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 - Sebastian Jones

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: January 07, 2020, 12:52:02 PM »
The roadmap to insect recovery is essentially the same roadmap to avoiding environmental calamity overall.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 19, 2019, 08:21:32 PM »
The sixth power, depending on how you calculate it, is either a squared cube or a cubed square.
And what on earth is "a cube squared" and what has it to do with anything?

The height a tidal bulge rises goes up as an inverse cube of the distance to the tide raising body. So, if you had the Moon at half its present distance 4 billion years ago, the tidal bulge it would lift would be 2X2X2 times higher, or eight times as high.
The rate at which a tidal effect slows the rotation of the planet scales as the square of the height of the tidal bulge. So 4 billion years ago the slowdown rate may have been 8X8 or 64 times its present value.
Four and a half eons ago the Moon would have been something like one tenth its present day distance, so it was slowing the Earth's rotation something like a million times faster.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: October 15, 2019, 10:26:30 PM »

From 2016 through 2019, Argentina’s government awarded contracts for 6.5 gigawatts (GW) of new renewable energy capacity, helping make wind and solar the country’s cheapest unsubsidized sources of energy. Roughly 5 GW of this capacity is already either in operation or under construction, attracting nearly $7.5 billion in new investment and creating more than 11,000 new jobs.

How is it "unsubsidized" when the government is footing the bill?

Because the income from selling the juice to Joe Public should recoup the capital cost exactly as a private sector mob invest capital to generate revenue. The proof (or not) will be in the pudding a few years down the line.

Snow is an insulator and a reflector. It prevents the earth losing heat and increases albedo. I foot of snow is equivalent to R15 insulation. It doesn't matter if the year was a "cold" or "warm" one, the difference is that the surface of the ground is insulated against emitting heat into space, the "ground" surface doesn't drop to -40 C or what ever the ambient temperature is. The contrast one has to consider for the analysis is the difference between winter and summer temperatures, not year on year changes.

Albedo is more important when the balance of heat loss prevented by the insulation throughout the day is less than the amount of heat added from insolation. If snow cover DOES persist into the summer then one, clearly, can make an argument that heat into the earth from insolation is going to decrease. From Shared Humanities post, the evidence is that this is not happening. Snow is melting out rapidly in the spring.

Basically we apply a nice reflective blanket in the cold of the night, to keep the heat in, then we pull it off as soon as there is enough warm sunshine to heat up the ground. My guess is its a strong positive feedback loop into warming the earth.

There will be nice deep early snowfalls from a meandering jet stream and an increasingly wet atmosphere, the latitudes that the snow will persist into spring will move north. The permafrost that relies on winter heat loss will thin and decline in extent, releasing more methane and CO2 and feeding the increasingly warm wet cycle towards an equitable climate.

The above are some of the feedbacks that amplify Milankovitch cycle variations. The cycles themselves don't change the heat input into the earth enough to cause the variations that we observe in previous interglacials. We are in a Milankovitch interglacial now and have accelerated the feedbacks by the release of gigatons of CO2.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: October 11, 2019, 05:07:55 AM »
As we near the end of the 2019 season, global cylconic activity has been near normal.  Higher Atlantic and Indian ocean storms have been counter by lower Pacific (both eastern and western) activity.

Global cyclonic activity has not been "normal". Ask anyone in the Bahamas.

 If you mean the sum of the cyclonic winds or some other cherry, then the word you are looking for is average, not normal.

There was nothing normal about the 2 cat 5s in the Atlantic, although if the world keeps warming it will be normal.

Walking the walk / Re: Gardening
« on: September 23, 2019, 12:52:25 PM »

Arborists usually (by profession) mean woodchip mulch and I agree with them that too thick a layer could cause problems as it takes a long time to break down and might become almost impenetrable to water for a while.

I advocated grass cuttings /cut greens as mulch and if you make it 20 cm thick it quickly (1 month or 2) collapses to 2-5 cm especially during the warm season if you have rain.

It is my experience, that if you put down 5-10 cm woodchips, weeds easily grow through that and it will be very difficult to handle the situation. On the other hand, if you have 20 or even better, 30 cm of cut weeds/grass/greens around the trees, it heats upsomewhat and kills all the weeds underneath and chokes them and by the time the mulch collapses (becomes much thinner) nothing or not much will be there to grow through it.

Also if you have an orchard you can have lots of greens around the trees (grass, clovers, alfalfa, etc) that is easy to cut and put around the trees (mow-and-blow style). I think this is the best and easiest solution for trees. (vegetables are a different matter)

Arctic background / Re: Hearts in the Ice Expedition
« on: September 22, 2019, 04:25:00 PM »
There are some male faces amongst the Bamsebu Team!

See also:

Perhaps the English version of the expeditions "About" page should be rearranged along the lines of:

They will be the first women to over-winter in Svalbard without men in a 20 sq mtr trappers cabin at 78N.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 07:57:40 AM »
 Just looked it up, the Bahamas have been an independent nation for 47 years ... I thought they were British, sorry for the blunder. Those poor people have my deepest sympathy and I would hope they get ALL the help they will need.

Science / Re: Satellite News
« on: August 13, 2019, 02:42:03 AM »
Great effort gero....

It is gentlepersons like gerontocrat who make this site work...

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 10, 2019, 06:56:00 PM »
The climate changed wildly throughout the Pleistocene and they did fine.


El Cid:
There were about two dozen ice age cycles in the Pleistocene similar in speed and amplitude. When humans reached Australia there was an extinction event. When they reached the Western Hemisphere there was an extinction event. But in Africa where they had the most time to adapt to our hunting they did relatively well, and somewhat so in Eurasia.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 23, 2019, 11:49:07 PM »
Let's return to the central issues...

1) When the Arctic will go ice free
2) How that is likely to play out from first ice free day, to week, to month, to season, to year
3) What the consequences are of that, and hence why we should care

1) the trends in ice extent, ice area and ice volume are all headed to the same outcome, zero ice. Each points to a somewhat different potential date for that. The differences in those dates, though important from a human perspective in a single human lifetime, are essentially identical in geologic terms, and virtually identical in the lifetime of civilizations or nations.

The most likely correct projection is the limiting projection based on the full suite of projections, not the average, not the last, but the first. And that is based on volume. The inherent oscillatory nature of the many linked earth and solar systems creates a form of variation that looks like and can useful be treated similar to randomness. And it has randomness in it. But it isn't truly random in the large scale.

That said, the outer bounds of the error band on projecting forward on ice volume suggest that we have already entered the outermost likelihood for an ice free summer day. Clearly this year won't be it. Next year could be. But most likely that won't be for a few years.

On the other end, the high band, we almost certainly will see it before 2030 even under the most unlikely combination of events. As a result, the first ice free day in September will almost certainly occur between 2022 and 2028.

2) with the progressive loss of ice cover, warming of the ice free ocean, thinning of the ice cover, failure of the tundra and clathrates, combined with mans continued and accelerating release of global warming gases, the lengths of time that the Arctic is essentially ice free will grow longer. There will be oscillation with temporary retreats, and with shocking extensions. The trend will remain for longer and longer ice free periods. That will happen quickly, even in human terms.

3) as that happens, the downwelling driving forces on both the ocean, driving the Atlantic and Pacific oceanic circulations will progressively grow weaker, and the down falling driving force for the atmosphere will simultaneously decline with it, and with that the motive forces for atmospheric circulation of the polar cell will decline.

As the oceanic driving forces collapse a whole suite of interlocking circulations will lose their motive force. New balances will come into play. The oceanic circulations will perhaps stall, and in some areas new broader slower circulations driven by corriolis forces and topography will take over. Areas will go anoxic. Species will move with the temperature and flow. Many will die.

As the atmospheric driving forces fail, the heat balance will shift. The tropopause will rise. The polar circulation will slow and become more chaotic before too be driven by lesser circulations and forces. As the polar cell fails, so too will the driving forces between the Ferrell and polar cells weaken and fail, then those between the Ferrell and Hadley cells. In time, those too will be overridden by other forces.

With an increased tropopause, single cell circulation becomes possible, though moving at slower speeds allowing drag to counter corriolis forces that would otherwise truncate the circulation. Exactly what happens with this is unknown and is a key question related to how the atmosphere circulates on Venus, and how it circulated on Earth during equable climate periods.

The oceanic and atmospheric circulations are however also interdependent based both on flow interactions and based on heat. With dramatic shifts in flow and consequent large shifts in heat balance, moisture shifts, clouds and the like, the problem is extraordinarily difficult to sort out.

That it will shift is certain.

As has already been noted, we are already seeing dramatic shifts in all of these, with dramatic consequences. However, the largest differences will no doubt come when the relative balance between the various forces reach near parity. At that point, if we had a non dimensional analysis to guide us, we might (and only might) have a better idea about how the transitions will occur, and precisely when we might expect hysteretic sorts of state change.

I haven't found a non dimensional analysis of the coupled ocean, air, ice thermodynamic system using the Buckingham Pi method that might aid there. If anyone does, that might be quite useful. It should tell us what the key dimensionless parameters are to monitor (essentially the ratios of various forces that drive the system as a whole).

What we can be certain of is that the Earth is a heat engine. During periods such as our recent several millions of years where we have ice at the poles, the heat differential between these and the solar inputs (dominant at the equator) act to stabilize the system like a giant engine. The ice acts as a huge buffer or battery holding the system in a sort of equilibrium. That oscillates annually and at longer periods. Still it is a buffer. With the loss of that buffer, the system loses its governor. It then is likely to change quite quickly to an alternate stable system governed by other dynamics. That is when we will,see and experience truly abrupt climate change. No one will need convincing then that it is real. But, no doubt, many will still need convincing that we are at fault, and that we need to urgently act.

That we don't know those dynamics sufficiently well to model them successfully is particularly troubling. That we know from geologic records just how different that system is is even more troubling. But, and this is especially important, people lose sight of the importance of the rate of change in converting from one to state to another. Prior geologic analogies seem tame and slow by comparison to our current predicament. And this may be why a period of ice free Arctic in and transition period between ice ages could exist without completely upending the system. Even then, the dynamics are such that the conditions must have been radically different from what we are acuustomed to.

In our case though, we don't have slow changes at work. Our case is more akin to a fully loaded 18 wheeler racing down a 12% grade, burning out its breaks and bashing through the guardrail into open air several thousand feet above the canyon floor. You might as well decide to enjoy the ever so brief ride, as no amount of steering or cranking on the breaks means anything at that point.

But in our analogy we are still on the road. We've begun to lose traction with the highway, the breaks are all but gone and the steering isn't working. Worse, we are making our decisions by committee with a crew in the cab that is, shall we say, less than up to the task.

We are in the ever so brief period before calamity where we cannot be quite certain whether we are going to inevitably go through the guard rail and plummet to our certain death, or miraculously gain the ever so small bit of control that allows us to steer onto the truck runaway ramp. Sure, it's going to rip the wheels off and all but destroy the rig, but at least we get to recover from it.

Now, if we can just get all of the monkeys in the cab to come to agreement that we need to act, and act together, maybe we might just barely survive this yet. But first we have to get them to stop biting each other and throwing their poo.


Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: June 11, 2019, 11:30:07 AM »
I was wondering whether to post this under 'anecdotal' but on balance, this is what it amounts to. It may not be dramatic, but I think we're seeing incremental less-livable conditions even in the Atlantic-buffered centre of Wales, UK. Bear with me.

It's June, it's currently raining, and has been for most of the last two weeks, with a temperature similar to many recent winters (about 13-14C). The sun does occasionally emerge, and then it warms up suddenly - if briefly. In contrast, we had a record warm Easter (late April), at something like 28C, followed by a hard frost. The winter was damp, cool, and miserable, with barely any frost or snow.
    Rather than being a one-off, parts of this are starting to repeat in most years: a mild, wet winter (unless we get polar vortex incursions), unnaturally warm early spring, followed by a reversal to freezing conditions sometime in April, and then cool, damp summers.

All these are mere annoyances in a globalised world with reliable food imports, but I'm involved with local sustainability, insect recording and the like. These are some of the effects I'm seeing:

--This year the local fruit crop was devastated by the late frosts, which hit the blossoms. Apples are now trying to flower again, but I'm guessing that they probably won't ripen.
--The fruit that has set won't ripen if this weather keeps up through the summer.
--Last summer's near-drought (yes, in Wales) almost killed some of the fruit trees, and another long dry spell will probably knock them out - or another long wet spell will allow fungus to get them instead.
--Local honey bees survived the winter well (anomalous long hot summer last year, after the hard winter), but now have brood to feed, and can barely get out to forage for pollen. Many of the larvae will probably die.
--Insect populations are fluctuating wildly, as pest species like aphids proliferate and are then knocked out by unfavourable weather; this means their predators are hit even harder, because they don't have the reproductive mechanics to proliferate rapidly in good conditions.
--insect abundance generally is heading into boom-and-bust mode; the swarms of gnats or other flies are hardly seen, and pollinators are locally abundant and locally absent. (One a morning survey yesterday, I saw five bumblebees, all within 5 sq. m.; in hours of walking over common land, there were no others.)

It's all down the seasons becoming less well defined, and the fluctuations in weather becoming less predictable, but more entrenched. If we had to survive in my town on local produce, we would be really, really struggling. Last year the harvests were wonderful, but last year was probably an aberration. Some of our weather is, of course, tied to the Arctic as well - I'm sure it's no coincidence that the summer of 2012 (with all that ice transport into the Atlantic killing zones) was also a wash-out here.

This thread is mostly about the dramatic changes, I know, but I just wanted to emphasise that all these minor problems do add up... and they certainly make the place less livable - or, rather, will do in a more sustainably-run world with local food supplies. Even in these otherwise buffered areas like the UK, the effects are mounting up in a really noticeable way.

The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: June 10, 2019, 06:04:29 PM »
Summer Solstice 21st June 16hrs :54mins GMT (UTC is a vile invention by a bunch of mad, evil scientists)

For those who will be dancing around the fire before genuflecting to the rising sun, here is how to make woad.

You can make a beautiful blue woad dye from the leaves of the woad plant.

Woad belongs to the brassica family (cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower etc). It is a biennial plant, which means it grows for 2 years before dying off.

In the first year it grows as a small cluster of broad leaves and in the second year large sprays of yellow flowers form on its long woody stems. After flowering, a woad plant will produce seeds and then die back. You can harvest these seeds for sowing the next crop.

However – for our purpose – we need to harvest the woad plant in it’s first year, as it is these leaves that give us the beautiful blue dye extracted from woad.

Creating Woad Dye
Woad plants are ready for harvest in the summer months.

Take the leaves from the base of the plant and then cut them into small pieces. Submerge the torn or cut leaves in a stainless steel pan of water and bring up to a temperature of 175F (80C). Simmer for about 10 minutes.

Cool the woad dye down as quickly as possible, so that the leaves don’t breakdown too much. If they do, they will go through the strainer and pollute your dye bath. Partially submerging your saucepan in cold or icy water is the easiest way to do this.

Strain off the liquid and – whilst wearing gloves – gently squeeze as much liquid as possible from the leaves.

When you are sure your woad dye is below 120F (50C), add 3 teaspoons of soda ash. At this stage your lovely blue dye will be a greeny-brown color.

Aerate the liquid with an electric or hand-held beater. You will notice it foam up a fair bit. Leave the – now bluey-green – woad dye for a few hours, during which time the foam will evaporate and any pigment will settle.

Gently scoop or siphon off all the water, leaving only the pigment in the bottom of your saucepan. If you are having trouble seeing the sediment in your contained, pour the dye into a glass jar.

Fill with water again and repeat 2 or 3 times. Soon you will have clear water at the top and thick pigment in the bottom.

This is your blue woad dye!

Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise Projections and Maps
« on: June 09, 2019, 03:37:35 AM »
I could only see a sliver of the top of the sketch, so I went to the site, pretended to be able to agree to something in Dutch, and found the sketch, mostly reproduced below (I hope). Interesting article (in English).  Edit:  Now I can see the sketch above, so I'm deleting my version...

/vent on/

What is it about having a slew of new people show up in the forums, absolutely intent on telling all of us who've been watching the ice intently for many years, exactly how we've gotten it wrong(tm), and need to follow their better direction?

Color me tired of people long on wind and short on science and data.

/vent off/

....I'm feeling a little overwhelmed by 415 ppm CO2 and the stronghold that short-term profits have over current civilization. It feels like human nature and Mother Nature are on a collision course which is beyond my ability to influence. I just to be able to able to tell some people I care about how to prepare and I don't have good answers.

A very reasonable concern.  My own take is that the safest place may be in one's home community, building a tight-knit, supportive community where one might strive to be useful and valued.  People watching out for each other can be invaluable.  Without that, I think even the most remote and armed homesteads would be overrun. 

Being a recent immigrant in a foreign community may create a challenge to being fully part of such a community.

I see the Puerto Rico hurricane disaster as illustrative.  Urban populations fared better than rural.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 05, 2019, 09:05:40 PM »
Last year the average value of the week End April/Beginning May was below 410 ppm. If you look at the latest available data the increase will be around or slightly higher than 4 ppm/year.
In contrast the week beginning thereafter was around 411 ppm, so this difference will decrease again.
And here it is. The first (to my knowledge, please correct me if I'm wrong) yearly increase of more than 4 ppm:
Week beginning on April 28, 2019:     414.32 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago:             409.84 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago:     390.36 ppm
Last updated: May 5, 2019

Next week this increase will be quite lower, due to a much higher value last year

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 25, 2019, 02:21:24 AM »
Slightly off topic but yet another sign of arctic warming - the break up of ice on the Yukon yesterday was the second earliest ever recorded and only 8 hours behind  the earliest breakup on the same date in 2016
Technically this was indeed the second earliest break up, but while the indicator ( a post is placed out on the river ice connected to a clock, when the ice moves, the post pulls a pin from the clock, which stops and records the official time of break up) showed break up, in actual fact almost all the ice is still intact. Photos of the river condition are regularly posted on the site This morning's pic shows the open water at the top left, where the "tripod" was. We should have another pic in an hour or so!
Of course April 23rd this year was the 113th day of the year, while April 23rd 2016 was the 114th day of the year. But who is counting, its still early.

This thread is in part anecdotal stories, that and weird weather.  My stories came with forty years spent as a modern hunter gatherer. I either made good choices or I went broke but the full span of it left me with some good stories as a consolation  prize . I happen to believe stories have value as do long term biological datasets. But the data set without the story that follows it will often fall on deaf ears. A story is designed to transport the listener into another mans experiences. If a good story and a good long term dataset can be turned into a convincing message then the final product is likely more convincing than the data or the story standing alone.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: March 18, 2019, 02:16:33 AM »
Many frackers behave like farmers, except that the “crop cycle” appears to be longer, perhaps two years. These firms will borrow or sell equity one year and then drill for sixteen to twenty-four months. Production will surge two years later and then, as many authorities have noted, fall off rapidly.

I've always seen fracking as a temporary measure. Fracking is not sustainable in any way. It is not profitable in the long term, there isn't enough of it and the more we frack the more we will poison our own water and turn our rock foundation to sand. Fracking will not lead to global economic prosperity, even if it didn't cause climate change.

Fracking is fundamentally flawed.

The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: March 10, 2019, 01:11:00 AM »

I will attempt to restore this thread over the coming weeks.

I intend to post updates on Great Lakes water temperature and freezing season, as well as other related information, which might be of interest to some on the board.

Wang, J., X. Bai, H. Hu, A. Clites, M. Colton, and B. Lofgren, 2012: Temporal and Spatial Variability of Great Lakes Ice Cover, 1973–2010. J. Climate, 25, 1318–1329,

Abstract: "In this study, temporal and spatial variability of ice cover in the Great Lakes are investigated using historical satellite measurements from 1973 to 2010. The seasonal cycle of ice cover was constructed for all the lakes, including Lake St. Clair. A unique feature found in the seasonal cycle is that the standard deviations (i.e., variability) of ice cover are larger than the climatological means for each lake. This indicates that Great Lakes ice cover experiences large variability in response to predominant natural climate forcing and has poor predictability. Spectral analysis shows that lake ice has both quasi-decadal and interannual periodicities of ~8 and ~4 yr. There was a significant downward trend in ice coverage from 1973 to the present for all of the lakes, with Lake Ontario having the largest, and Lakes Erie and St. Clair having the smallest. The translated total loss in lake ice over the entire 38-yr record varies from 37% in Lake St. Clair (least) to 88% in Lake Ontario (most). The total loss for overall Great Lakes ice coverage is 71%, while Lake Superior places second with a 79% loss. An empirical orthogonal function analysis indicates that a major response of ice cover to atmospheric forcing is in phase in all six lakes, accounting for 80.8% of the total variance. The second mode shows an out-of-phase spatial variability between the upper and lower lakes, accounting for 10.7% of the total variance. The regression of the first EOF-mode time series to sea level pressure, surface air temperature, and surface wind shows that lake ice mainly responds to the combined Arctic Oscillation and El Niño–Southern Oscillation patterns."

Image one below: "Weekly time series of LIA for (a)–(f) each of the six lakes and (g) total Great Lakes during the period 1973–2010. Units for lake ice area are km2 (left vertical axes) and fraction divided by the lake surface area (right vertical axes)."

Image two below: "Annual-mean lake ice area for (a)–(f) each of the six lakes and (g) total Great Lakes ice anomaly during the period 1973–2010. The linear lines are the trend in annual lake ice coverage calculated from the least squares fit method. Unit for the vertical axes is km2."

The rest / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: February 10, 2019, 12:33:06 AM »
I would love to see a carbon tax distributed as dividend, at such a level that it could provide a basic income to all citizens. This could reduce economic inequality while going some way towards reducing our carbon addiction, and could actually receive voter support, as it includes an immediate strong benefit to a large number of people.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: January 28, 2019, 04:29:23 AM »
Germany's ditching of coal will be dependent on the completion of Nord Stream II, at present this is very much anathema to America's expressed wishes. Hopefully Germany will consider her own needs, and the needs of the Paris Accord signatories to be of greater import than the demands of America (and NATO)?

Has Poland given any indication that she'll be giving up increasing coal consumption, even while purchasing high priced, highly polluting LNG from American sources? NSII and South Stream may both be necessary to curb Europe's coal dependency.

Substituting NG for coal is a positive. Substituting coal for fracked LNG from across the world might prove to be a negative WRT greenhouse gases. Increasing coal and/or fracked LNG won't help Europe meet their GHG commitments.

For those who still do not understand how tropical oceanic energy, via evaporated water into the atmosphere, is telecommunicated (within weeks to months) poleward......., me, me.....


Feel free to ask questions, as everyone knows that long-tail climate change is a complex and somewhat confusing topic.



I rarely comment on these types of threads but want you to know I visit them daily. I suspect there are many others who do the same.

Thank you.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: January 12, 2019, 01:07:37 AM »
In this case they are not allowed to work, even if they wanted to.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 06, 2019, 01:22:28 AM »
Re: excess cider

make booze. that's what johnny appleseed was all about. all the orchards he planted were unfit for anything except booze.


Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 05, 2019, 07:00:27 AM »
Sebastian , GMO open field tests risk unknown unknowns so testing tobacco before you test corn might have a certain wisdom , no?  If we really screwed up tobacco no big loss. 
 Increasing the efficiency of plant growth has a bit of potential upsides if indeed the plant better utilizes CO2 . Worth some more work IMO even if GMO is scary stuff.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: December 31, 2018, 10:48:07 PM »

Climate change acceptance and action?
I am very concerned by the developments in France. Finally some government tries to put measures to fight climate change, and the public is going out on the streets with short-sighted protest. Other governments and future politicians will probably remember this hint very well.
These are not climate change protests but taxes protests. Most of the protesting people are working poor that have difficulties to live until the end of the month, while taxes are reduced on the richer people and companies.
France has much more social protection than the US, but when the fridge and the purse is empty, the medical program won't help you.
The main actions to try to stop the move are an increase of 100 EUR of the minimal salary, a reduction of the taxes on work that is done in an overtime scheme and for poor retiered people.
The taxes on fuel are not "ecotaxes" because incomes are only partially planned for the energy transition, and mainly for normal business of the state.
Sometimes people having nothing are in a better situation because they have nothing to loose.  If you have a very low salary, a little house you were able to buy 30 years ago, an old car that might not comply with the technical control, but that you need to go to work, you're really in deep s..t.
The crazy thing with taxes is that major companies are able to avoid income taxes, but small local ones can't. If you want income tax free furniture, IT, or shoes, I guess you know where to go, and it really is unfair compared to smaller companies.

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: December 10, 2018, 12:09:36 PM »
I wouldn't know.

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 01, 2018, 10:31:22 AM »
I agree with Oren 100%.  He is someone you can always count on to give accurate and straight forward information! 

My post was not very clear.  I think the only way to get your answers is to study the actual papers. The scientists are great.  Where things get confusing is when people try to interpret what the papers mean.  Rather than accept someone else's interpretation, always read the paper yourself.   When you do, you will find that a lot of the "facts" being presented in this thread are actually BS. 
Many papers are so technical that I get lost in them when trying to extract the message(s), even though at least I have a science background and many years of working as an analyst on many different subjects.

I rely on this forum for interpretations in plain English of these highly technical papers. The general public, most who have far less science education than I, need these plain English explanations even more.

Disagreements are inevitable and often beneficial. E.g. on methane undersea emissions there is a wide divergence of opinions and results from studies. The postings on this forum have made that clear, and also highlighted, as Oren pointed out, that science budgets for issues where life on earth may be at greatest peril, are starved of funds.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:30:49 PM »
Not sure what to make of this all, but the ice gain over the past month is the second highest in the satellite history, with the gain over the past two weeks being the highest.  Based on current and forecast temperatures I expect this to continue in the short term.

Klondike Kat's statement in numbers:

2018 had the 2nd highest extent gain from November 1st to November 14th in satellite history. That's an impressive recovery from the very slow start of this year's freezing season.
The closer an oscillating system gets to it's boundary conditions, the greater its volatility.  That's my take away.

Science / Re: ECS is 2.5
« on: October 19, 2018, 02:35:26 PM »
Therefore I think it would be interesting to repeat your method on longer time spans, and include pre-1950 data to get a longer term view.

Has anyone done an estimate for ECS based on hemisphere, not the globe? What is the ECS of the Northern Hemisphere?

It seems to me that because the SH is mostly covered with water with the south pole covered with land, and the NH has much larger land surface area with a north pole covered in water, their ECS might be significantly different. 

You all don't ask much, do you?   ;D  Actually, I love all the suggestions -- these are great.  Let me tackle the first one first.

Here's the same method, applied to (a) Cowtan & Way, and (b) Berkeley Earth, for the entire length of their data (1850-2017):

Over that time period, the CO2 forcing was 1.914 W/m2 and the total (including solar & volcanic) was 2.036 W/m2, for a ratio of 0.940.  Multiplying the two slopes by 0.94 and dividing by 0.74 (our assumed TCR/ECS ratio) gives ECS of 2.7 (Cowtan and Way) or 3.0 (Berkeley Earth).

Next, for Archimid's truly excellent question about differing values of ECS for different hemispheres:

We can do even better than that.  NASA GISTEMP provides land/ocean temperature records from 1880-present by zone (Arctic, tropics, N vs S hemispheres, etc.) for 14 latitudinal zones.  I applied the same methodology:

* All zones have their own temperatures, but use the same CO2 data (obviously).

* Likewise, all zones use the same CO2/Total_RF ratio (which for 1880-2017 is 0.883).

* Likewise, all zones use the same TCR/ECS ratio (the same 0.74 we've been using all along).  This could well be a problem, in fact I think it almost certainly is, but for consistency let's run with it for now, while I try to figure out how to do this better.

Anyway, here are the results:

ASIF readers will be astounded (NOT!  ;) ) to learn that ECS for the Arctic is much higher than for the rest of the globe. 

Note that I'm rather dubious about the overall validity of this as an estimate of ECS -- the numbers are very much plausible, but as we move from doing this for the whole globe to doing it for latitudinal zones, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the assumed (and fixed) TCR/ECS ratio, plus the assumption that the slopes are actually representative of TCR over this long time period.

With that caveat, here is a table with the CO2 vs temperature slopes, and the final ECS estimates:

ZoneT/CO2 slopeECS estimate

Thanks to wehappyfew and Archimid for the suggestions.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: October 13, 2018, 05:29:12 PM »

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: October 09, 2018, 01:02:59 AM »
Many decades ago many of the Southern States began charging trucks passing through by the miles driven on their roads. I've no doubt that something similar will be enacted in every jurisdiction and applied to EV's to make up for lost fuel taxes. Those charging at home, or from solar will still be required to pay their share.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: October 04, 2018, 06:59:32 PM »
I feel like one morning we are going to wake up and the headlines will read about how thousands of South Floridians *didn't* wake up that day as they suffocated and died during sleep when a red tide bloom hit critical mass and wafted over coastal neighborhoods.

What is the alternative? The blooms are now creeping toward Miami. They are getting worse over time. Large marine mammals are dying. So how long until they hit a point where humans are also overcome? With many experiencing respiratory issues as-is, things are not looking great.

The rest / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: October 01, 2018, 08:11:35 AM »
A daring idea to reduce income inequality. Every newborn should enter the world with at least $25,000 in the bank. That is the basic premise of a “baby trust,” an idea conceived by economists Darrick Hamilton of The New School and William Darity of Duke University. Since 1980, inequality has been on the rise worldwide, and Hamilton says it will keep growing due to this simple fact: “It is wealth that begets more wealth.” Policymakers and the public have fallen for a few appealing but inaccurate narratives about wealth creation — that grit, education or a booming economy can move people up the ladder — and we’ve disparaged the poor for not using these forces to rise, Hamilton says. Instead, what if we gave a boost up the ladder? A baby trust would give an infant money at birth — anywhere from $500 for those born into the richest families to $60,000 for the poorest, with an average endowment of $25,000. The accounts would be managed by the government, at a guaranteed interest rate of 2 percent a year. When a child reaches adulthood, they could withdraw it for an “asset-producing activity,” such as going to college, buying a home or starting a business. If we were to implement it in the US today, a baby trust program would cost around $100 billion a year; that’s only 2 percent of annual federal expenditures and a fraction of the $500 billion that the government now spends on subsidies and credits that favor the wealthy, Hamilton says. “Inequality is primarily a structural problem, not a behavioral one,” he says, so it needs to be attacked with solutions that will change the existing structures of wealth.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 27, 2018, 01:59:09 AM »
Nowadays the unread topics list is mostly a heap of threads where the same tired posters incessantly bash each other over frivolities. Certainly this lowers the attractiveness of the forum for new and current science-oriented users, who may wander off to other sites or quit altogether, while rant-oriented users are attracted and proliferate.

I'm going to try and see if I can keep the 'Recent Posts' list exclusive for Arctic-related topics. I've tried this before, but couldn't find anything. I'll make more of an effort this time.

And otherwise, it might be best to get rid of the 'Recent Posts' list altogether, and I would recommend everyone to click the 'notify' button for the threads they're interested in (that's how I do it, I don't even watch the 'Recent Posts' list).

To be continued...

And sorry for the off-topic, but it is important.

Edit: Found something, will try to implement tomorrow, no time now.

while as always things remain your choice i find every topic and everything people share in this forum interesting enough to read. does not necessarily mean that everything is good and agreed upon of course but before building an opinion of his own one should read.

for this reason i love the last read list because i simply open each one in a new tab and read or close the window if i have no time or no interest at the moment.

what's so difficult to choose and discard posts that are not for one person while another is interested and glad to be able to sift through them within half a minute or so?

one of the bigger while not recognized problems of our times is that everything has to be (is) specialised and fractured into a multitude of fields of expertise while in fact we should go back to see the whole picture more than detached details.

often solutions are making things worse because they are to narrow minded, focused on one or few fields of expertise while there is a complex system to deal with where everything is on whole.

a wholistic approach is what i'm talking about and the fact that many so called experts feel offended when they have to deal with information and discussions injected from the side is only making things worse.

another example how within a small group of people where the basic goal is the same or very similar, participants discredit each other.

BTW who complains about all this is off-topic him/herself and i totally disagree that an open discussion of any topic can be damaging itself.

if someone does not like some content he can simply go to the next post or skip for the moment.

we should pick up folks where they are, following a lonely eluded expert path will not lead to any mass-movement which is what we need to change the thinking pattern and behaviour of a multi-billion population.

i know the counter arguments to this which is why i said, your forum, your choice but i like it as it is.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 26, 2018, 12:34:08 PM »
What A-Team means is that the proportion of posts in the forum having zero or near-zero relevance to arctic sea ice or to climate change in general has been rising rapidly, diluting the forum's contents and sharply increasing the level of animosity. When I first stumbled on this forum a few years back the amount of such garbage was negligent, and working down the unread topics list was a very strong introduction and educational experience. It took me months of lurking to dare post something, due to the high level of science-oriented discussions. Nowadays the unread topics list is mostly a heap of threads where the same tired posters incessantly bash each other over frivolities. Certainly this lowers the attractiveness of the forum for new and current science-oriented users, who may wander off to other sites or quit altogether, while rant-oriented users are attracted and proliferate.

Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: May 19, 2018, 02:13:38 PM »
Wow just 10 Model S to offset a Falcon 9? I was expecting more. Model 3 is more efficient than Model S, so it would probably take less than 10 Model 3 to offset an F9 launch. That means that at  the current rate of 3.5k Model 3 a week, Tesla offsets 350 F9 launches a week. Not bad at all.

I wonder how those emissions cancellations work when Space X starts making its fuel from the Sun, water and ambient CO2, like they need to do to return from Mars.

I also wonder how many Loop trips are needed to cancel out an F9 launch.

Pages: [1]