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
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.


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!

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....

11 3.3.8 Sea ice
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).
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).
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:

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).
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).

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.

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.

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

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 29, 2019, 06:26:47 PM »
My last speculation is - all other things being equal - that minimum will be later than average this year (October 1 - only half-joking).
Daring!  The decadal trend 1979-2010 (Charctix interactive extent below) was towards a later minimum, but that reversed somewhat in the last decade (2011-2018).   This was counterintuitive to me.  But maybe if ice melts so far back that there is open ocean close to the pole, then that far north open ocean refreezes quickly as winter approaches??
That is true - but sumfinks gotta give, sometime.

Meanwhile, how about a grenade?

DIspersion vs Concentration
A lot of talk about how mobile broken up ice can make extent data greater than reality (15% rule, NSIDC 625 km2 pixels) - especially this year. The convention is to look at concentration, i.e. area divided by extent to see what is going on.

I thought, as we are talking about dispersion, let's try dispersion instead, i.e. extent divided by area. This also has the advantage of a larger number divided by a smaller number making the differences more marked. I attach the first graph that looks at all Arctic Seas. A ratio of 100% would be solid ice, a ratio of 2 would mean extent dispersed over twice the actual ice there as measured by area.

It is obvious that as the years go by dispersion increases markedly. It is also obvious that something weird happened in 2012.

2012 and the Great Arctic Cyclone (GAC)- & Arithmetic

Convention has it that the GAC smashed up the ice and sent it all over the place. Did it?

By end July 2012 Arctic Sea Ice was well on its way to a record low. Area was decreasing even faster than extent and thus the dispersion ratio increased strongly to record levels in early August not seen before or since. Thin fragmented dispersed ice everywhere.

Then from August 2nd to August 14 was the GAC.  From August 9th to end August dispersion crashed from nearly 170% to the 2010's average of 155%. This means area loss was below extent loss. The GAC did not disperse the ice, it shoved it together. Concentration (compaction) increased.
Contrast this with 2016. Dispersion increased to above 2012 levels until the sea ice minimum.
What will 2019 do? On this melting season thread most say - melt.

ps: Up above someone posted the dread DMI Sea Ice Thickness graph. I thought that one had a health warning (even more so for their volume graph?)?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: June 28, 2019, 09:51:53 AM »
Maybe something maybe nothing, I was looking at hycom beaufort ice strength gif, towards the end the ice appears to change state and is no longer able to sustain cracks, that is evidence of internal waves.

and looking at A.H.s most recent gifs on the Nares thread suggests the same

Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)
« on: June 23, 2019, 11:32:59 PM »
Crandles deserves more "likes" then he gets.

What's the topic, anyway???  Oh yes, CCS.  For my kids' sake, cannot we have an 'everything and' policy?  buried wood, cactus farms, maphic rock crushing, exhaust chimney capture, etc.  When 'we' get CO2 below 400 or 375, then get picky (and phase out the least efficient or most centralized systems).  There's a war out there!  (and no one is noticing)

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: June 23, 2019, 09:17:25 PM »
Tesla Powerwall owners can now earn up to $1,000 per year with National Grid's virtual power plant
“National Grid customers in Massachusetts or Rhode Island can now enroll their Powerwall in ConnectedSolutions, a program that links batteries across the state together to create a large supply of sustainable energy to be used during peak demand.”

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 22, 2019, 03:24:13 PM »
It is unusual for area and extent data to persistently (i.e. more than two weeks) to go in one direction while weather models and other data point in another direction.

Hence the comment " mixed messages".

It is reasonable, to remark when statements in in other threads , e.g. "Panzer divisions" (not my phrase) fail to mobilise and Friv's extravagant forecasts do not materialise in or seem justified by changes in the area and extent data so far. "Looks like it's going to [be] pretty soon that sailing from Pacific to Atlantic w/o an ice breaker. Perhaps June."(NOT one of Frivs)  is a candidate for the future.

Gerontocrat, I read your editorial comments as extremely useful and sensible.  You base them on the current evidence from the Arctic and the past behavior of the ice.  That is what a scientist does.  I don't just like your comments, I need them.  You are anchoring so much of the discussion on this forum. 

On the melting thread, which is a lot of fun, speculations dart all over the place and they are sometimes rather detached from the overall data.  The discussions often resemble those that scientists have after they have had a few beers.  I sometimes get a bit intoxicated myself.  One day an apocalyptical prediction is going to come true, we all know that, but meanwhile I prefer to think like a Casino owner, mostly going with the behavior of the overall system, not the individual bets.  So, please, please continue to make your comments. 

BTW   I agree that discussion of your comments (as opposed to questions about data) should go to other threads.  However, I don't think you need to defend them.  We know who you are, and you are doing more than enough already.   

Over and out.

Arctic background / Re: Research Icebreaker Polarstern
« on: June 20, 2019, 08:36:18 PM »
For the biggest Arctic expedition ever, scientists will trap themselves in sea ice

Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) will begin on Sept. 20 - when the icebreaker RV Polarstern sets out in search of an ice floe to which it can pin its fate.

The ship will spend the next 12 months following that single floe through the central Arctic and across the North Pole - a 387-foot drifting research station inhabited by a rotating cast of some 300 meteorologists, biologists, oceanographers and ice experts.

About 60 people will be living and working on the Polarstern at any given moment; most have signed up for two-month stints, though a few may be onboard for half the year or more. Virtually their only link to the rest of the world will be the ships and aircraft scheduled to arrive every 60 days - winter blizzards and stormy seas permitting - to switch out passengers and restock food and fuel.

Simply getting to the Polarstern can take as long as a month; participants joke that it's easier to reach the International Space Station, 250 miles above the surface of the Earth.

But the drift strategy has perils. Choose the wrong ice floe, and the scientists could end up in Russian waters, where outsiders can't collect data without special permits. Or the ice could carry them far to the west, beyond the reach of rescue missions should anything go awry.

Analyses of ice paths from previous years suggest that the ideal floe lies about 335 miles east of the North Pole. By the end of a year, it should deliver the Polarstern to open water somewhere between Greenland and the Svalbard archipelago.

A successful transpolar drift - one that didn’t kill nearly everyone onboard - has been achieved just twice before in history: first by the Norwegian explorer Fridtjof Nansen, in 1893, and a decade ago by the small crew of a privately owned sailing ship called the Tara. The Polarstern will be the first modern research vessel to spend an entire year at the northernmost place on the planet.
and much more …

Science / Re: AMOC slowdown
« on: June 15, 2019, 05:46:14 PM »
Looking at this it seems a no brainer to me that if you have increased Arctic waters flowing down the coast lets say with the inherent inertia of 750N then it'll have two main effects. The first is that it will force itself into the coast, and continue to do that further south. The second is that once it is forced by Gulf stream waters away from the coast those waters will mix until equilibrium is reached slowing down the gulf stream/north atlantic drift.
What does this model show if not that?

If you open nullschool and select O from projections you'll see from 90-600N is about half of the distance of the equator from the axis of rotation and 300N about an eighth of the distance. Thus the inertia of tropical waters is too low to separate from the coast until the distance to the axis [surface speed] begins to decrease, so I would expect the highest effects of slr to be where both streams detatch and all points north, until the water reaches equilibrium with rotational speed, which may vary but just now appears to be about 52N, so peaking around 41N. Why am I wrong?

The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: June 09, 2019, 12:06:18 AM »
The problem is of course not the climate, the resources and the finite planet, all of which take decades to play out, but the humans who react in violence when some threshold is crossed, thus triggering a fast collapse over a few years.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2019)
« on: June 05, 2019, 04:55:07 PM »
Data for PIOMAS-20C is now available:

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 04, 2019, 08:47:24 PM »
The world's largest offshore wind farm is now operational.

The UK is quickly becoming the epicenter of the offshore wind industry. Point in case: On Monday, the first part of the world’s largest and furthest offshore wind farm came online.

The first workers were shuttled 75 miles off the east coast from Grimsby, UK, to the Hornsea One wind farm, which is partially operational. When it comes fully online next year, it will be capable of generating enough electricity to power a million homes. Right now, it’s “only” capable of powering up to 287,000 homes. But the opening of the farm coupled with plans to construct a twin behemoth nearby shows that offshore wind is growing in leaps and bounds.

The massive wind farm currently has 50 of its 174 turbines spinning. When completed, the project will have a generating capacity of 1.2 gigawatts, more than double the capacity of the current largest offshore wind installation (which is also in the UK).

I just engaged in a simple act of protest against privilege and every single person who weighed in on the discussion defended that privilege.

It isn't privilege.  It's an earned right.  You post actual data every day for a few years and I'll gladly put down the next noobie that comes along messing up the thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:59:51 AM »
be cause: can only guestimate area that heads out of the basin but it is a lot
Right. Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season. By translocating thicker, older ice into zones that will melt out later in the summer, or exporting ice altogether out of the basin via the Fram, Nares and Svalbard-FJL chain plus blocking Kara Sea ice on the import side, wind-driven ice motion may challenge conventional bottom and top melt this year as the leading ice volume loss mechanism.

The first image below shows  on mid-basin Atlantic-side feature drift (boundary between old and new ice) over the the last 195 days using twenty-day contours.

A similar area of ice ahead of the front has been (or will be if wind patterns keeps up) irreversibly displaced out of the basin. This area can be measured, not adjusting for compression or extension, by lifting geo-referenced Ascat images onto Google Earth Pro for its ellipsoidal (WGS84) area and length calculations (2nd image shows the 7.109 million sq km polygon of relevant Arctic Ocean.

Wx predictions are the proverbial drunk looking for her car keys under the street lamp because the light is better there -- winds thousands of meters above the ice are easier to predict than the 0m winds, yet only the latter actually move the ice pack (by coupling to pressure ridges and floe edges rather than flat pan).

You can see this on any given day by comparing ice motion vectors observed by OSISAF/NSIDC to winds GFS or ECMWF are showing, before or after reanalysis (3rd image). Surface currents are negligible (or as oceanographer R Woodward notes, induced by ice keels) outside the intake funnels of the Nares and Fram and inconsistent Bering Strait flows to/from the Chukchi. Note the ice pack has a certain amount of mechanical rigidity, leading to cohesive motion despite a heterogeneous stress field.

The Arctic Ocean is seriously 'under-instrumented', meaning models have never had sufficient calibration or feedback guidance. On the rare instances an instrumented ship has been out there in May (eg N-ICE spring 2015), measurements departed markedly even from nearby land stations like Ny-Ålesund. However nobody ever fixed a weather model or reanalysis based on a basin instrument account.

Help is in sight (with a 2-3 year delay?): this Sept, AWI's Polarstern will drift for a full year on a thick Siberian-side floe (lol !) to collect "direct in-situ observations of the climate processes that couple the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, bio-geochemistry and ecosystem ... to enhance understanding of the regional and global consequences of Arctic climate change and sea-ice loss and improve weather and climate predictions.

This won't be meagre point weather and ice properties because they are going out to a 50 km swath radius on both sides of the drift track. The 4th image shows a hypothetic drift trajectory. They'd have been home early this year whereas in 2017/18 the ship would hardly have moved in the hoped-for direction:

233 days of anti-transpolar drift 2017-2018.mp4,2278.msg155398.html#msg155398

The Oden made a remarkable observation of open water at the north pole on 25 Aug 18, photographing a walrus there, messing with a research sled. Ask yourself how much open water there had to be regionally for a walrus to swim to the NP on that date and when it last ate: the water is 4,087 m deep whereas the deepest walrus dive ever recorded is 500m.

This and a few little things like ice thickness went seriously under-reported (except by Jim Hunt and twitter). This has really got to change -- scientists chewing on their cud for years (buffing their journal articles) while leaving everyone else in the dark.

I had an identical experience trying to get even the most mundane CTD casts from the Polarstern when by great good fortune they were able to reach the Weddell Sea during that unprecedented reversal of the Fram in Feb 18 attributed to a sudden stratospheric warming. A cr*ppy article by another research group ensued who also couldn't get the data. Where is the public benefit in  hoarding?

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 19, 2019, 02:14:56 PM »
Can this year reach a BOE? Not totally impossible.
I will be highly surprised if a first BOE does not happen by 2030.

And even if we do not reach a true BOE before 2030, there will be little difference between a minimum of 1.8 M km2 vs. < 1.0 M km2 when we consider the impact it will have on climate.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: May 10, 2019, 11:27:19 AM »
You know what the phrase "people in glass houses" means. :D

I do and since Neven has threatened to delete all my posts if I don't present Op Ed's and their opinions, my posts are only longer if I am pushing out someone else's view. with a lot of quotes.

There are a lot of things I think but I'm no longer allowed to say them.  So I chose the words of someone else carefully.  Even if I think they are way wide of the mark in some areas.

For instance I spent the first 15 years of my career in IT designing and delivering the software and infrastructure for products to be used by companies and the last 15 years of my career planning and implementing them.  But, were I to explain, in detail, why it is totally possible for Tesla to rival Lyft in 3 years, my post would be considered an off topic rant by someone on the board.  I should, instead, spend days trying to find some analyst, who's never delivered a software product in their life and present their opinion instead.

Instead I have to scroll through pages of your "view" on Hyperbole.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 17, 2019, 07:56:30 AM »
OK, here is my crappy graph- many thanks to Oren for explaining how to attach it...Advance apologies that the April dates appear as negative May dates....Nonetheless, the trend is clear, breakup is a week earlier than a century ago. Something similar is evident regarding freeze up too, but freeze up is way more complex because it is affected by river height, which drops during fall.

Consequences / Re: 2019 ENSO
« on: April 16, 2019, 10:09:31 AM »
From Australia BOM
Still have the setting on El Nino Alert

Southern Oscillation Index
The 30-day Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) has eased back to more neutral levels over the past fortnight. The SOI for the 30 days ending 14 April was −2.0, with the 90-day average −5.8.

As the northern Australian wet season nears it end, the SOI will become less volatile, and will be expected to better reflect the climatic conditions. During the wet season, the passage of tropical systems near Darwin and Tahiti can affect atmospheric pressure at these locations, meaning that SOI values during the northern Australian wet season can be erratic, and should therefore be viewed with caution.

Sustained negative values of the SOI below −7 typically indicate El Niño while sustained positive values above +7 typically indicate La Niña. Values between +7 and −7 generally indicate neutral conditions.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: April 12, 2019, 12:20:56 PM »
the Union constrained workforce

Are you living in the 70s still?

Me? No.  I'm living in the 21st century where people take reality and call it BS then take rocket propelled idiocy and call it "Reality", then defend that reality to the death.....

Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential
« on: April 03, 2019, 01:19:03 AM »
BAM! Two years have gone by without an update.

I finally have the processsing power and coding skills to take the AWP model to where I intended it to be. Instead of only calculating the anomaly of potentially absorbed solar radiation. I now calculate the raw accumulated values, the anomaly and a percentage of the current year to the maximum possible (complete Ice-free conditions). From the 1980s to 2010s this percentage has gone up from roughly 52% to 62%. Generally from August onwards the Arctic is 75% icefree and from September onwards the Arctic is 90% icefree.

Everything is now much better presented with interactive graphs and sliders to compare individual years. The regional data is already calculated, but needs even more work for proper presentation. Near-real time data for 2019 is in the works too.

Fancy new webpage:

Still too short documentation of AWP model:

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 29, 2019, 11:35:04 AM »
I think now there's enough data to calculate the average maximum date. Using 15-day averages should take the weather effects out and 29-days should eliminate the possible effect of moon phases aka tides.

Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: March 19, 2019, 08:47:42 PM »
We rightly condemn the senseless waste of life that 'haters' cause in their attacks and radicalisation of others and all that brings yet when thousands blink out because of a natural disaster we do not join together and pledge our solidarity against the folk who 'augmented' that disaster making it so deadly?

Maybe " you can't say AGW caused it!" is no defence as , in a warming world, every weather event has 'some' AGW in it. So how many in Africa died because of the AGW 'portion' of that Cyclone???

10%, 5%?

Both would return numbers bigger than the horror in Christchurch cost us yet the paid deniers that allowed us here,with little mitigation,just go about their days as if they have not a care in the world but us 'catastrophists'

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:25:28 PM »
Please note that the arcticle linked below appears to quote from a GE press release about a new model of wind turbine, and thus may be a little too optimistic for some readers.  I'm posting it because the article illustrates the technology improvements that are currently happening in the wind energy industry and how they will allow the amount of wind power being deployed to continue to increase.

A year later, GE Renewable Energy announced the upgraded 5.3 MW version and the new “Cypress Platform” naming convention. The new Cypress turbines are designed to produce over 20 gigawatt-hours of power annually and offer a 50% increase in Annual Energy Production over their lifespan.

“We’re delighted with the progress our team has been able to make in bringing our innovative, high-tech turbine to market on an accelerated schedule,” said Jérôme Pécresse, CEO of GE Renewable Energy. “We are confident that Cypress, with its two-piece blade design, will be a game changer for the industry. We’re hearing equal enthusiasm from our customers across the globe, who tell us they appreciate the potential of Cypress to help them both lower the cost of onshore wind and gain added flexibility in siting turbines.”

The Cypress Platform of turbines are offered with multiple power ratings and varying hub heights, enabling a lower cost of electricity by matching each wind turbine to specific site needs. Designed with a “revolutionary” two-piece blade design which makes it possible to use larger rotors and site the turbines in a wider variety of locations, the Cypress turbines can thus be installed at locations that were previously inaccessible.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: March 12, 2019, 11:46:22 PM »
More from the World Nuclear Industry Status Report (2018):

It’s that time of year again when those who value unvarnished data, and analyses of global nuclear energy developments, free of industry spin, look forward to the latest annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR). The 2018 edition does not disappoint; it reveals fascinating new information and trends, and confirms that, as the world undergoes a fundamental and far-reaching energy transition, nuclear is being left behind.

I have worked in the energy sector for nearly 40 years and I have never seen as rapid innovation and change as in the last five. The relative prices of electricity generation sources have switched, and solar and wind energy are now, in most countries, the cheapest grid-connected sources of energy. And as storage prices plummet, off-grid power solutions are becoming more cost-competitive. The electricity system is becoming more decentralized, with a multitude of smaller, incremental investments by utilities, industries and households, which are becoming producers as well as consumers of power. Networks and mini-grids are increasingly radial, meshed and fractal, and as energy, transport and communications technologies converge, along with the internet of things, machine learning, demand-side management, and block-chain payment systems, energy services will be democratized and controlled to match optimally individual and community needs.

The nuclear industry seems puzzled by these developments and is mostly in denial. As the competitiveness of solar and wind energy become undeniable – renewable energy auctions are transparent with published long-term contracted prices – the nuclear industry shifts the debate away from the costs of nuclear to issues of system reliability and to its role in the transition to a low-carbon economy. In so doing, they discount the huge construction time and cost overruns in generation III and III+ nuclear reactors and the difficulties of financing nuclear, especially in emerging economies.

As solar and wind grow exponentially, nuclear energy has remained stagnant. There are fewer nuclear reactors in operation today than there were 30 years ago. Nuclear reactors have increased in size, so they produce more electricity, but still less than in 2001. The share of global electricity production decreased from a peak of 17.5 percent in 1996 to 10.3 percent in 2017. This is hardly a growth industry.

It is instructive to note that the construction of new nuclear power plants is mostly driven and backed by states, and not by the private sector. China accounts for a third of nuclear plants under construction. Nuclear is becoming an option for fewer countries, and only those that are prepared to offer significant government support, including sovereign guarantees. It is regrettable that often this support is facilitated by rent-seeking and corruption.

◦Five construction starts in the world in 2017, of which a demonstration fast reactor project in China.
◦No start of construction of any commercial reactors in China since December 2016.
◦The number of units under construction globally declined for the fifth year in a row, from 68 reactors at the end of 2013 to 50 by mid-2018, of which 16 are in China.
◦China spent a record US$126 billion on renewables in 2017.

◦As of mid-2018, 32 reactors—including 26 in Japan—are in Long-Term Outage (LTO).
◦At least 33 of the 50 units under construction are behind schedule, mostly by several years. China is no exception, at least half of 16 units under construction are delayed.
◦Of the 33 delayed construction projects, 15 have reported increased delays over the past year.
◦Only a quarter of the 16 units scheduled for startup in 2017 were actually connected to the grid.
◦New-build plans have been cancelled including in Jordan, Malaysia and the U.S. or postponed such as in Argentina, Indonesia, Kazakhstan.

Decommissioning Status Report
◦As of mid-2018, 115 units are undergoing decommissioning—70 percent of the 173 permanently shut-down reactors in the world.
◦Only 19 units have been fully decommissioned: 13 in the U.S., five in Germany, and one in Japan. Of these, only 10 have been returned to greenfield sites.

Renewables Accelerate Take-Over
◦Globally, wind power output grew by 17% in 2017, solar by 35%, nuclear by 1%. Non-hydro renewables generate over 3,000 TWh more power than a decade ago, while nuclear produces less.
◦Auctions resulted in record low prices for onshore wind (<US$20/MWh) offshore wind (<US$45/MWh) and solar (<US$25/MWh). This compares with the “strike price” for the Hinkley Point C Project in the U.K. (US$120/MWh).
◦Nine of the 31 nuclear countries—Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, Spain and United Kingdom (U.K.)—generated more electricity in 2017 from non-hydro renewables than from nuclear power.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 09, 2019, 08:28:32 PM »
The loan is due in less than a year, lol. Build a factory from a mud field, bring in equipment, get an auto assembly line operating, make enough cars at enough margin to pay back half a billion, ALL IN LESS THAN A YEAR....

Credit.  Such a wonderful thing.
Amendment and Restatement of ABL Credit Agreement
On March 6, 2019, Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”) and its subsidiary Tesla Motors Netherlands B.V. (together with Tesla, the “Borrowers”), entered into the Amendment and Restatement Agreement (the “Amendment and Restatement Agreement”) with Deutsche Bank AG New York Branch, as administrative agent and collateral agent, and the lenders and other agents party thereto, pursuant to which the ABL Credit Agreement dated as of June 10, 2015 (as amended and restated, the “ABL Credit Agreement”) was amended and restated in its entirety. Among other things, the Amendment and Restatement Agreement amended the ABL Credit Agreement to increase the revolving commitments by $500.0 million to a total of $2.425 billion, to extend the maturity date from June 10, 2020 to July 1, 2023 as to approximately $2.228 billion of the total revolving commitments, to increase the letter of credit subfacility from $200.0 million to $400.0 million, and to amend certain covenants and baskets. As amended, the ABL Credit Agreement also permits the Borrowers, subject to the terms and conditions set forth therein, to obtain up to $200.0 million of additional revolving commitments and an extension of the remaining commitments maturing on June 10, 2020 to July 1, 2023.

These arrangements are yet another nail in the Tesla Bear coffin.  Financial institutions with millions and even billions of dollars at stake have done their due diligence, agree Tesla is set for success, and they are eager to be a part of it.  The bear argument simply does not fit reality.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 06, 2019, 01:12:57 PM »
Apologies if this is a repeat, but I hadn't noticed discussions about it and I do not read everyone's comments. 

NHTSA's Implausible Safety Claim for Tesla's Autosteer Driver Assistance System
Yes, it's been discussed. The NHTSA's claim was indeed unfounded.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 05, 2019, 07:21:38 PM »
I think Lurk and I actually have the same goals and would like to ultimately see all of the world's energy come from carbon free sources, and the sooner the better.  It seems he objects to my pollyana-ish language, so I'll try a different tone. :P

Yet another corporation is refusing to wait for the global systemic change requiring them to use carbon free energy sources and has instead installed a massive solar power plant.

You know who's one of the world's leaders in tackling greenhouse gas emissions? You might be surprised to know that the venerable corporation that brought us Mickey Mouse is staying ahead of the pack by following through on its pledge to cut emissions by 50 percent. Disney's goal is to reach half the emissions it had in 2012 by the year 2020.

One big way the entertainment juggernaut is making its commitment a reality is by opening an enormous new 270-acre, 50-megawatt solar facility in Florida. It went online in 2019 to provide clean renewable energy to the Walt Disney World Resort in Orlando. As stated on Disney's blog, the facility will generate so much power, Disney will be able to use it to operate two of its four theme parks in Central Florida.

The new solar farm, consisting of more than half a million panels, will majorly reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, lowering them by more than 57,000 tons per year.

The article is silent on the economics on the deal and instead quotes a corporate spokesperson blathering about "being a responsible citizen of the world".

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 04, 2019, 08:51:46 PM »
The first large-scale solar farm in North Dakota is starting construction.

FARGO — North Dakota’s first commercial solar energy complex will start construction this spring in rural Cass County’s Harmony Township and go into operation in 2020.

The $250 million project will sprawl over 1,600 acres and have a capacity of up to 200 megawatts — generating enough electricity to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 240,000 metric tons, or the equivalent of taking 50,000 cars off the road every year.

Sono Motors have presented the final design of the Sion.


9417 Preorders and counting

As some of you are familiar, this is now a 10 year project that has been posted about probably no less that several hundred times. It is an ideal backup highway/road layout that is all one directional without the need for ANY bridges (the most expensive/least survivable aspect of our roads) NOR ANY stop signs, intersections, or red lights - Not a SINGLE ONE!
As a one way system free of the expense of bridges and at Autobaun speeds with the safety of all one directional travel we gain many advantages. We set up our communities to be BETWEEN the EAST and West bound directions (shown in the first photo as blue and red accordingly) so that we are never more than .6 miles from a three-lane highway on-ramp. All exits are at ground level much like when you come to a rest stop along/parallel to the main road. everything branches off from there as shown. Such a fast Point Blank (direct) system means that all emergency services (ambulance, transport, and police) are seconds away and so efficient we don't even need our own vehicles (which...since we work in industrial shops right on the bottom floors of our homes or a block away at most aren't needed for work travel anyway). The inner rectangle is likely all internal/interconnected and likely at least four stories tall with the eight circles representing eight octagonal 14-story apartment towers. Other living accommodations will be among this in smaller five and six story buildings so if larger groups aren't your thing (or it is more effective to separate drives and ground/road crews out into their own buildings etc.) there are options. This is much like a modern Castle and Bailey scenario that is entirely self sufficient with CNC machines in this one town numbering probably 100+.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 26, 2019, 10:02:53 PM »
And when the cost of building new renewables plus battery storage is cheaper than operating fossil fuel plants, you'll see those plants close.  We hit that point the USA last year too.

This is how coal dies — super cheap renewables plus battery storage

New Colorado wind farms with batteries are now cheaper than running old coal plants

Joe Romm Jan 10, 2018, 12:35 pm

Solar, wind, and battery prices are dropping so fast that, in Colorado, building new renewable power plus battery storage is now cheaper than running old coal plants. This increasingly renders existing coal plants obsolete.

Two weeks ago, Xcel Energy quietly reported dozens of shockingly low bids it had received for building new solar and wind farms, many with battery storage (see table below).

The median bid price in 2017 for wind plus battery storage was $21 per megawatt-hour, which is 2.1 cents per kilowatt-hour. As Carbon Tracker noted, this “appears to be lower than the operating cost of all coal plants currently in Colorado.”

And the trend for coal worldwide is not looking good:

A new global analysis of 6,685 coal plants finds that it is now cheaper to build new renewable generation than to run 35 percent of coal plants worldwide. By 2030, that percentage increases dramatically, with renewables beating out 96 percent of today’s existing and planned coal-fired generation.

The 4 percent exception is in markets with extremely low fuel costs, where coal is cheap and plentiful, or with uncertain policies for renewables, like Russia.

The EIA is notorious for underestimating the growth of renewable energy.  The EIA reports are not reliable for estimates of future energy generation.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 25, 2019, 09:44:39 PM »
A new 1.5 GW solar power plant with battery storage is under construction:

The 5100-acre solar farm will be built in three 500 MW sections and connect to the 275 kV high voltage national distribution network in Queensland. There will be two substations and the proposed 500 MWh of battery storage will be added after the solar farm is completed. Total cost of the project is given as $3.5 billion.

The Sunshine Energy website claims the installation will produce about 2,600 GWh of electricity each year. The proximity to the Queensland high voltage utility grid was a key factor in deciding where to place the new solar farm, which will be capable of powering 300,000 homes in Queensland. Up to 1,000 construction jobs will be created and 30 to 60 full time positions will be needed to maintain and operate the facility once completed.

There are two larger ones (as noted upthread) in the planning phase:

The Sunshine Energy project will be the largest in Australia — for now. There are other larger projects waiting in the wings for regulatory approval — a 4 GW renewable energy hub in New South Wales and the 11 GW Asian Renewable Energy Hub that will export power to Southeast Asia via undersea transmission lines.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 19, 2019, 12:28:56 AM »
Not a fraud.  Not a scam.  Generated about $4.5 million in revenue for its owners during the fourth quarter by helping to balance the freaking power grid!

Tesla's big battery in Australia made another $4 million on its way to pay for itself
The government also participated in the funding and they shouldn’t be disappointed in their investment since a recent report showed that the project saved $40 million on the energy during its first year of operation alone.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: February 08, 2019, 02:23:56 AM »
S&S took their measurements at methane seeps during the summer and then estimated what the entire ESAS methane release would be annually.  Subsequent studies have shown that those estimates for the entire ESAS are too high.

I'm not denying anything.  I'm telling you what the peer-reviewed science says.  You're the one who's denying it.

And your only willing to look at one side of the picture. There is no consensus that the Arctic methane isn’t a threat. There are papers that conclude what your saying, and there are papers that conclude what I’m saying. My only worry is we all conclude it’s a not a problem or a problem for the grandchildren then we lose the opportunity to do something about it if it is a threat. There is no time for hope, or wishful thinking. We need to do something now. The very existence of our species is on the line.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 07, 2019, 01:46:40 AM »
I decided to post this reply here (and not go O/T from the global temp thread).

So far 2019 has set 35 records for heat and 2 for cold

Kulgera (Australia) max. 47
Griffith (Australia) max. 46.4
Albury (Australia) max. 45.3
Woolbrook (Australia) max. 38.7
Cooma (Australia) max. 39.5
Cootamundra (Australia) max. 43.6
Eucla (Australia) max. 48.6
Christmas Island Aero (Australia) max. 31.6
Tarcoola (Australia) max. 49.1
Ceduna (Australia) max. 48.6
Cleve (Australia) max. 46.7
Adelaide (Australia) max. 47.7
Adelaide Airport (Australia) max. 45.8
Port Lincoln Airport (Australia) max. 48.3
Port Augusta (Australia) max. 49.5
Clare (Australia) max. 44.9
Snowtown (Australia) max. 47.3
Parafield (Australia) max. 47.7
Edinburgh (Australia) max. 47.5
Roseworthy (Australia) max. 48.3
Nuriootpa (Australia) max. 46
Kuitpo (Australia) max. 44
Strathalbyn (Australia) max. 46.7
Deniliquin (Australia) max. 47.2
Swan Hill (Australia) max. 47.5
Kerang (Australia) max. 47
Kyabram (Australia) max. 47.1
Sale (Australia) max. 45.5
Young (Australia) max. 43.5
Pointe des Trois-Bassins (Reunion Islands, France) max. 37
Cilaos (Reunion Islands, France) max. 31.2
Gobabis (Namibia) max. 41.7
Santiago (Chile) max. 38.3
Santiago Airport (Chile) max. 39.3
Tobalaba (Chile) max. 37.4

Record low temperatures in 2019

Rockford (Illinois, US) min. -35
Moline (Illinois, US) min. -36.1
Link >>

Record highs or lows are often problematic. Especially so with temperature recording at airports. New developments runways, hangars etc often require the screen/sensor has to be moved.

So I decided to have a look back at the long record at Rockford (Illinois). Depending on where you look you will hear that Rockford has records back to the 19th century. There were several gaps in the recording.

Using the historical observing metadata at NOAA I came across two COOP entries for Rockford. The first entry recalls all the various locations (I make it 6) that temperatures were recorded in Rockford from 19th century until summer 1957.

All these 6 locations were well within the current city bounds. See map 1

Then the big move occurred and from 1957 onwards temperature recording at Rockford was made at the airport which is located in rolling farmland, sparsely wooded approx. 4 miles south of downtown Rockford. See map 2

The airport is in more open country and I would expect it to experience greater extremes then the old city locations in map 1.

However within the airport the temperature siting has changed many times. Berkely Earth lists five station moves since 1957 within the grounds of the airport. The biggest move though happened after 1995, Prior to that the site was quite near the current terminal building and there was some obstruction by trees and hangars. Then the siting was changed further to the SE away from most buildings.

So really it has only been in the same location since 2004.

The coldest in over 100 years of temperature recording rings a bit hollow given that there have been so many changes in Rockford. The old city centre locations were probably warmer locations than the current one and also crucially when the cold spells of the 1980s occurred, the screen was located much nearer buildings which undoubtedly kept it warmer than the current site.

It turns out that this dynamic is now being seen as a strong potential tipping point for the global climate system.

This is a very valuable lecture.  wanted to capture it for you here: 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)
« on: February 05, 2019, 06:44:45 PM »
Thanks to all that have tried and responded.

The positive feedbacks gives me confidence that I have nailed a big source of the incompatibility. In short: do not create mp4 files with an odd number of rows.

Cropping the image height from 695 to 694 gives the attached "big" animation:

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 04, 2019, 05:58:40 PM »
Private investment in charging infrastructure storage lowers the eventual grid upgrades needed.  I would not be surprised if the utilities offered VW an incentive, beyond the expected peak demand cost shaving.

Tesla reaches deal with Electrify America to deploy Powerpacks at over 100 charging stations
They announced today that they will deploy Tesla Powerpack systems consisting of “a 210 kW battery system with roughly 350 kWh of capacity” at over 100 charging stations. The system will be designed to be modular in order to increase the capacity if needed.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 31, 2019, 02:39:27 PM »
“It is difficult to make predictions, especially about the future."

Those who disparage Musk for his timeliness should be even more upset with the reliability of doomsayers who have been promising Tesla will go bankrupt “next quarter” for over 10 years now. ;D

-55 F wind chill here in Minneapolis (-48 C). Most everything is shut down, including postal service. But I'm going out in a few hours to make tons of soup for the homeless and anyone else who wants it. Probably minestrone. Anybody have good recipes?

You are a good soul.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 26, 2019, 06:03:20 PM »
It's quite difficult to track individual ice features from freezing season to freezing season but I was curious about a dark line on ascat which also shows up on worldview viirs.
The first animation is ascat 2018074(mar15), 2018317(nov13) and 2019025(jan25).

During the 2017/18 freezing season what was left of the Wrangel arm rotated clockwise to the border of the ESS and the Laptev and some thick ice in the Laptev ended up close to Severnaya Zemlya, shown in the first frames.

In the Nov13 frame the rotation continues and the forked shape of the older ice can just about be identified, somewhat distorted. Unfortunately, surface melting during the summer gives the ice a scatter whitewash as far as ascat is concerned.

In yesterdays frame it is the dark line north east of Kap Morris Jessup that interested me. It appears to be related to the dark line of possibly lower concentration ice between the 2 features in the first frame.
The worldview ani is just to confirm the existence of the darker line and hopefully some thicker ice coming up north of Greenland.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 13, 2019, 04:03:07 AM »
Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« Reply #1928 on: January 12, 2019, 06:14:44 PM »
Quote from: Shared Humanity on January 12, 2019, 06:11:35 PM
2 more years with average temps below 2015/2016 and we'll have to listen to the "why is there a stall in warming" BS.

Needs to slip below the red line for this. I don't think this is going to happen though.

You are assuming at least minimal integrity from the 'contrarians'.  Bad assumption.

Permafrost / Snow Cover changes on regional scale
« on: January 07, 2019, 01:25:37 AM »
I finished calculating regional snow extent data and will post my analysis here. The main snow cover thread doesn't quite fit for this detailed long term analysis. At the moment all data is still in one long list, but after formatting we can graph things like snow extent for region x in month y. I attached a map showing all regions and an example for Greenlands snow extent.

Eventually regional graphs should also get daily updates on my main snow cover webpage

Data Download (csv & formatted ExcelSheet)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: January 01, 2019, 08:30:38 PM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 30, 2018, 06:43:43 PM »
They say that it looks like we are already starting to see reductions in ICE vehicles in the u.s. as people are delaying their new car purchase to get an EV in the near term.  They project that we will see increased sales of USED ICE vehicles as this transformation takes hold. 

Happy New Year!

That was a very interesting video, but they didn't discuss two things: the price of batteries, and what Big Auto and Big Oil will do to prolong the status quo as long as possible (for instance, by taking out Tesla).

I’m sure Big Auto and Big Oil would like to take out Tesla, but I think it is too late for that, now.  Their efforts weren’t successful when Tesla was smaller and more vulnerable, and now the EV genie is out of the bottle — people want them, and so do governments of polluted cities, states and countries.

What can BA/BO do besides spread FUD (which hasn’t kept Tesla from reaching record after record), and try to end EV subsidies/tax advantages (which tends to hurt Big Auto as well).  Musk has often said that ending all EV subsidies would be beneficial to Tesla, as it would level the playing field.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m sure they will try.  But the China government and people love Tesla (even Model X - themed weddings are a big thing there these days), and EU countries are jumping over each other to win the next Tesla gigafactory.  New huge utility battery projects are in the works all over the world.  And Tesla roofs are just taking off.  2019 will make it clear the tipping point has already passed, and local signs of oil decline will start to be noticed.  Big Oil will have bigger things than Tesla to worry about.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Ocean salinity, temperature and waves
« on: December 28, 2018, 11:02:24 PM »
A closer look using worldview, viirs, bt15n, dec23-28.
Low concentration area in the centre, Svalbard far right. Winds are forecast from the west for a few more days so the ice front may reach across the warm current to Svalbard again this year.  The cloud streets thickening up with the increasing temperature difference perhaps.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: December 28, 2018, 04:30:07 PM »
This very interesting presentation shows that the current U.S. auto market in ICE vehicles is currently being suppressed by the introduction of electric vehicles (in general) and (specifically) a viable lower cost Tesla Model 3 that is forthcoming. 

They look at the adoption rates of new technologies and then compare them with the current sales of EVs.

They say that it looks like we are already starting to see reductions in ICE vehicles in the u.s. as people are delaying their new car purchase to get an EV in the near term.  They project that we will see increased sales of USED ICE vehicles as this transformation takes hold. 

Happy New Year!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: December 25, 2018, 04:17:24 PM »
same old same old.
bon fete :)

Pages: [1] 2 3