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 - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: October 27, 2019, 11:20:43 PM »
The daily Mosaic one-paragraph blog + photo shows the 11m meteorological tower being installed near the Polarstern. That is going to provide a better quality stream of data than weather instruments on the ship's bridge that shows up in the hourly meteorological database accessible from Meereisportal. (Sailwx has the highlights.)

It is likely explained what this meteorological tower can do in the 122-page planing document for cruise PS122/leg1. However they have limited internet bandwidth and copious onboard secure data storage. We might not see anything from this tower until it surfaces at the Pangea data archive (in 2023)

https://doi.pangaea.de/10013/epic.65d66d94-ff77-461f-9119-3e8d4c2ae7f3

Quote
Dear reader of the Polarstern weekly reports,

In this place you are used to finding the Weekly Reports from the Polarstern Expeditions. During the MOSAIC Expedition there will be no weekly reports.

Pity. Those weekly reports from past cruises were first-rate. As was the Helmholtz weekly blog on Mosaic. The last of those was posted 12 days ago. https://blogs.helmholtz.de/polarstern

Ok, they are busy so the nrt news situation will remain limited. Is it being censored? In my opinion, yes. First, with 3 Sentinel images per day, we can see for ourselves that the floe and Fortress are undergoing severe dynamic rearrangements almost every day, often within consecutive Sentinel orbits only 98.6 minutes apart.

Imagery biases from variable angle of approach, time of scene, instrument variation between satellites, lat/lon and temperature variation are all easily ruled out by routine controls. The morphological changes observed raise the question of what does it even mean to study the time evolution of the 'same' floe when it isn't the same floe even three weeks into the planned year (fortress rocker day2 vs day23 attached), or even hour to hour.

We've seen minimal mention of these events and no maps of Fortress changes in the 20 days that have elapsed since the fantastic but undated, no-legend laser-scanner DEM of ice camp was released on Oct 10th. Who would buy a laser range-finder that couldn't report what the ranges were?

It's one thing to set up camp but it's another to keep it set up. They've had two near misses already  with critical equipment that is all but impossible to repair on the ship or replace with one on land. How much of the year will be spent re-setting up camp; will data collection be discontinuous due to daily damage to instruments and infrastructure?

To a certain extent, this happens every year on every Arctic cruise and was expected. However this year the ice was very weak and thin, so options were very limited. I think they made the right decision with the selected floe: yes, better floes could be found farther north but these are much less likely to drift significantly. Plus re-supply becomes very problematic in deep winter.

Further, peri-polar floes don't have the refrozen melt ponds, open water in leads and freezing processes of FYI that are important to the scientific mission. Farther south was out of the question: nothing solid enough to moor on. Returning to port was out of the question; so is waiting for next year.

So apparently is reporting bad news. And we see that not just with this particular floe but in every topic in climate change. 

For us to follow Mosaic without guidance from their end, the Sentinel radar imagery and Iridium-transmitted reports from the buoys will be our best tools. The image below looks at Sentinel coverage and its extensive area of no coverage (Pole hole starts at 87.25º 165 km from NP, any longitude).

Should the buoys continue to die off, should the Polarstern drift out of Sentinel view, we will have to rely on trickle-down from the Dr. Panglosses. That's not a good idea when we're already having to tutor them on image processing and querying of massively coupled data.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 21, 2019, 02:15:23 PM »
About time.  ;)

And yes that is the area were most of the examples were from because it is rather shallow.

3
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 14, 2019, 11:04:44 PM »
Global Warming and Hurricanes
An Overview of Current Research Results
F. Summary for Atlantic Hurricanes and Global Warming
Quote
In summary, neither our model projections for the 21st century nor our analyses of trends in Atlantic hurricane and tropical storm activity support the notion that greenhouse gas-induced warming leads to large increases in either tropical storm or overall hurricane numbers in the Atlantic. While one of our modeling studies projects a large (~100%) increase in Atlantic category 4-5 hurricanes over the 21st century, we estimate that such an increase would not be detectable until the latter half of the century, and we still have only low confidence that such an increase will occur in the Atlantic basin, based on an updated survey of subsequent modeling studies by our and other groups.    A recent study finds that the observed increase in an Atlantic hurricane rapid intensification metric over 1982-2009 is highly unusual compared to one climate model’s simulation of internal multidecadal climate variability, and is consistent in sign with that model’s expected long-term response to anthropogenic forcing.   These climate change detection results for rapid intensification metrics are suggestive but not definitive, and more research is needed for more confident conclusions.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Absence of  95% conclusive  evidence that it is happening is not the same as evidence it is not happening.
The physics of tropical cyclones  suggest warmer seas will result in stronger storms .
Physics  also suggests we will see warm core storms migrate poleward as the oceans warm .
Both of these effects are already apparent in what reliable data we have.
Waiting for such effects to hit an arbitrary level of statistical significance before we act means we would be  to far along to halt the changes. 



 

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: October 13, 2019, 01:18:15 AM »
Update: the differencing of successive days of AMSR2_large is an effective way of visualizing closure of the open gap between the Polarstern and the Siberian shoreline: central ice pack edge growth meets growing landfast ice. Growth of that is just now kicking in.

I was just barely able to scale down mosaic.multisensor to overlay the Polarstern drift path on the 3.125 km resolution AMSR2; this require downsizing the radar original to 0.45% to get the path scaled (no sign of TPD yet).

There are a lot of ways to slice and dice the buoy data, the first substantial nrt data set we’ve had to work with, other than satellite products, since the ice penetrating radar archive for Greenland. In past years, 0-1 buoys have been reporting, often defectively, in the entire Arctic Ocean whereas now we have a large active coupled buoy array in the vicinity of the Polarstern..

The data archiving is still a bit rough, for example the second set of buoys below don’t measure snow depth or ice thickness as their meereisportal table indicates. However provisional graphs of temperature and speed are provided as a convenience and updated daily.

The Polarstern itself behaves as a giant buoy since being stably moored on Oct 4th. No hourly database for it accompanies the others. The radar image archive shifted to high resolution on Oct 7th. The pixel dimensions shifted inexplicably from 3500 x 4304 to 3498 x 4302 between the 7th and 9th, causing stacking issues. (Inexplicable because the crop tool has a fixed-size checkbox in all known image software.) The timestamps are all 0500 UTC; lat/lon of the Polarstern are not provided in the extensive legend.

The Sentinel images have different pixel offsets each day. Lagrangian coordinates (co-moving with ship) are being used; they cause havoc with the graticule and drift course overlay. It's more common on satellite series to use fixed eulerian coordinates to illustrate floe and lead dynamic development.

https://data.meereisportal.de/download/buoys/photos/2019P191_deployment.pdf

The first set of RSAQUA-type SVP buoys was deployed by Chinese scientists. These measure GPS position every hour along with temperature. From lat/lon they derived displacements (not shown) by an unknown equation (vincenty? haversine?), from which speeds were determined hourly. These buoys do not carry a wave heave accelerometer. Tides in the open Arctic are too low and slow to give a reading.

I checked into measurement error. One degree difference in latitude on the WGS ellipsoid is 111,111 meters. The GPS is reported to 1 part in 10,000, meaning 85.1234º can barely be distinguished for 85.1235º. Thus the positional uncertainty is 11.1 meters which is inadequate for a cruise missile but plausible this far north.

In calculating items like the changing sides and angles of a delaunay triangulation array, no purpose is served by exceeding the accuracy of the data.

It appears the buoys do not track azimuth. That is, unlike a ship, there is no natural axis unless the floe itself is stably asymmetric. Rotation of the floe in which the buoy is frozen is thus difficult to disentangle from translation.

We have measured large floes spinning around and around in the Beaufort arm eddies in previous autumns. In the vicinity of the Polarstern, the ice is mainly moving en bloc. The arm is forming nor this month and will likely extend up the Alaskan coast to the Chukchi before turning north. The ice will not move in a gyre, it hasn't for over a decade.

A column for changing bearing angle can be added using batch online tools (or spreadsheet formula). I did this for 2019P152 using positions 24, 48 and 72 hours apart; to the extent calculated bearings change more than the track implies, the floe has rotated. Bearing, heading and course are a source of perpetual confusion but see:

https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html

There is no column for changes in drift speed (acceleration) but that is implicit as the slope of the tangent line to the speed graph (below). The one I looked at 2019 has a puzzling periodicity. Obviously if other 11 buoys don’t follow in parallel, they are diverging/converging and the ice in between is deforming.

2019P152
2019P155
2019P156

D Watkins, a grad student at Oregon State who studies ‘Arctic lower tropospheric temperature inversions in the CESM large ensemble’ deployed a second set of nine buoys (brand not provided) from the helicopter of the Akademik Federov.

2019P188  2019P196
2019P190  2019P198
2019P191  2019P200
2019P192  2019P203  2019P206

These buoys apparently do have an onboard accelerometer, though the column heading is "accelometer_variance ()" with units omitted but values ranging from 5 to 15. It’s not clear why the buoy should expect any waves in the next 8 months. I tracked down an explanation of sorts from NDBC not specific to this particular buoy:

Quote
How are spectral wave data derived from buoy motion measurements?
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/wave.shtml

NDBC-reported wave measurements are not directly measured by sensors on board the buoys. Instead, the accelerometers or inclinometers on board the buoys measure the heave acceleration or the vertical displacement of the buoy hull during the wave acquisition time. A Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) is applied to the data by the processor on board the buoy to transform the data from the temporal domain into the frequency domain. Note that the raw acceleration or displacement measurements are not transmitted shore-side. Response amplitude operator (RAO) processing is then performed on the transformed data to account for both hull and electronic noise. It is from this transformation that non-directional spectral wave measurements (i.e., wave energies with their associated frequencies) are derived. Along with the spectral energies, measurements such as significant wave height (WVHGT), average wave period (AVGPD), and dominant period (DOMPD) are also derived from the transformation.

5
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: September 30, 2019, 05:08:39 PM »
SpaceX Has Starry-Eyed Ambitions for Its Starship
Elon Musk has laid out an ambitious future for his spaceship project, the effort to deliver people to the moon and Mars.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/elon-musk-spacex-starship/599065/

—-
Quote
Jon Erlichman (@JonErlichman) 9/29/19, 7:00 PM
11 years ago, SpaceX completed its first successful launch.
- valuation then: $410 million
- valuation now: $52 billion*
(*Morgan Stanley estimate)
https://twitter.com/jonerlichman/status/1178444405625237504
At the link: 41-second video of that Falcon 1 launch and staging.

—-
Quote
Austin Barnard (@austinbarnard45) 9/29/19, 12:13 PM
StarShip looks absolutely gorgeous this morning.
https://twitter.com/austinbarnard45/status/1178341922139758592
Photo below.
< I just realized last night what it's sitting on!
Those are the pilings they drilled and poured in the last couple weeks with the tall crane.
That's how it's secured, by sitting on top of 6 concrete pillars 80 feet or whatever in the ground.
So no legs yet, just mounts.

< What’s the hole for?
Quote
runni’n news (@rlikness) 9/29/19, 12:28 PM 
So that Elon can look inside
https://twitter.com/rlikness/status/1178345757444694016
Photo below. ;)

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 28, 2019, 03:53:50 PM »
The only time all this short /long stuff has an effect on a business is if it is looking for a cash injection either through a share issue or borrowing (lousy share price can put up interest costs).

Since Tesla is not looking for additional capital this year, it don't matter.
People who have invested for the long-term should ignore it unless they need to sell some shares.

All this bullshit has zero to do with whether Tesla will succeed or fail, but I do admit that I hope the shorties get screwed, since they are part of the failed capitalism that has degraded to mere speculation and cannot distinguish between price and value.

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 26, 2019, 02:29:29 AM »
Norway gas station replaces fuel pumps with electric car fast chargers
Quote
A gas company operating in Norway recently made history when it decided to replace all of its gas pumps at one of its stations with electric vehicle fast chargers. The update comes as Norway continues its aggressive push towards EV adoption, which is currently being augmented by the arrival of popular electric cars like the Tesla Model 3.

The company behind the unique initiative is Circle K, one of the nation’s petrol providers. Circle K has an expansive network of about 16,000 gas stations across the globe, and the company has noted that most of its business still comes from powering fossil fuel-powered cars. Yet, Circle K Vice President Sverre Rosén stated in a press release that electric car fast charging has been seeing an uptick in demand in Norway, particularly as the country pushes for the widespread adoption of clean transportation technologies.

“We have never done this before. There are fierce battles over the square meters at gas stations, and the gas pumps still deliver the core products and drive most of the traffic to our stations. But now there is a development in Norway. Fast charging is in high demand and there is a growing customer segment. It is nice to be a pioneer for the whole world in this way,” he said in its press release. ...
https://www.teslarati.com/norway-gas-station-changes-fuel-pumps-to-tesla-ev-chargers/

8
Once again sark, please, explain your meaning a little bit better

High pressure is dominating at the pole featuring intense meridional transport.  The system is locking into a wave 4.  And, it looks like a swastika.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 06:37:45 PM »
JAXA/ViSHOP extent has now fallen below the 2016 minimum:

http://GreatWhiteCon.info/2019/09/the-2019-arctic-sea-ice-metric-minima/#Sep-16

Only 2012 left to beat!

That's quite a big gap. Perhaps not this season. I'm just hoping it drops another 7k so the result drops into the correct bin. By correct I mean the one I voted for.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 15, 2019, 03:57:46 PM »
This is such an exciting end the the extent season - race to 2nd place almost complete  :o (though in one sense, that's not for the future!)

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 14, 2019, 10:00:48 PM »
Commercial solar from Tesla.  Three standard sizes.  Buy or subscribe.  Order in 5 minutes online.  Pay as low as $1.01 per watt.

Tesla Announces Simple Pricing On Commercial Solar, $1.01/Watt (Will Blow Some Minds)
Quote
Many will focus on how this makes it so easy to buy commercial sizes of solar. They are banking on you trusting the Tesla brand name to give you good pricing, quality, and reliability — enough so that you will just fill out the 12 fields and put the $100 on your corporate credit card. If this works, it will slash the marketing and sales costs of commercial solar, and that could help cut the costs of solar acquisition.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/14/tesla-announces-simple-pricing-on-commercial-solar-1-01-watt-will-blow-some-minds/

Tesla.com/bigsolar

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 14, 2019, 09:56:46 PM »
Three standard sizes.  Order in 5 minutes online.  Pay as low as $1.01 per watt.

Tesla Announces Simple Pricing On Commercial Solar, $1.01/Watt (Will Blow Some Minds)
Quote
Many will focus on how this makes it so easy to buy commercial sizes of solar. They are banking on you trusting the Tesla brand name to give you good pricing, quality, and reliability — enough so that you will just fill out the 12 fields and put the $100 on your corporate credit card. If this works, it will slash the marketing and sales costs of commercial solar, and that could help cut the costs of solar acquisition.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/09/14/tesla-announces-simple-pricing-on-commercial-solar-1-01-watt-will-blow-some-minds/

Elon Musk replied:
Quote
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) 9/14/19, 3:51 PM
Good analysis. You can order commercial solar in literally 30 secs if you use Apple Pay at Tesla.com/bigsolar.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1172960999856410625

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:03:58 PM »
Aluminium + IWPD @ 850hPa (hindcast/forecast acquired 9/12 from Nullschool)

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 13, 2019, 03:53:10 PM »

The obvious takeaways:

- The Chukchi/Bering region is very hot and will likely delay freezing very long (thereby probably creating nice curves in the jetstream over Alaska and pushing cold air into the Hudson/Great Lakes region in Nov/Dec)

Will this alteration in the jetstream also tend to push ice into the CAA 'garlic press' or will the surface winds be disconnected from the jetstream?

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 10, 2019, 01:57:27 PM »
I'm not sure if anybody has quantified this, but looking at the various graphs it seems that the fastest warming rate at the beginning of the Holocene saw temperatures rise some 4 degrees in perhaps 500 years, or 0.8 degrees per century, compared to our current rate of approximately 1.2 degrees per century.

If the Younger Dryas Termination counts as "the beginning of the Holocene" then according to Jim White temperatures in North Greenland rose at "~1 °C  per year for 5 years", twice:



P.S. The forum doesn't seem to like starting in mid video. You may wish to start at ~19:00.

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 09, 2019, 11:21:43 PM »
      And since I am pontificating on statistics, here are some take away messages from the recent graphical posts by Oren, binntho, Archimid and El Cid (and thanks to all).

RE binntho's Extent and Area straight line trend
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.msg227604.html#msg227604
     While it certainly looks like a significant downward trend, you can't say the slope is different from zero without doing the stats.  It probably is, but your use of the visual assessment method is no more valid than it is for the folks arguing that the process has stalled because it looks that way in the last 10-13 years (again I am shameless, the same applies to me too, my sinful nature was noted in previous post.  We are all fallen creatures.)

RE Oren's CAB volume trend and thickness graph
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.msg227570.html#msg227570
    That's almost the chart I was hoping for, but it would be even better with a straight line regression trendline, tested for difference from zero, and then extended out 20 years to 2040.  FWIW, if you squint and draw a straight line through the CAB volume trend for Day 243, aka end of melt season, the slope of that line will indicate about 4 million km3 decline from 2000 to 2019, i.e. 19 years.  If that trend continues, then take another 4M km3 over next 19 years and it reaches zero in ca. 2038.  That's only a few years later than the Wipneus straight line projection of sea ice volume trend for the entire Arctic.

    The key characteristic about Oren's chart is that it is limited to ice volume in the CAB.  Thus, it presumably removes possible inflation of losses by peripheral seas that are melting out sooner than the CAB.  What started this phase of the discussion was the notion that future loss rate would decline because the CAB would be more resistant to melting.  I think the Oren chart refutes that. 

     I was surprised how strongly negative the CAB end-of-melt-season (i.e. annual minimum, day 243 data) volume is.  The CAB may look like it's been hanging on, but apparently that is the deceptive Extent curve at work.  The CAB has been rotting out from the inside.  As for the future, the presence of ice in the peripheral seas late into the summer might have reduced past losses in CAB.  Their presence has kept Arctic Ocean albedo high and almost certainly reduced pack rotation and transport out through the Farm Strait (and thanks to Tor for insight on importance of  export losses).  With less protection from ice in those peripheral seas as they melt out earlier in the year, the rate of CAB losses could markedly increase in the future. 

   Archimd's graph shows that CAB volume losses appear to already be increasing https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.msg227455.html#msg227455.

     In addition,  the wider amplitude of the fluctuations in El Cid's graph
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2348.msg227470.html#msg227470 gives me a bit of the willies because one of the predictors for a nonlinear chaotic system reaching a tipping point is higher variability.  I may be misapplying that concept because max to min amplitude is not the same as variability between years, but I allow myself my own superstitions.

    But 2038 as the projected zero year for CAB sea ice volume is over a century earlier than binntho's trend extension showing Extent not reaching zero until 2187. How can that be?   Extent is not declining as fast as volume because the remaining volume is being contained in thinner and thinner ice, and thus the Extent does not decline as much as it would if thickness remained constant.  But as the thinnest ice contributing to Extent reaches zero thickness, it stops contributing to the Extent number.  In the end, the Extent curve and the Volume curves have to meet because zero volume provides zero ice for Extent.

    Which brings me back to Oren's thickness graph.  Total conjecture, but my guess is that once average thickness gets below 1 meter we will start to see the end-of-melt-season Extent curve start catching up with its parent Volume curve.  Ice melting comments elsewhere on ASIF point to the much lower melt resistance of thin vs thick ice.  Regardless of my conjecture, the Extent curve HAS to catch up to the Volume curve eventually.

    Stay tuned.  I think there are wild times ahead for ASI in the very near future because it is on the edge of the precipice.  It will be entertaining for those of us who like to watch numerical systems evolve.  Too bad it isn't just a horse race or some other innocuous event, but is instead the loss of a crucial component for meteorological and climatic stability on the only planet in the universe known to host self-aware, so-called "intelligent" life (actually any life, but I think we will soon see that microbes are just about as common as water).  As my brother, a conservative who bought into the climate hoax BS for a while, but who is too smart to stay ignorant, said when he came to see the big picture: "This story does not end well".

   

17
The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: September 09, 2019, 05:58:49 AM »
I looked at the qunta article, found no mention of jacobson.

Here is his 1995 paper deriving the Einstein equation as an equation of state (like Boyle's law)

"it may be no more appropriate to canonically quantize the Einstein equation than it would be to quantize the wave equation for sound in air."

"For sufficiently high sound frequency or intensity one knows that the local equilibrium condition breaks down, entropy increases, and sound no longer propagates in a time reversal invariant manner. Similarly, one might expect that sufficiently high frequency or large amplitude disturbances of the gravitational field would no longer be described by the Einstein equation, not because some quantum operator nature of the metric would become relevant, but because the local equilibrium condition would fail. It is my hope that, by following this line of inquiry, we shall eventually reach an understanding of the nature of “non-equilibrium spacetime”."

https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9504004

And here he is from 2015 on entanglement entropy and the Einstein equation , also on arxiv but i dont have the reference handy

"Entanglement Equilibrium and the Einstein Equation"

sidd

18
A series of horror stories

Rename the thread to "Tears by BedTime"? or "The Twilight Zone" ?


19
I'd be interested to read what you find about the Chinese government's control over their "state run" corporations.  It seems that the Government is very good about saying one thing while doing another and using the excuse that it can't control the provincial governments or corporations.

On one hand, the Chinese Government claims it's interested in cutting greenhouse gas emissions, yet on the other hand, they allow provincial governments to expand coal mining and resume construction of coal power plants.  They even use so-called "Green funds" to pay for the coal projects.

The CPC (Communist Party of China) is not a monolithic organization, its more like the English monarchial structure of the middle ages - the King/Queen had to keep good relations with enough of the powerful Barons/Dukes etc. to stay in power. That was with an English population of 2.5 million! China has 1.4 billion, with an individual province head controlling a society as big as Germany in many cases, even city heads with societies bigger than smaller countries (Shanghai has 30 million+). Richard III tried to be an absolute ruler through terror, but sucked at internal politics, and was quickly dealt with through the usual head chopping process.

So Xi Xinping has to play nice with the powerful beneath him, they in turn with the powerful beneath them ad infinitum. Those beneath him will cheat for their own short term benefit (keep coal plants going etc.) and he cant just "discipline" them but has to negotiate. SOE heads are the same. Xi is a multi-decade product of the CPC, so very much understands this dynamic. As long as he gets things generally moving in the right direction he will forgive short term cheating by powerful people within the party. The US helps Xi greatly by acting as the external enemy he can point to when calling for party discipline and cohesiveness.

A great documentary series on the Wars of the Roses that shows such dynamics so well. The brutally efficient, but politically awful (and arrogant) "Warwick the King Maker" and Richard III brought disaster upon themselves. The hero Trotsky that led the 1917 revolution and defeated the White Russian army against all odds was defeated by the devious Stalin (who was a terrible military commander but paranoidly scheming enough to keep power, including getting Trotsky years later with the ice pick assassin) - the dark comedy "Death of Stalin" shows this brilliantly.

Xi doesnt have the Stalin option given the nature of the CPC, the size and expectations of the population and the competition with the US.

Understanding China’s Political System

https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/4b73cd512.pdf

Note: Russia had only 100 million people in the 1920's and was a backward, mostly illiterate peasant, society. that had been destroyed by WW1 and then the Menshevik(White)/Bolshevik(Red) civil war.




20
The Fight for Climate Justice Requires a New Narrative
We don’t have to sit idly by and watch our future burn. We are not powerless.
https://www.inverse.com/article/58632-mary-annaise-heglar
Quote
e don’t know how to talk about climate change.

Sure, we try. We tread through a battlefield of technical, clinical jargon. Boobytrapped with too many syllables and jolted acronyms. But it’s anything but clinical. What we’re living through is deeply, deeply personal. And emotional. It’s heartbreakingly human.

Climate change means watching not just your childhood home, but your ancestral home, surrender to the sea. It’s being sold on an open slave market because drought sucked your homeland dry. It’s a ticking clock until your tap runs dry.

It’s war, famine, gang violence, sex-trafficking. It’s skyrocketing suicide.

It’s watching everything you planned for light up in fantastic flames right in front of you, all the dreams you were supposed to dream: buying a house, raising a family, planning for retirement.

This isn’t some distant, dystopian future. This isn’t “somewhere else” (and even if it were, that’s no excuse not to care). This is here and now.

Public anxiety about climate change in Britain is at its highest level in 15 years, poll finds
https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/climate-change-national-concern-poll/
Quote
Climate change has become a national cause for concern with almost three in four people now believing Britain is already feeling its effects, a poll has revealed.

The Ipsos Mori survey found 85 per cent of Britons were worried about climate change with more than half (52 per cent) ‘very concerned’.

This is the highest level of anxiety about the topic recorded since Ipsos Mori began tracking in 2005.

Nordic PMs sign climate declaration at Iceland meeting
https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/ecology/2019/08/nordic-pms-sign-climate-declaration-iceland-meeting
Quote
The declaration, “Draft Joint Statement of the Nordic Prime Ministers and the Nordic CEOs for a Sustainable Future,” was signed by Iceland’s Prime Minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Finland’s Prime Minister Antti Rinne, Norway’s Prime Minister Erna Solberg and Sweden’s Prime Minister Stefan Löfven; along with Greenland’s Premier Kim Kielsen, Aksel V. Johannesen, the prime minster of the Faroe Islands, a self-governing region part of the Kingdom of Denmark, and by Katrin Sjögren, the premier of Åland, an autonomous region of Finland.

Climate change: What Germany can learn from the Netherlands
https://www.dw.com/en/climate-change-what-germany-can-learn-from-the-netherlands/a-50130937
Quote
With Germany set to miss its climate goals by a wide margin, a solution might be right next door. The Netherlands recently revealed a wide-ranging climate deal — including a carbon tax that Dutch companies agreed to pay.

   

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: August 22, 2019, 05:26:43 AM »
This dump truck doesn't require an external power source. It goes up the mountain empty and comes down loaded. Using regenerative braking it produces more power than it consumes.
Obviously this is not possible in many places but its still awesome.

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1124478_world-s-largest-ev-never-has-to-be-recharged

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 10, 2019, 01:17:24 PM »
“The 100 kWh battery pack in a Tesla Model S 100D contains the energy equivalent of less than 3 gallons of gasoline.”
https://teslaownersonline.com/threads/measuring-electric-vehicle-efficiency-what-is-mpge.13424/

I’d love to see an ICE car travel from LA to Las Vegas on 3 gallons of gas!


That's why rather than comparing energy equivalency, were comparing miles made good.


The fact that I can carry 3 gallons of gas in one hand, while I probably couldn't budge a battery with comparable energy without a fork lift is interesting, but would asking how far a Tesla can go with a 21# battery add anything to the discussion?
Terry

One might be able to carry 3 gallons of highly flammable and explosive fuel in one hand, but can you make more at your house, or can your car add more to your tank when driving downhill?   

It’s long past time for us to prioritize clean, renewable energy over convenience*, pollution and wastefulness.

Edit: *outmoded ideas of convenience  ;)

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: August 07, 2019, 05:33:49 AM »
If my Supercharger prices are off let me know. I'd sourced a pro Tesla sight and never gave it another thought.
I don't know if supercharger prices are available online. I can see them on the map in the car though. They vary by state. I'll take your word on the California rates.

Quote
Since the Tesla couldn't make the round trip - and my sources said the Superchargers all charged 28c/kWh I only charged the Tesla with the energy used on the trip, and charged the battery at each end since the costs were the same. Ie any pre-charge as well as any energy left in the battery by the end of the journey was not accounted for, nor charged for in my calculation.
Supercharging is only required for about a third of the trip you described, but will be a much larger proportion for cross country trips (unless you stay at hotels with free destination charging). It sounds like cross country trips are the focus of your analysis based on your comments in the ev thread. So I don't have any issues with your analysis. Thanks for sharing it.

My anecdotal perspective is that the Model 3 is great for long road trips. If I need to stop at a supercharger for more than 5-10 minutes I plan a coinciding meal break. It's especially nice when I drive into the Appalachians, since regen replaces braking on the steep downgrades.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 06, 2019, 08:53:47 PM »
X2 curvilinear regression.  R2 = 99.99% 
"1985" = midyear of 1979-1988, etc.

Year          Model estimate of Arctic Sea Ice volume at September minimum.
1985   21.41
1995   19.10
2005   15.34
2015   10.14
2025   3.49
2029   0.42
2030   "-0.37"

Conclusion:  If current volume loss trend continues, then around 2030-32, the September minimum will have virtually no Arctic Sea Ice.  Thus, all ice in following spring will be FYI from preceding winter.

But a regression curve extended beyond the data range can give overly aggressive prediction for rate of change.  A straight line regression has fewer assumptions, is more conservative and robust, Occams Razor etc.  Wipneus' straight line trend shows ASI volume hitting zero in 2032.

https://14adebb0-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/grf/piomas-trnd7.png?attachauth=ANoY7crKtav-HYAq4lRVrck3FefppueqqYumZJyyPRWqKeDnVn1i8vijnas0L9wGuj90u1IgAAvG2UeObcryXJ77z5qU9jM1uHAoHO1XyoMAE8O49bSCo6hk-I7e-Z9KtLVBcMeJ_CBthasCWK-XUOGsyZEHNPREv6-IYzu2jSl9DWNUa2dqU71ccpWI5fz9YjX1PLecXkAIY2goroSLvb6G3JYTZ8hN837VDsLhctORifdxsAQxnjD8wAJ-C8ENPMFbXVsgh03e&attredirects=0

(Requires second click to download graph)

    The Wipneus graph shows 2019 being just about matching the midline estimate, slightly higher  than 2012.  By 2020 the midline estimate matches 2012, then trend reaches zero in 2032.  Lots of variation around the midline estimate of course, but seeing 2019 land right about where projected lends credence to regression validity and to the idea that very soon every year is likely to have less ice at minimum than 2012.   

Curved regression applied to Thickness shows zero at 2033. 
Extent curved regression does not reach zero until 2070. 
But no volume = no ice for Extent.

Thus on current trajectory in about 11-13 years (2030-32) human-caused climate change may have so altered the Arctic Sea Ice as to cause fundamental functional change to a keystone physical component of the Earth's climate system.

Meanwhile -- pundits, politicians and economists discuss the fine points of other issues as if they matter more than the planetary life support system.  Other issues are important, but human civilization relies on a supportive climate system, so not destroying that must take precedence.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 06, 2019, 09:59:09 AM »
Arctic Sea Ice Scorecard
Post 3 of 3.



Observations/Speculation: 
-- 2012 stands alone as the lowest overall with 1st place ordinal rankings for all four measures.  (Technically, 2019 minimum thickness was lower, but only by insignificant margin.) 
The index value for each year is based on its average of ratios to the minimum value observed in 1979-2019 for each measure, not by the average ordinal ranking.

-- 2019 is second to lowest, with one 1st, and three 2nd place rankings.  The estimated 2019 minimums for Extent and Area are substantially larger than for 2012.  The 2019 and 2012 minimums for Volume and Thickness are similar. 

-- 2016 and 2011 are close to each other for 3nd lowest overall ranking, followed by 2010 and 2017 in a virtual tie for 4th place. 

-- Heading into 2012, the prior two years -- 2010 and 2011  -- were ranked #2 and #1 (now 5 and 4), which suggests that the 2012 minimum records may have been the culmination of a three year sequence of predisposing bad melt years vs. being entirely due to conditions in 2012. 
 
-- Except for 2007, there is a high degree of congruence between the 2D measures (Extent, Area) and the the 3D measures (Volume, Thickness). 

-- Nine of the 10 lowest ranking years have been in the last decade (all except 2007 at #9).



This report is not sanctioned by the National Snow and Ice Date Center, the Polar Science Center, or any other institution.  This report is a personal effort to make the situation of Arctic sea ice decline easier to understand as an indicator for the rapidly progressing and accelerating planetary climate crisis. 

Perspectives:


---------------------

The following image shows Arctic albedo loss across 7 years. 
But it is outdated now because it only includes 3 of the top ten smallest minimum Extent years.  Current albedo reductions relative to a 2000-2004 baseline must be much higher.




26
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 06, 2019, 09:07:50 AM »
Arctic Sea Ice Scorecard --  Volume and Thickness* values updated through July 31.
Post 2 of 3.
  (* There was an error in Thickness values in the first scorecard posted on July 26.  Thickness values corrected in this edition.)





27
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 06, 2019, 09:01:21 AM »
    Arctic Sea Ice Scorecard updated for Extent and Area through August 4.
Part 1 of 3 posts. 
     Still using 2011-2018 average losses from current date to September minimum as baseline for predicting 2019 minimums. 
    Post by Klondike Kat indicated that season to date anomaly vs. average loss rate was not a good predictor for remainder of year losses.  KK data also indicated that due to variability between years, using a more recent but smaller set of years would not give a reliable average.











28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 05, 2019, 10:39:05 AM »
Extent is 5.72 M sq km and area 3.90 M sq km. Therefore 1.82 is the water area of the 5.72
This represents 32 % of the 5.72 M sq km and so could be a measure of the slushiness of the total ice pack

Given JAXA and NSIDC have some significant differences in numbers, is it legit to mix and match their extents and areas? NSIDC extent for 8/4 is likely to be 5.97M km sq +/-30k with 82% certainty.

Did the math. Just a couple percentage points difference. Close enough for gov't work.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: meaningless freezingseason/melting season chatter.
« on: August 04, 2019, 02:35:40 PM »
Unlike incoming radiation, outgoing radiation isn't a simple function and certainly is not constant.



This is a snapshot from June 2010. Top is reflected (think albedo), bottom is emitted (long wavelength). Left is with clouds (actual average of June 2010), right is no clouds.

https://www.cmsaf.eu/EN/Overview/OurProducts/ToA_Products/ToA_Products_node.html

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 vs 2012
« on: August 03, 2019, 11:38:49 AM »
8/01/2019 = -51k
                = 5.91M km sq., a record low for the date.

8/02/2019 = -60k, or 5.85M

Daily Change to Exceed 2012 Record Daily Lows

8/03/2012 = 6.03M km sq.
8/02/2019 = Gain of < 180k km sq. required for the record.

 Call it -65k+/-10k to 5.785 (5.79).

Analysis: I don't see anything that's going to change the daily numbers much for 8/03. We've had a 40k, 50k, and 60k day in the last three days largely because, imo, the wind direction favors expansion of the sea ice, particularly in areas where concentration is low allowing for easy wind effect. That still holds: Winds coming off of the CAA and Greenland aid compaction, but there's precious little space to move with the main ice pack sitting there; winds from Svalbard to Russia generally favor expansion, but the island chain is there and there are some crossing winds muching things up. There's a cyclone straddling the Bering Strait which currently  should be creating a net expansion of ice. Later in the day this one moves north of the CAA and another is entering the Bering Strait... cancelling each other out?

A push. Another middling day mostly because all the mush on the Pacific side and along Siberia should continue melting, plus a little help along the CAA and Greenland.

Caveat: All that mush. A bunch of it could melt away due to the cyclones.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 low on Aug. 10. (Related to effect of GAC and it's import vs. 2019's melt cycle.)

8/10/2012 stood at 4.94M km sq.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 113.75k km sq. for a record low on this post-GAC date. (9 days.)

I fully expect 2019 to have a higher extent than 2012 sometime between the 5th and 7th, and much more likely the 5th or 6th than the 7th except for the "caveat" above. We could see very little actual ice loss over the next 8 days and still see a huge drop in extent if that mush melts away.

Daily Changes Needed to Exceed 2012 Record Low on Sept. 15. (Related to comparison of 2012 vs 2019's melt cycle.)

9/15/2012 stood at 3.18M km sq. on this date.
2019 needs an average daily drop of > 60.68k km sq. for a record low on this date. (45 days)

This still has a fair chance of happening, but gets less likely each day these small meltouts happen. The caveat is... the above caveat. There's an awful lot of low concentration ASI right now and if that all melts out, things will be getting interesting.

Will 2019 get it's "big week in June" and/or "big week in August?"

31
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 03, 2019, 02:43:22 AM »
I'll go out on a limb and say a lot of us like to hear about progress even when it isn't the answer to every single problem. Lighten up, yeah?

Ken
With all of this wonderful news, when should we expect the Keeling curve to curve back on itself?


Renewables and batteries are wonderful additions to our power mix, but in most venues they aren't keeping up with additional demand.


Terry

32
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 02, 2019, 10:06:16 PM »
Adding battery storage to cheap renewables "disrupts" the energy markets (in a positive way, read on).

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/08/02/why-energy-storage-is-proving-even-more-disruptive-than-cheap-renewables/#2b1dcc4a51e5

Quote
In the past, utilities had to "take what they could get" from slow, inflexible fossil-fuel plants, Ahlstrom said. Their primary concern was having enough energy to meet peak demand.

Now, utilities will have abundant cheap power from renewables. Paired with batteries, that power can be deployed by computer in microseconds to ensure reliability or fulfill other ancillary services.

33
Policy and solutions / Re: Energy Efficiency: The “First Fuel”
« on: August 01, 2019, 10:57:26 PM »
New Approach Could Make HVAC Heat Exchangers Five Times More Efficient
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-approach-hvac-exchangers-efficient.html

Researchers from Tsinghua University and Brown University have discovered a simple way to give a major boost to turbulent heat exchange, a method of heat transport widely used in heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems.

In a paper published in Nature Communications, the researchers show that adding a readily available organic solvent to common water-based turbulent heat exchange systems can boost their capacity to move heat by 500%. That's far better than other methods aimed at increasing heat transfer, the researchers say.

Turbulent heat exchangers are fairly simple devices that use the natural movements of liquid to move heat. They consist of a hot surface, a cold surface and tank of liquid in between. Near the hot surface, the liquid heats up, becomes less dense and forms warm plumes that rise toward the cold side. There, the liquid loses its heat, becomes denser and forms cold plumes that sink back down toward the hot side. The cycling of water serves to regulate the temperatures of each surface. This type of heat exchange is a staple of modern HVAC systems widely used in home heaters and air conditioning units, the researchers say.


Classic Turbulent Convection

In 2015, Sun had the idea to use an organic component known as hydrofluoroether or HFE to speed the cycling of heat inside this kind of exchanger. HFE is sometimes used as the sole fluid in heat exchangers, but Sun suspected that it might have more interesting properties as an additive in water-based systems. Working with the study's co-first author Ziqi Wang, Mathai and Sun experimented with adding small amounts of HFE and, after three years of work, were able to maximize its effectiveness in speeding heat exchange. The team showed that concentrations of around 1% HFE created dramatic heat flux enhancements up to 500%.

Using high-speed imaging and laser diagnostic techniques, the researchers were able to show how the HFE enhancement works. When near the hot side of the exchanger, the globules of HFE quickly boil, forming biphasic bubbles of vapor and liquid that rise rapidly toward the cold plate above. At the cold plate, the bubbles lose their heat and descend as liquid. The bubbles affect the overall heat flux in two ways, the researchers showed. The bubbles themselves carry a significant amount of heat away from the hot side, but they also increase the speed of the surrounding water plumes rising and falling.


Biphasic Turbulent Convection


Classic vs Biphasic

"This biphasic approach generates a very large increase in heat flux with minimal modifications to existing heating and cooling systems," ... "We think this has great promise to revolutionize heat exchange in HVAC and other large-scale applications."

Open Access: Ziqi Wang et al, Self-sustained biphasic catalytic particle turbulence, Nature Communications (2019)

34
Policy and solutions / Re: The Hyperloop
« on: August 01, 2019, 12:26:47 AM »
India has advanced the world’s first passenger hyperloop system by deeming the Pune-Mumbai Hyperloop a public infrastructure project,

India has labeled hyperloop a public infrastructure project — here’s why that matters
Quote
Hyperloop, the futuristic and still theoretical transportation system that could someday propel people and packages at speeds of more than 600 miles per hour, has been designated a “public infrastructure project” by India lawmakers in the state of Maharashtra.

Wrapped in that government jargon is a valuable and notable outcome. The upshot: hyperloop is being treated like any other public infrastructure project such as bridges, roads and railways. In other words, hyperloop has been plucked out of niche, futuristic obscurity and given a government stamp of approval.
...
The hope is that India’s government will award the contract by the end of 2019, a VHO executive told TechCrunch. If that occurs, Phase 1 of the project — an 11.8 kilometer (or 7.3 mile) section — would begin in 2020.

The cost of building Phase 1 will be covered by DP World, which has committed $500 million to this section. The government is covering the cost and logistics of acquiring the land for the hyperloop.

Phase 1 will initially act as a certification track, which will be used to certify the hyperloop technology for passenger operations. VHO wants this certification track built and operating by 2024. If this section meets safety standards it will become part of the larger hyperloop line between Pune and Mumbai. ...
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/31/india-has-labeled-hyperloop-a-public-infrastructure-project-heres-why-that-matters/

35
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 30, 2019, 10:36:55 AM »
July 2019 is looking like another monthly record.  Moyhu reanalysis through July 27th translates to +0.93°C GISS-LOTI equivalent.  July 2016 is the current record: +0.85°C.  http://www.moyhu.org.s3.amazonaws.com/data/freq/ncep.html

36
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 29, 2019, 01:59:19 PM »
Tesla cyberpunk Pickup unveiling nears as final truck details take shape
• Most talked about pickup truck on Twitter
• Performance rivals base Porsche 911
• Starting price $49k “or less”
• Reveal this fall
https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-truck-unveiling-2-3-months-elon-musk/

====
“If Tesla succeeds but the climate is destroyed, that doesn’t help Tesla”
Old video clip: Musk explains to Chris Hayes why Tesla opened its patents
https://twitter.com/el_dimitrieva/status/1155159130761547776
< Yes! It also explains perfectly why Tesla is prioritizing lowering vehicle costs and increasing production over immediate profits.

—-
(This Gigawatt you speak of — mention it not.  Tesla now speaks of Terawatt. :) )

Disruption Research (@DisruptResearch) 7/25/19, 2:17 PM
Key takeaways from $TSLA 2019Q2 earnings (thread):
[Images below]
1. Remarkable financial discipline.
@Tesla's opex declined 7% vs Q2 despite deliveries growing 51%. Cost base is at critical mass. This bodes well for earnings in 2020 when China & Model Y production begins at higher margin.
https://twitter.com/disruptresearch/status/1154455725244059650

2. Model 3 now sustainably profitable
A key question was whether Model 3 gross margin will deteriorate once SR+ is available globally. Normalized auto gross margin actually improved sequentially, and Model 3 ASP is now stable. This is meaningful for $TSLA.

3. Planning for continued exponential growth.
Some wonder whether growth will stall from here. @elonmusk answered that yesterday. There is a mind-numbing amount of gas cars (1.5B+) to be replaced, and @Tesla has a terawatt-hr scale plan to match it.
Terawatt-hr + Autonomy = !?

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: Slater's thread
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:40:09 PM »
Re-booting this thread as a home for Slater model-related discussion that doesn't directly relate to the current melt season. Hope this is the appropriate place.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 26, 2019, 10:35:01 PM »
Take your pick. dmi, hycom jul3-25 and piomas jul3-15
DMI is garbage
It's a shame that you sometimes place so little value on the work of others

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: July 26, 2019, 09:55:46 PM »
South Australia is on target for generating 100% of its electricity from renewables by 2030.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2019/07/24/more-big-pv-down-under-as-south-australias-wind-and-solar-pipeline-swells-to-10-gw/

Quote
Following a string of development approvals for big solar+storage projects, South Australia’s large-scale wind and solar pipeline has grew to 10 GW. As it moves further than the previous target of 75% of its electricity generated by renewables by 2025, SA aims to hit “net” 100% renewables by 2030 and become a major energy exporter to other states.

Quote
SA has long been the nation’s renewable energy front runner. According to a recent report from Green Energy Markets, the state is on track to generating renewable energy equal to 73.5% of its consumption by 2030, up from 53% in 2018. To achieve the government’s target of 100% renewables it roughly needs another 1,300 MW of capacity, the report found.

With a number of development approvals for massive solar and battery projects in the recent period, SA is taking major strides towards its target. In a matter of weeks, the state government has waved through 500 MW of solar PV collocated with 250 MW/1000 MWh of battery storage around five kilometers north-east from Robertstown and the 280 MW Bungama Solar Farm coupled with a 140MW/560MWh battery storage facility proposed by EPS Energy, while another massive project – the Solar River Project, which comprises a 200 MW solar PV and 120 MWh of battery storage and potentially another 200 MW of solar and 150 MWh in the second stage, inked a power purchase agreement with Alinta Energy.

As reported by the daily, the latest project to receive the government’s tick of approval is a $200 million solar+storage facility at Murray Bridge. Proposed by developers RES, the 176 MW Pallamana Solar Farm coupled with 66 MW/140MWh lithium-ion battery will be located on 730 hectares of land around 60km south-east of Adelaide.

40

You have consistently sucked the air out of the room bickering with *multiple* people.  You've wrapped yourself in a heroic banner and pretty much declared you are on a crusade to sort us all out, and the rest of us need to get behind you to help push. That will not endear you to the myriad of researchers and citizen scientists here who have been studying (and continue to be) the Arctic for decades.


Thank you for your comment.

I certainly don't see myself as a hero. I am throwing a desperate Hail Mary as I watch the future get subsumed.

With all due respect to the people who spend their lives researching the Arctic, and becoming experts, I thank them. They and countless others have performed a great service in educating people.

At this point we have a surplus of information available to anyone interested. Civilization is not going over the precipice because of a lack of scientific understanding.

We are going under as a result of social inertia. At this point it's probably a lot more important to understand the bystander effect than Albedo Warming Potential.

AGW is primarily a social science problem at this point. This is a community which you claim is"terrified" of AGW, but there is very little discussion of what we do about it.

We're all watching it happen. No accountability to each other. Committed perhaps to adding to unnecessary surplus of understanding that we're screwed.

Twice this year, > 1M kids skipped school on the same day to protest climate change and the world moved on with hardly a pause. Are we with them or are we quiet bystanders?

It's interesting that even in a community that is mostly accepting of the risk of AGW and terrified, that the social construct of our obligation to do anything about it is taboo.

If you want to understand why the world can't embrace the mission of fighting AGW, maybe we can start by understanding why ASIF can't embrace it as a mission.
What is within us that prevents us from joining those kids?

We're not fighting. We're bystanding. We're throwing out surplus science and largely spectating.

It's all fucking madness. I'm not a hero. I'm alone. I'm outraged. I study history. I'm all too familiar with how easy it is for good people to do nothing when evil arises.
Rich;

There are places for discussion about action, and there are places for discussion about research - which puts tools in the hands of people like you and me to take our arguments to the street.

These forums are dedicated to science, for the most part, but we *do* have active discussions about action.

Because of this, you also miss the the fact, the virtual certainty that most of us *are* taking action, across multiple venues to address climate change.

Some like Neven and myself are working hard to reduce our and our families personal carbon foot print.

We all contribute to the discussions here trying to understand AND BETTER ARTICULATE exactly what is going on in the environment.  Discussions and research products here have frequently been picked up in mass media and significantly contribute to public understanding.

Contributions here have prompted new research by scientists studying the Arctic.  *Tell* me that isn't important?!

Do not think for one moment that the scientific discussion here isn't helping.

Similarly, do not assume that forum members are not actively pursuing remedies to climate change elsewhere - whether lobbying our governments, educating people about the science, contributing to environmental organizations or taking direct action themselves. (edit: Some of us may also actually be actively running as or supporting candidates for political office in an effort to directly change policy...)

It's all going on, Rich.  We just don't talk about it here for the most part, because "this" isn't the appropriate forum for those discussions.

There *is* a place for the dialog you want to have.  It even exists here in other threads:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/board,16.0.html

You will find people there very willing to engage you on exactly the topics you are describing.

Most of the posting you do in the Arctic Sea Ice threads really isn't helping, and in fact is making things harder.

For the sake of coherence, please consider moving your concerns there and reduce the amount of noise and friction being generated in the Arctic Sea Ice threads. 


41
Policy and solutions / Re: The Hyperloop
« on: July 23, 2019, 07:36:04 PM »
Terry,

Before SpaceX, there has never been a rocket that reached orbit (orbital velocity) and survived re-entry to land.  Let alone was launched to orbit and re-landed a second time.  Or a third time!

Tesla changed the electric vehicle universe, transformed EVs to be sexy, desirable, and widespread, and forced the entire industry to begin a transition it has resisted for decades.

Tesla installed what was the biggest grid-tied battery in the world in Australia, and changed the view of such an installation from impossible/unnecessary to one of being vital for grid resilience.


Just having an idea for something, or making a prototype, or doing something in a limited way or for a limited time, does not move the world forward.  I doubt a person afflicted with a neurological disease would agree to have your friend’s electrodes implanted in their brain!  Mass manufacturing of cars, or rockets, is a hundred times harder than making a prototype — witness all the EV startups going broke trying to bring their idea to market:  of all the attempts, none has survived since Ford.  Except for Tesla. 

If you don’t see the difference between what was then, and what is now, then I can’t explain it to you.  Google is your friend.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: July 21, 2019, 07:42:12 PM »
Any news of Piomas ?

43
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 21, 2019, 07:35:32 PM »
Tesla Gigafactory 3 in Shanghai China (July 19 2019)
4K Update 上海特斯拉超级工厂3建造进度更新 - YouTube


Tesla Gigafactory 3 Ahead Of Schedule — July 17th Update
Quote
Tesla's global VP Tao Lin said that Model 3 model produced in the first phase of the Shanghai plant will adopt a global supply chain, but the supply chain is constantly being optimized and will find suitable partners on a global scale to upgrade the Shanghai plant effectiveness.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/07/17/tesla-gf3-ahead-of-schedule-july-17th-update/

Quote
Chao Zhou (@realChaoZhou) 7/18/19, 1:06 AM
Source from GF3 security that the [electrical] substation will be completely operated by November 15th.
https://twitter.com/realchaozhou/status/1151719956087619585
[Photo at the link.]
- The substation is 220KV, the total investment is $10,497,177.00. The entire substation project is civil construction and power construction.
- It will take about 6 months to complete, it will probably be built in September (the substation starts construction on April 8).
- Construction of the main building in September will be completed, the substation will be also completed during this period, they are put together.

< what is the purpose of the building next to substation?
- Part of the substation.
< Odd that it is on south side but power lines are on north.
- The cables are buried underground.

Quote
Chao Zhou (@realChaoZhou) 7/19/19, 9:13 PM
Tesla contracting workers dormitory.
https://twitter.com/realchaozhou/status/1152385917216161792
Brief video at the link.

44
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 20, 2019, 09:59:20 PM »
In Israel rooftop solar water heating is mandated by law since 1976 with some exceptions, and ~85% of residential buildings are equipped with such systems.

45
Consequences / Re: Heatwaves
« on: July 19, 2019, 01:19:30 PM »
thankfully bliss is not always ignorance .. :)  b.c.

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: July 15, 2019, 01:25:58 AM »
Bigger batteries means more pollution and CO2 in the production phase, then an heavier load to carry around, so a higher energy consumption per km.
Most BMW's customers can afford to own an EV and an ICEV.


If I were to consider an EV at some time in the future I'd demand battery chemistry that is safe (LIFePO4 or better), something lighter than a 1958 Buick, and something that wouldn't burn through more electricity than an electrically heated swimming pool.

Terry

Battery design and construction is as important as chemistry for safety — think of all those spontaneously combusting cell phones and scooters....  A Model 3 weighs less than a 1958 Buick.  Add some solar and batteries, and you may not have to “burn through” any grid electricity at all!

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 06:17:09 PM »
Global warming of 1.5C IPCC draft report, sorry if this has been quoted and discussed before. Probably not supposed to quote it yet but at this level and if it is available....

Quote
11 3.3.8 Sea ice
12
13 Summer sea ice in the Arctic has been retreating rapidly in recent decades. During the period 1997 to 2014
14 for example, the monthly mean sea-ice extent during September decreased on average by 130,000 km² per
15 year (Serreze and Stroeve, 2015). This is about four times as fast as the September sea-ice loss during the
16 period 1979 to 1996. Also sea-ice thickness has decreased substantially, with an estimated decrease in ice
17 thickness of more than 50% in the central Arctic (Lindsay and Schweiger, 2015). Sea-ice coverage and
18 thickness also decrease in CMIP5-model simulations of the recent past, and are projected to decrease in the
19 future (Collins et al., 2013). However, the modeled sea-ice loss in most CMIP5 models is much weaker
20 than observed. Compared to observations, the simulations are weak in terms of their sensitivity to both
21 global mean temperature rise (Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017) and to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Notz
22 and Stroeve, 2016). This mismatch between the observed and modeled sensitivity of Arctic sea ice implies
23 that the multi-model-mean response of future sea-ice evolution probably underestimates the sea-ice loss for
24 a given amount of global warming. To address this issue, studies estimating the future evolution of Arctic
25 sea ice tend to bias correct the model simulations based on the observed evolution of Arctic sea ice in
26 response to global warming. Often based on such bias correction, pre-AR5 and post-AR5 studies agree that
27 for 1.5 °C global warming relative to pre-industrial levels, the Arctic Ocean will maintain a sea-ice cover
28 throughout summer for most years (Collins et al., 2013; Notz and Stroeve, 2016; Screen and Williamson,
29 2017; Jahn, 2018; Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018). For 2°C global warming relative to
30 pre-industrial levels, chances of an ice-free Arctic during summer are substantially higher (Screen and
31 Williamson, 2017; Jahn, 2018; Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018; Screen et al., 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018). The
32 Arctic is very likely to have experienced at least one ice-free Arctic summer after about 10 years of
33 stabilized warming at 2°C compared to after about 100 years of stabilized warming at 1.5°C (Jahn, 2018;
34 Screen et al., 2018; Sigmond et al., 2018). For a specific given year under stabilized warming of 2°C,
35 studies based on large ensembles of simulations with a single model estimate the likelihood for ice-free
36 conditions as 35% without a bias correction of the underlying model (Sanderson et al., 2017; Jahn, 2018);
37 as between 10% and >99% depending on the observational record used to correct the sensitivity of sea ice
38 decline to global warming in the underlying model (Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018); and as 19% based on a
39 procedure to correct for biases in the climatological sea ice coverage in the underlying model (Sigmond et
40 al., 2018). The uncertainty of the first year of the occurrence of an ice-free Arctic Ocean arising from
41 internal variability is estimated to be about 20 years (Notz, 2015; Jahn et al., 2016).
42
43 The more recent estimates of the warming necessary to achieve an ice-free Arctic Ocean during summer are
44 lower than the ones given in AR5 (about 2.6C-3.1C relative to preindustrial or 1.6C-2.1C global
45 warming relative to the present day), which was similar to the estimate of 3C relative to preindustrial
46 levels (or 2C global warming relative to the present day) by Mahlstein and Knutti (2012) based on bias47 corrected CMIP3 models. Rosenblum and Eisenman (2016) explain why the sensitivity estimated by


1 Mahlstein and Knutti (2012) might be too low, estimating instead that September sea ice in the Arctic
2 disappears for 2°C relative to preindustrial (or about 1°C global warming relative to the present day), in line
3 with the other recent estimates. Notz and Stroeve (2016) use the observed correlation between September
4 sea-ice extent and cumulative CO2 emissions to estimate that the Arctic Ocean would become nearly sea5 ice-free during September with a further 1000 Gt of emissions, which also implies a sea-ice loss at about
6 2°C global warming. Some of the uncertainty in these numbers derives from the possible impact of aerosols
7 (Gagne et al., 2017) and of volcanic forcing (Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2016). During winter, little Arctic
8 sea ice is projected to be lost for either 1.5°C or 2ºC global warming (Niederdrenk and Notz, 2018).
9
10 Regarding the behavior of Arctic sea ice under decreasing temperatures following a possible overshoot of a
11 long-term temperature target, a substantial number of pre-AR5 studies have found that there is no indication
12 of hysteresis behavior of Arctic sea ice (Holland et al., 2006; Schroeder and Connolley, 2007; Armour et
13 al., 2011; Sedláček et al., 2011; Tietsche et al., 2011; Boucher et al., 2012; Ridley et al., 2012). In
14 particular, the relationship between Arctic sea-ice coverage and GMST is found to be indistinguishable
15 between a warming scenario and a cooling scenario. These results have been confirmed by post-AR5
16 studies (Li et al., 2013; Jahn, 2018), which implies high confidence that an intermediate temperature
17 overshoot has no long-term consequences for Arctic sea-ice coverage.

While more on the consequences of loss of sea ice, the discussion is as follows:

Quote
33 Loss of sea ice
34 Sea ice has been a persistent feature of the planet’s polar regions (Polyak et al., 2010) and is central to
35 marine ecosystems, people (e.g. food, culture and livelihoods) and industries (e.g. fishing, tourism, oil and
36 gas, and shipping). Summer sea ice in these regions (e.g. Arctic, Antarctic and Southern Ocean), however,
37 has been retreating rapidly in recent decades (Section 3.3.8) with an assessment of the literature revealing
38 that a fundamental transformation is occurring in polar organisms and ecosystems driven by climate change
39 (high agreement, robust evidence) (Larsen et al., 2014). These changes are strongly affecting people in the
40 Arctic who have close relationships with sea ice and associated ecosystems, and are facing major adaptation
41 challenges as a result of sea level rise, coastal erosion, the accelerated thawing of permafrost, changing
42 ecosystems and resources, and many other issues (Ford, 2012; Ford et al., 2015).
43
44 There is considerable and compelling evidence that a further increase of 0.5°C from today in average global
45 surface temperature will lead to multiple levels of impact on a variety of organisms - from phytoplankton to
46 marine mammals some of the most dramatic changes occurring in the Arctic Ocean and Western Antarctic
47 Peninsula (Turner et al., 2014, 2017b; Steinberg et al., 2015; Piñones and Fedorov, 2016).

1
2 The impacts of climate change on sea ice is part of the focus of the IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and
3 Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), due to be released in 2019. Therefore, without intending to be
4 comprehensive, there are a range of responses to the loss of sea ice that are occurring and are likely to
5 increase at 1.5°C and 2°C of global warming. Photosynthetic communities such macroalgae, phytoplankton,
6 and microalgae dwelling on the underside of floating sea ice are changing due to increased temperatures,
7 light, and nutrient levels. As sea ice retreats, mixing of the water column increases, and phototrophs have
8 increased access to seasonally high levels of solar radiation (Dalpadado et al., 2014; W.N. Meier et al., 2014)
9 (medium agreement, medium evidence). These changes are very likely to stimulate fisheries productivity in
10 high latitude regions by mid-century (Cheung et al., 2009, 2010, 2016b; Lam et al., 2014), with evidence of
11 this is already happening for several fisheries species in high latitude regions in the northern hemisphere
12 such as the Bering Sea, although these ‘positive’ impacts may be relatively short-lived (Hollowed and
13 Sundby, 2014; Sundby et al., 2016). In addition to the impact of climate change on fisheries via impacts on
14 NPP, there are also direct effects of temperature on fish, which may have a range of impacts (Pörtner et al.,
15 2014). Sea ice in Antarctica is undergoing changes that exceed those seen in the Arctic (Maksym et al.,
16 2011; Reid et al., 2015) with increases in sea ice coverage in the western Ross Sea being accompanied by
17 strong decreases in the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas (Hobbs et al., 2016). While Antarctica is not
18 permanently populated, the ramifications of changes to the productivity of vaste regions such as the Southern
19 Ocean has substantial implications as far as ocean foodwebs and fisheries are concerned.

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 10, 2019, 12:08:09 AM »
For those interested in anecdotal evidence of what happened in 2012 around this time, I can highly recommend my own writings (someone has to do it) on the ASIB at the time: ASI 2012 Update 6: piggy bank

It corroborates a lot of what friv is saying.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 08, 2019, 04:44:13 PM »
CAB volume loss from maximum of each year expressed as a percentage. 100% is at different dates.
2012-2019 edit: added 2011 for a different perspective. (2011 max was day104)
editt: Should have CAB in the title

50
Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: July 04, 2019, 06:01:52 PM »
... Bob ... [is] banned from this forum. ...

I am shocked and saddened at this.  I agreed with almost everything Bob Wallace wrote. 

I am sure there are others who, like me, agreed with his views and found the heated arguments he faced to be distasteful and excessive.  The Forum has lost a valuable resource and a valid point of view.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6