of.

The politics / Re: The Collapse Of America
« on: January 20, 2021, 08:22:42 PM »
FG, you should only post when sober. (I assume).

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 20, 2021, 02:55:01 PM »
Vaccination rate has slowed sharply from 100-150k per day to less than 50k per day
I stand corrected, above are the numbers for first shot, most of the immediate activity is now second shot of the the first eligible wave. This chart gives the full picture of vaccinations, with the lighter color showing the second shots.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: January 20, 2021, 04:07:13 AM »
Now we will have to turn our attention toward Israel. 27% of the population has been vaccinated and they keep pushing on, we should soon see a major dropoff in infection rates. I wonder what restrictions they still have and when they will exit those.

oren, what are the rules there now?
A (third) general lockdown begun a few weeks ago was extended until the end of January. Theoretically stores are closed except essential ones, services are closed, malls are closed, restaurants are closed except for home delivery, schools are closed, events are forbidden, meeting other people is forbidden with some few caveats, offices are closed except for essential employees. Compliance is much lower than the first lockdown in March, and the reality very different than what the rules say. Many stores have become essential or switched to online so in essence are open and you can walk in with a wink. Personal services (hairdresser etc.) can be had by illegal home visits. You can go anywhere with a good excuse and meet anyone. At most you might encounter a police checkpoint, all reported in traffic apps so can be avoided easily even where they exist. Some things are indeed closed like restaurant sit-down, malls and theaters. Schools are open in broad defiance for some sectors. Masks are generally worn but compliance is lower in some sectors, and actual masking is often sloppy. No wonder infection rates per capita are higher than even the UK and the US, but hopefully things will improve slowly as the lockdown continues.

The main issue is that the same population sectors which are responsible for most of the spread of the virus due to flaunting of social distancing rules are also those where vaccination rates are the lowest. These sectors are still holding crowded weddings if you can believe it, and keeping schools open despite state-dictated closure. (Yeah enforcement in Israel is poor and politically-driven).

Vaccination rate has slowed sharply from 100-150k per day to less than 50k per day mainly due to limitations of vaccine availability, but also by what seems to me like a slowdown in the uptake rate as the initial pool of people who want the vaccine got it. I get the feeling the total vaccination rate will taper off much earlier than 100%. Initially only people over 60 and were eligible, but a large number aged 50 and 40 got vaccinated anyway by standing in lines, sometimes for hours, hoping for leftovers which are quite common given the difficult logistical limitations of the Pfizer vaccine. In addition some special sectors such as military personnel and teachers and of course medical personnel got vaccinated regardless of age.

Number of hospitalized persons in serious condition is hovering at very high levels but has not grown in the last three days, and the 7-days average of new infections has finally hit a plateau.
It is still unknown how much the vaccines slow infections, but considering the antibody studies I can't believe it will not be a major effect. So in February we *should* see a much improved situation on both infections and hospitalizations.

Antarctica / Re: Ice Apocalypse - MULTIPLE METERS SEA LEVEL RISE
« on: January 18, 2021, 03:57:43 AM »
A couple of charts prepared by paolo over in the PIG thread should concern the readers here. Over the last 3 years velocity increased by more than 15%. A hard acceleration of the PIG velocity over such a short period (along with calving front retreat and loss of buttressing as documented in that thread) does not bode well for the future of sea level rise.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: January 14, 2021, 03:45:31 PM »
And to those occasional few who want to take time off from the forum, if you do so please don't delete your account. It's a shame to lose access to all previous posts and to cut off communications by private messages, when simply lurking silently is an available alternative. And when re-registering (which happens every now and then) people need to get to know you again.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: January 14, 2021, 03:42:18 PM »
Actually the comment by blu_ice made sense, Covid discussions have caused much dissent this year (as have politics discussions in period after Trump's election). However, at least regarding Covid I would not delete that thread, I find it to be a very useful and in-depth source of information unmatched elsewhere. I wish that those who don't care for it will simply avoid it, rather than being dragged down into the occasional harsh disagreements.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: January 13, 2021, 06:14:22 PM »
John Palmer, yes, you got some not nice replies, which I was sorry to read. However, you might not be aware that your posting style contributes to this, by being somewhat antagonistic. There is a way to soften arguments and a way to enhance them. It takes two to tango, refuse to tango and the unpleasantness will normally die down.

No, do not leave, just soften the sharp edges and you are very welcome to stay.

The rest / Re: Masks
« on: January 08, 2021, 09:11:34 PM »
I refuse to click such sites - but taking a peek on the Internet, I think he's wrong. Murders are up because of rising social anger, thanks to the Orange Idiot on the one hand and the Covid crisis on the other hand. Masks are annoying and uncomfortable but do not lead to increased murders, or else the East Asians would have murdered themselves to death already.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: January 08, 2021, 01:15:57 AM »
As far as I know Hycom is not comparable across the years from 2016 to 2020 as the model was changed in the interim.

The politics / Re: The Alt Right
« on: January 07, 2021, 04:50:45 AM »
Wili, put posters on ignore as needed, but don't let their opinions drive you away from this site. Your voice is needed here.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)
« on: January 06, 2021, 03:43:20 AM »
Finally, in its last gasp 2020 managed to break away from 2016, though this did not suffice to cross above 2012.
The main region to thank is the Siberian sector. Laptev and Kara have both left record low territory at last. In the Pacific sector one could have a hoped for a higher year-end result, considering the high volume throughout the summer. The CAB is still very low but not as bad as 2016.
Looking at daily record lows, 2020 had a respectable showing, but is still behind 2012, 2019, and 2017. 2010 has finally lost its only daily record and was kicked of of the chart.
Hopefully, early 2021 will see better volume growth than early 2017 had.

My next update will require the annual hell of adding a new line to all charts and fixing colors.
The usual thanks to Wipneus, without whom the regional data would not be available anywhere.

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19
« on: January 05, 2021, 07:36:37 PM »
Kassy I suggest relegating the virus origin discussion to a separate thread, as it is marginal science (at best) and detracts from the fruitful updates and discussions going on in this thread. All such posts especially by harpy who posts about this constantly, and relevant responses,  should be moved there.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: January 02, 2021, 11:14:50 AM »
Big thanks to Juan and Gero for their important daily contributions. 2020 is finally over...

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 31, 2020, 01:47:08 PM »
I am sorry to hear about Blum's troubles.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 28, 2020, 04:06:42 PM »
P-Maker, I agree with the A68 analogy and find it interesting, but the ice cube analogy is irrelevant.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 28, 2020, 02:47:17 PM »
The example I would use is an ice cube.
Sea ice is not a cube, it is very thin compared to its length and width, which is why the analogy and the insights derived from it are irrelevant.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 23, 2020, 02:10:59 PM »
The Covid discussion should be held in the Covid thread. Bnr, feel free never to set foot in that thread again. Problem should be solved. If you feel the ice threads are under-posted, feel free to post relevant material in them.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: December 16, 2020, 11:53:22 AM »
Hefaistos, for all that you pretend otherwise, an annotated chart is not the same as the original chart. Especially as it seems the annotation was created specifically to give some kind of false impression that all is well. This is what deniers do, they twist information so it appears to say something else.
You did provide a link to the paper but that was paywalled and the paper did not contain the annotated chart, therefore your link was not helpful but rather misleading. Someone clicking on the link might think, aha it is paywalled but I assume the poster did his due diligence. Well he didn't, he is reading denier forums and is affected by the twisted material there, and it finds itself creeping into the ASIF. I sure am glad some posters bothered to verify and discovered the discrepancy

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 14, 2020, 09:24:33 AM »
Don't assume that European buildings come with their own dedicated parking. Some of them do and some don't, but the percentage will be far lower than in the US which is centered around single-family homes with their own driveway/garage. If you use street parking, and lack charging in your workplace, you will not be able charge daily and always have a full battery. Even if you live in a building with its own parking lot, there is a difference between "can" provide charges and "do".
Along with justified concerns about differences between real life range (including lights, heating, higher speed driving, effects of temperature and more) and the unrealistic WLTP range, and along with the need to cover longer occasional drives and not just a trip to the office and back, early EV adopters especially in Europe are correct to require a much higher nominal range than their daily commute. Not schizophrenia, common sense.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 12, 2020, 06:08:09 PM »
Indeed, Kara has the most ice in Feb and Mar, and it should freeze over this year as well. The problem is the thickness (or lack thereof). The later it freezes over, the thinner the resulting ice.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 10, 2020, 06:33:34 AM »
Pre COVID-19 the US had ~55M at 65+

Today the CDC released a data set, 196k of 261k deaths were 65+

At around .35% of that cohort, that’s a significant slice to lose in 9 months.
Considering at least 60k excess mortality in the US above the official Covid deaths, and assuming most of them are in the 65+ cohort, gives ~250k total Covid deaths over 65, or .45% as a more correct (and even more significant) figure since March. Note this is above the normal annual mortality for this cohort which is quite significant at ~2.1M.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: December 10, 2020, 01:48:57 AM »
King Crimson - Epitaph

The song was written during the nuclear arms race and cold war but its messages still resonate today.


The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl a cracked and broken path
If we make it, we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying

Between the iron gates of fate
The seeds of time were sown
And watered by the deeds of those
Who know and who are known
Knowledge is a deadly friend
If no one sets the rules
The fate of all mankind, I see
Is in the hands of fools

The wall on which the prophets wrote
Is cracking at the seams
Upon the instruments of death
The sunlight brightly gleams
When every man is torn apart
With nightmares and with dreams
Will no one lay the laurel wreath
When silence drowns the screams

Confusion will be my epitaph
As I crawl, a cracked and broken path
If we make it, we can all sit back and laugh
But I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Crying, crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying
Yes, I fear, tomorrow, I'll be crying

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 07, 2020, 03:32:59 PM »
Any clarification that it seems that around 16Dec the extent seems to be about the same for all projected years, no matter the spread before and after that date. If we wouldn't have had daily numbers and were just watching one day a year, not much difference was noted if that day was 16Dec.
I would expect this has to do with the physical boundaries of the Arctic ocean, which tend to limit freezing at this time of year to a certain geographic region, give or take a few. In addition, the large Hudson Bay typically finishes freezing by this time. However, this is not an iron rule as can be seen for 2016.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November mid-monthly update)
« on: December 07, 2020, 06:30:25 AM »
Thanks a lot Wipneus for your important work with PIOMAS data.
A few charts showing that 2020 is unfortunately still leading in the important places, though it lags the total behind 2016 mainly thanks to a 140k surplus in the Greenland Sea.
CAB and Pacific side rates of growth seems to be following in parallel to the slower years, such as 2016. In the Siberian side the rate of growth has been following the faster years, though on a very delayed curve. Hopefully by the next update 2020 will be firmly above 2016.

Click to enlarge.
Looking at the same charts again, 2020 is still in a bad place.
Although the CAB has finally inched above 2016 with a tiny 90 km3 lead, the total of the Inner Basin still sees 2020 as lowest on record by a similar gap. This is due to disappointingly slow growth on both the Siberian side, where trouble brewed all summer and volume is still lowest on record, but also on the Pacific side, which is quickly losing its hard-won advantage. The Beaufort + Chukchi actually managed to lose net volume in the past four months, while most years add a net of several hundred km3.
2016 is still leading thanks to a 190 km3 gap in the Greenland Sea, and a 250 km3 advantage in the Peripheral seas. This lead can go on for quite a while but does not promise a safe melting season in any way. I remind that after the abysmal 2016 winter, 2017 "dodged a cannonball" with very lucky weather. This is not guaranteed to happen again, so hopefully 2020 will pull away above 2016 at some point.

Click to enlarge.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: December 04, 2020, 04:04:36 AM »
Well we have another chance to develop our thickness estimate algorithm soon. Core ice temperature is dropping to levels where we thought we had some reasonable estimates last year. I have doubts though.
Looking at T78 data the deployment report (1) states the ice was 1.52m thick with 2cm of fresh snow on aug23. Thermistor buoy sensors are 2cm apart so we can't really detect snow at that point but we are also given the sensor id of the air/snow interface as 33. Great. So the bottom of the ice on that day was at sensor 110.
The temperature profile then was almost flat by winter standards but a more detailed look shows the ice thickness quite well. (2)
Thermistors 33 and 110 have been marked roughly at the beginning of the animation(3) and again on nov22 when the temperature profile shows them clearly (with a short pause both times). There is not much additional thickening since then.
So my doubt is this. Did the ice melt quickly during end of august/september or has it been 1.5m thick and possibly porous all the time but took 3 months to cool down again?

added T78 drift path(4)
It's nice to have the actual thermistor air-snow and ice-water numbers at deployment.
Looking at the animation, it appears like there was massive bottom melt, and then re-thickening.
This is what I would expect in general with the given temperature profile.
At first, ice top is warmer than at the bottom. This surely brings about bottom melt, as heat trickles from above and the salt water eats away from below, and I think would also depend on the rate of drag of the ice over the water.
The image from Aug 23 clearly shows ice-water interface at thermistor 110.
Next, the temp profile is flat. My understanding is that the bottom would still be melting, albeit at a much slower pace.
The image from Sep 13 seems to be the last day of top melt, as well as the ice having a cold core again (cold gradient from the middle to the bottom).
Eventually, the ice top is colder than the ice bottom, with a gradient appearing through the ice. From this point on the ice starts bottom freezing and it's easier to spot where the ice ends.
The image from Sep 21 in my opinion shows the ice-water interface at around thermistor 55.
The image from Oct 15 seems to show the ice-water interface at thermistor 70.
The end of the animation again shows the ice to exceed thermistor 110.

Admittedly these are just generalizations, since I can't put any quantitative expectations as to the rates of melting and freezing. The rates do depend on the steepness of the warm or cold gradient though. Therefore I would not expect a whole lot of bottom melting, also given the rather late date of deployment. However, eyeing the animation, it would appear as if the bottom melted all the way to thermistor 55. Some possible explanations:
* Bottom was higher than thermistor 110 to begin with, with 110 being some protruding edge. However, the animation data does support this initial placement for the ice-water interface.
* Melting did not actually reach thermistor 55, though I can't see any other explanation for the cold gradient ending where it ends on Sep 23, except that it was the ice-water edge.
* The ice was extremely mobile which enhanced bottom melt way beyond what the temp profile would suggest. This can be checked by looking at T78 drift.
* The ice has not cooled enough for the gradient to reach the ice-water interface.
* My intuition for rates of bottom melt is disconnected from reality (very probable).

All in all, a very interesting mystery, with wider implications. If indeed ice can bottom-melt so quickly at the end of the season, we are not so far away from blue ocean as the extent extrapolations seem to suggest.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 02, 2020, 03:37:52 AM »
Beckwith is not the most accurate or reliable source and his commercializing the catastrophe is offputting.
I agree.

BTW, Paul Beckwith is registered in the ASIF and has made a few posts some years ago, though he's not been seen since.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: December 01, 2020, 05:45:33 PM »
AMSR2 area updates (using UH data by Wipneus):
* The Chukchi is slow going, though not at record territory with 2017 and 2019 bottom-leading.
* The Bering and Okhotsk are still asleep, a common behavior on this date but definitely not first our of the gate. If Bering doesn't wake up it could be at record  AMSR2 low in a week.
* Hudson Bay is quite ahead but despite expectations is still within the herd, with 2014 and 2018 top-leading.
* The Kara appears to be going in reverse, and is at record low territory (for AMSR2 data). Have we seen the freezing season maximum?  :o (Just kidding of course).

Click to enlarge.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: November 30, 2020, 01:29:57 PM »
While 2020 is currently 2nd lowest in extent, behind 2016, this is due to 2016's very delayed Hudson Bay refreeze. Within the Arctic Basin 2020 extent is now back to lowest on record according to all 3 measures tracked by Wipneus - UH, JAXA and NSIDC.
Click to enlarge.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: November 30, 2020, 10:38:53 AM »
Earlier this month the UN put out revised figures on the current global population and new projections out to 2100.  These revisions are based upon new census data and corrections to mistaken fertility rates that were used as a base for the last biennial report.  The key figure from this revised report is that global population in 2050 is now projected to be 9.6 billion people.  This number has increased by 700 million since the last report in 2011.  It also projects a global population in 2100 of 10.9 billion and indicates that population will still be growing then.

I put a short post about these new UN population projections in the topic When and How Bad a few days ago.  I have been reviewing the numbers and thought that this topic deserves a home of its own. The impetus to actually write this post was triggered by a comment on the ASIB where a poster made a statement that "...the solutions to our problems are simple..."  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Population is the main reason why and it prevents (especially as it is still growing rapidly) any proposed solution from being executable or workable.  The people that make up this population, after all, are just people not some idealized utopian version that does not exist and they are going to behave pretty much how they always have.  Until they can't.  So when does that happen.

Global population numbers can, with a few caveats, be argued as the number one factor in the generation of almost all of our global scale problems to include AGW, energy supply issues, inadequate fresh water supplies, pollution of all kinds, biodiversity loss, depleting resources, etc, etc.  Human population levels have exceeded the global carrying capacity by a large amount and our various resource demands are seriously depleting a wide variety of mineral and biological supplies.
Let's look at a few population numbers from the UN (link below)...

Note:  All population numbers below in millions unless stated otherwise.

Rich/powerful countries/regions first.

                              Population   2013                        2050             % gain/loss

North America                           355                           446               26%
Australia/New Zealand                 28                             40               43%
Western Europe                         192                           196                  2%
Northern Europe                        100                           116                16%
the PIGS (PO, IT, GR, SP)           130                           129             minus  ~1%             
Japan                                        127                           108              minus 15%
Russia                                       143                           121              minus 15%

Total                                        1075                          1156              7% 

Comment.  As a group these are the countries with the highest per capita impact on the worlds problems.  Contrary to what we constantly hear in the media their overall population is actually increasing at a significant rate.  Further when you look at the numbers a couple of items really stick out.  The worst per capita offenders, North America and Australia, have  a combined growth projected at 102 million.  This will have a disproportionate impact on fixing problems.  This is at least the equivalent of adding 1 billion people.   European population increases will add the equivalent of another 200 million people.  The second item relates to Russia and Japan.  Does anyone think that these very rich and powerful countries are just going to let their populations decrease on the order of what is projected?  Such decreases spell huge economic problems for them and a loss of wealth and position in the world and thereby threaten their security.  They are almost certain to institute policies that will be intended to reverse the population declines forecast. So I expect the above numbers to trend higher.

The Big Guys       Population      2013                        2050             % gain/loss

China                                        1386                        1385                   0%
India                                         1252                        1620                 29%

Total                                          2638                        3005                 14%

Comment.  These countries are undergoing rapid economic growth and their per capita contributions to our global problems are rapidly rising.  Adding population at the rate projected, when coupled to their push towards economic improvement, will add massively to the factors worsening our global problems.  Their willingness to adapt their growth objectives to lessen global impacts will run hard into the fairness issue of their having to pay the price for a set of problems largely created by the group I have labeled above as the rich/powerful countries.  Why should they change if the rich and powerful do not sacrifice the most.  It is a fair point of course but, as I have said before, fairness has nothing to do with it.  The rich and powerful will never willingly drop their impact numbers to match those in China and India as it would cripple their economies and they would lose their position in the world.  People just don't do that kind of thing.

The Muslim world  Population     2013                        2050             % gain/loss

Pakistan                                     182                          271                    49%
Indonesia                                   250                          321                    28%
Iran                                             77                          101                   31%
North Africa                                210                          319                   52%
Nigeria                                       174                          440                 153%
Central Asia                                  64                            86                   34%
Afghanistan                                  31                            57                   84%
Bangladesh                                 157                          202                   29%
Iraq                                             34                            71                 109%
Saudi Arabia                                 29                            40                   38%
Turkey                                         75                            95                   27%
Ethiopia                                       94                           188                 100%
Yemen                                         24                             42                   75%

Total                                          1401                          2233                59%                             

Comment.  There are, of course, several hundred million Muslims not counted in the above list who live in places like India and other small countries I did not have the energy to count.  Getting traction on fertility issues and reducing population in conservative religious countries is an unlikely prospect due to such issues running hard into their religious beliefs.  This is going to be especially true of Islamic countries.  Plus you have the factor that the vast majority of the population of the above countries are poor, uneducated and thirsting for development.  An intractable situation.  And the issue of religion having a strong negative impact on population issues is certainly not limited to Islamic countries.  The United States, an extraordinarily religious country, which is primarily Protestant, is a perfect example of this being an issue in the Western world as well and the US could reasonably be included in any list of countries where religion exerts influence against population control.  I expect that in the US as the years pass we will see a further increase in the fertility rate as the general populace becomes poorer, less educated and more religious. As Christianity and Islam fight for control of Africa they will have, over time, a strong negative influence on population issues there as well.   Strongly Catholic countries, as typified by the Philippines and parts of Latin America, can be expected to have similar issues.

Other's           Population           2013                        2050             % gain/loss

Africa Total                                1111                        2393                  115%
East Africa                                   373                         869                   133%
North Africa                                 210                         319                    52%
Middle Africa                                136                         316                   132%
Southern Africa                              60                           75                    25%
Western Africa                              331                         815                   146%

Latin America                                617                         782                     27%
Brazil                                            200                         231                     15%
Mexico                                          122                         156                     28%

Oceania                                           38                           57                     50%

Philippines                                       98                         157                     60%

South-East Asia                              619                         788                    27%

Global                                            7162                        9551                  33%

Comments.  Note that the Philippines accounts for 35% of the growth in South-East Asia even though it's population at present is only 16% of the regions total.  Africa as a whole is projected to grow dramatically.  All the usual reasons for that growth probably apply and stopping that growth will only come when the resources that support and fuel it can no longer be obtained.  Then it gets very ugly.  Please note that the UN projects the global population to rise by 33% by 2050.

I've re-read the excellent introductory post written by JimD for this thread, and decided it was time to update the figures in the same format.

Total population projected in 2050 is now 9.73 billion, an increase of more than 180 million since 7 years ago. This will sure make things worse in terms of food. OTOH, the increase is outside the rich countries, so at least emission intensity and resource consumption is somewhat less impacted.

                      Population   2050 in 2013              2050 in 2020      projection change

North America                           446                           425             -21
Australia/New Zealand                 40                           38               -2
Western Europe                         196                           197              +1
Northern Europe                        116                           115              -1
the PIGS (PO, IT, GR, SP)           129                           116             -13             
Japan                                        108                           106             -2
Russia                                       121                           136             +15

Total                                        1156                          1133             -23 

The Big Guys Population      2050 in 2013              2050 in 2020       projection change

China                                        1385                        1402                  +17
India                                         1620                        1639                 +19

Total                                          3005                        3041                 +36

The Muslim world  Population   2050 in 2013            2050  in 2020      projection change

Pakistan                                     271                          271                   0
Indonesia                                   321                          331                   +10
Iran                                           101                          103                   +2
North Africa                                319                          372                   +53
Nigeria                                       440                          401                   -39
Central Asia                                  86                          100                   +14
Afghanistan                                  57                            65                   +8
Bangladesh                                 202                          193                   -9
Iraq                                             71                            71                   0
Saudi Arabia                                 40                            45                   +5
Turkey                                         95                            97                   +2
Ethiopia                                       188                           205                 +17
Yemen                                         42                             48                   +6

Total                                          2233                          2302                +69   

Other's Population                2050 in 2013             2050  in 2020     projection change

Africa Total                                2393                        2489                  +96
East Africa                                   869                         851                  -18
North Africa                                 319                         372                   +53
Middle Africa                                316                         383                   +67
Southern Africa                              75                           87                   +12
Western Africa                              815                         796                   -19

Latin America                                782                         762                   -20
Brazil                                            231                         229                   -2
Mexico                                          156                         155                   -1

Oceania                                           57                           57                  0

Philippines                                       157                         144                 -13

South-East Asia                              788                         794                  +6

Global                                            9551                        9735               +184

p.s. I finally discovered after 6400 posts that the forum has a 20,000 character limit per message...

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 26, 2020, 10:44:05 PM »
Indeed my beef is with the EIA that insists on a metric that boosts inefficient energy sources and penalizes renewables. I don't have a qualified source for the required numbers.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 26, 2020, 03:55:27 PM »
Electricity consumed in trillion BTU. Why not kWh? These folks are weird.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: November 24, 2020, 05:27:00 PM »
I think this is the video in question.

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: November 24, 2020, 02:11:49 AM »
Hi APMartie2, to do that you need to save the image to your device and then upload it as attachment to your post.
Thanks to your link, here's an even better Worlview output, an animation of the past month (made using the video camera icon on WV, optimized on EZgif to reduce size). Click to animate.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 20, 2020, 03:12:52 PM »
The argument is getting ahead of itself. The main question is what to do incrementally now, and the answer is obvious. Add solar and/or wind, depending on your country's specific characteristics, until they start being curtailed seriously because of overbuild. Complement them with existing nuclear and hydro where possible, and with existing fossil fuel plants, preferably as dispatchable as possible. Build the grid where it's needed, e.g. transmission lines from desert areas or sea platforms to urban centers.
That's it, so simple, no need to argue.
When the solar and wind enter serious curtailment, or before that if possible, start adding large grid batteries of a few hours worth of energy, to bridge the gap between day and night and between wind highs and lows. This process will keep reducing the total GHG emissions.
All the rest is quite far into the future. There's at least 5 or even 10 years where adding renewables as fast as possible is the correct first step, with batteries as the second step.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 20, 2020, 01:43:26 AM »
As far as the climate is concerned, in order to limit the rise in global temperature below 2°C, which is the objective of the Paris agreement, global greenhouse gas emissions must be divided by 3 by 2050, i.e. a decrease of about 4% per year (starting today) over the next 30 years. And you want to do this with wind turbines, photovoltaic panels and electric batteries? You know that your program is going to require you to burn a lot of coal and oil to try to make these tools, that you will cause serious pollution to extract and transform the necessary metals, and you won't be able to do it. I'm going to watch you do it and carefully note the progress you will make every year, I remind you of the challenge: minus 4% per year from now on, GO!
A. I actually think this should be done over 20 years instead of 30. We do not have that much time and environment left. But note I am not saying this will be done, just that it can be done. Political and social reasons (and human stupidity) probably mean that it will not be done.
B. Humanity's industrial machine keeps on humming, to make LCD screens and Barbie dolls and what have you. I'd rather the same machine make solar panels and wind turbines and batteries instead. Redirecting of resources, same costs and pollutions.
C. As electricity in general becomes cleaner, the marginal GHG cost of further production of renewable generation components (and other products of energy, including screens and dolls) will drop. The right thing to do is to transform first the grids of industrial nations chiefly involved in making these components, especially China, so that any increase in industrial output due to demand for such components will be served by cleaner energy.
D. Maintenance of the system and replacement of components after initial completion will use clean energy.
E. As the grid becomes cleaner, humanity should also undertake the conversion of transportation, mining and industrial processes that are directly powered by fossil fuels to be powered by electricity instead.
F. Of course, humanity should reduce consumption to enable a faster transition and reduce the burden on the carrying capacity of the planet. Humanity should also reduce reproduction, at least temporarily. I doubt it will do either of these measures though, for political and social reasons (and human stupidity).

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: November 19, 2020, 03:05:52 PM »
Looking at the SMOS animation (thanks A-Team) it appears 2019 had thinner ice than the previous years, so the trend is already two years back to back. I have no doubt the poor 2019 volume  growth contributed to what happened in 2020. At the end of the 2019/20 winter the Laptev volume (black line) was at an all time low, long before the Siberian heat wave and the GAAC.
Of course, the extremely late refreeze and delayed thickening doesn't necessarily mean the trend will continue, but it's certainly stacking the odds.

Click to enlarge.

I would like to hear your comments to what you see?
I cannot elaborate as much as Tor, but, it seems to me the tributaries on the right play a role in determining the calving position by exerting pressure on the ice shelf, and I also wonder why then and now the last holdout is the middle left of the glacier. I also note the longitudinal channels (on the left) play a small role in the outline of the breakup.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 19, 2020, 05:08:08 AM »
100% renewable electricity at no extra cost, a piece of cake?

And here we're only talking about the production of electricity, not the overall consumption of energy in France.
It's all in the assumptions, a very biased article, pro-nuclear, anti-renewables.
Modern wind and solar have higher capacity factors than 20% and 14% respectively, which is what he assumes based on existing average factors (from 2016). Of course, for nuclear he uses 75% while current average is 69%, without any reasoning at all.
The requirement for 100% solar or 100% wind (their combination is an afterthought) is very harsh, change it to 99% solar and wind with fossil fuel backup and you get a very different result, with nearly the same emissions.
Imports are not allowed at all, thus missing out on the residual differential of winds and clouds between countries even when weather is correlated, and on the variability and availability of hydro within countries.
Existing hydro (20% of installed capacity) cannot be used at all, artificially upping the needs for solar or wind renewables.
Focus on pumped-up hydro as the main storage solution. Batteries are an afterthought. Costs per kw are 5000-6000 Euros, much more than batteries, and the charge-discharge efficiency is 70%, much less than batteries. OTOH assumes battery manufacturing would eat up 20%-30% of the total stored lifetime energy.
Assumes lifetime of nuclear is rather long while that of wind and solar and of batteries is rather short, compared with reasonable assumptions.
Grid must be upgraded to support max (overbuilt) capacity, in essence assuming solar and wind cannot be curtailed at source.
Assumes for every dollar into renewables, another dollar into grid/power lines. IMHO much too much.
Assumes crazy assumptions about storage sizing, rather than calculating via charge-discharge simulation the actual storage required.
"Proves" the crazy resulting cost for renewables by looking at the German system, built when renewables cost way above their current cost.
Assumes nuclear does not need any backup from other sources, "as a proxy for the existing system", in effect allowing nuclear the benefit of the 20% hydro and the fossil fuel backup for free. Ignores the need to overbuild nuclear in order to meet peak loads, having required that from renewables. Ignores the need to build new nuclear, assumes cost is only "reconstruction" of existing facilities, although existing nuclear is not enough to support the whole grid. Assumes very cheap cost for dismantling. Ignores need to deal with radioactive waste. Assumes operating costs for nuclear are as low as renewables. Assumes nuclear is dispatchable and has no uncontrolled changes in output due to sudden maintenance needs or bad weather such as too-warm rivers (not to mention potential accidents). Assumes France is a good proxy for other countries, that do not have the existing nuclear installed base.
And I didn't even get to the end to find all the biased assumptions, couldn't stomach to read more of this.

If this is what you read, no wonder these are your conclusions.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: November 19, 2020, 04:02:40 AM »
You might be surprised to know that many million-milers are not super-rich, not even rich. Like this stringed-instrument guy I know, he used to be a player in an orchestra but that living is dead, and now he is privately trading violins and such, flying all over the globe to show, to buy and to sell, barely making ends meet in the process. A very weird life and very harmful for the planet, but certainly not rich.
There are also many people who fly for their job in marketing, sales or engineering, making a transatlantic return flight every two or four weeks. Certainly richer than the average human, but most are not considered rich in their own countries, and definitely not super-rich. I am familiar with more than a few of such people. Most if not all hate flying. Again, a ruinous lifestyle but one driven by making a living.
The main issue here is globalization, and the too-cheap cost of flights that does not take into account the environmental cost. If transatlantic or regional flights cost 4 times as much, you would not be seeing many of these flights, as it would not be economical to continue making a living this way. Then only the super-rich would be flying, and the above complaint would be more accurate.
What could actually make a big dent is Covid, that has taught all to do remote meetings and to find them acceptable, in fact much more productive unless an actual non-software product is to be demonstrated or transferred during the meeting.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November mid-monthly update)
« on: November 18, 2020, 01:14:03 PM »
Thanks a lot Wipneus for your important work with PIOMAS data.
A few charts showing that 2020 is unfortunately still leading in the important places, though it lags the total behind 2016 mainly thanks to a 140k surplus in the Greenland Sea.
CAB and Pacific side rates of growth seems to be following in parallel to the slower years, such as 2016. In the Siberian side the rate of growth has been following the faster years, though on a very delayed curve. Hopefully by the next update 2020 will be firmly above 2016.

Click to enlarge.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: What's new in Greenland?
« on: November 17, 2020, 11:04:02 PM »
They found that Jakobshavn Isbrae lost more than 1.5 trillion tonnes of ice between 1880-2012, while Kangerlussuaq and Helheim lost 1.4 trillion and 31 billion tonnes from 1900–2012, respectively.
I find weird that these are the three largest glaciers in Greenland. Petermann? Zachariae? Humboldt? What criteria?
Also the numbers are weird. Did Helheim lose 50 times less than JH and Kangerlussuaq?
But I need to read the whole thing.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 17, 2020, 10:53:06 PM »
Converting some of the demand to dispatchable could also make the problem smaller. Dead cloudy days should mean unnecessary demand gets pushed back. Wait with laundry. Don't charge your e car or your home battery. If electricity price is jacked up during dead times and reduced during clear windy days, individuals and firms will find their own way to shift their patterns.
Governments should also offer free or discounted home insulation projects, to reduce heating demand during those dead times.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 16, 2020, 10:11:43 PM »
Thanks BFTV, very clear writeup that helped me understand some things I should have known a long time ago.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: November 16, 2020, 03:21:50 AM »
So, a quick visit to Worldview can help answer the question.
Sample Worldview link
Choose Add Layers - Sea Ice - SSMI - Sea Ice Concentration. Now you can see sea ice extent all the way to 1978, and even better you can click the video camera icon to make an animation of up to 40 frames, with 1 year increments showing you the same date every year. Download the result, and upload to for some optimization, resizing and setting desired delays between frames.
And the answer: It seems 2012 was worse.

Click to animate.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 16, 2020, 02:51:29 AM »
Welcome ArgonneForest.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 35