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 - dbarce

Pages: [1]
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Low GHG Meat
« on: July 13, 2019, 07:29:50 AM »
GSY, Have you ever watched a cow and noticed they like to lay around a lot and chew their cud ?
As it turns out most of the emissions from bovines is from burping. So changing bovine diets, or special kelp, or genetics to modify gut flora are all the sorts of easy fixes that can shave off part of a farms total emissions. Not dumb not rocket science.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/92/
(subquote bolded by me)

What does this say about our 'stewardship' and our morality with regard to all other life?

How I have found living nature to be:
Humanity (of which civilisation is just a part) is no more than 1 leaf from the tree-of-life (not religious). All leafs are alike. All are unique solutions. The longer the evolutionary path, the more advanced the solution. Worth, wealth, affluence, ownership only exist in human fantasy.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: Albedo-Warming Potential
« on: June 17, 2019, 11:14:34 PM »
So I responded regarding these awesome graphs in the main thread wrt cloud cover and it got me thinking about cloud cover and satellites, surely someone must be getting a decent track record of how cloudy it is up in the arctic (or the whole planet for that matter), and i tracked down these links, I couldn't create an account, but if you're looking for a source of cloud cover info to relate back to the albedo stuff...

http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/

http://www.cloudsat.cira.colostate.edu/community-products/arctic-observation-and-reanalysis-integrated-system


3
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 07, 2019, 02:08:20 AM »
    A friend and colleague who is a PhD climate scientist, and whose work is regularly cited in this forum ... (but I'll leave his name out of it, even though Sean said it was OK to cite him... ooops)

    ....and who has watched Arctic weather for many years, brought the subject up at the end of a day-job phone conversation earlier this week.  He said it's hair raising, that he's never seen anything like what (as of Tue. June 4), was forecast for the next 10 days, esp. the latter part of that forecast as we head into mid-June.  One that I was not previously aware of was the amount of precipitable water in the air masses flowing into the Arctic.  e.g. https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.arc-lea.pwtr

  And the story is not limited to the Arctic sea ice.

    One striking example as he walked me through a hall of horrors of forecast images was an image of the infamous ~97% Greenland surface-melt day (edit: days in July & August 2012.  The one that was so bizarre that NASA seriously thought the satellite sensor must have gone bad because such a reading was unprecedented and unfathomable.  (And which my friend on the phone said GFS foresaw at least a week in advance, just to defend the underloved GFS a bit.  BTW - GFS is getting the FV3 upgrade June 24!). 

     Then he took me to the 10-day 10th day Greenland surface temp image for this JUNE   And while not covering the almost the entire GIS as happened in the 2012 blasts, the 2019 forecast image was for a 10-day average, not a single day, and the 2019 image was for mid-June, not July or August.

    Another striking image was the projected very early 2019 timing for loss of ice/snow cover north of Greenland.

    While I'm a long time climate hawk and ASIB watcher, not being a climate scientist and being only a recent ASIF lurker with a post count even smaller then Trump's tiny little extremities (I'm talking about his hands, jeesh, get your mind out of the gutter!), it's been difficult for me to interpret the "contextual significance" for all the recent hubub about the 2019 melt season. 

     So for others of you watching the discussion from that perspective, the point of this post is that a PhD climate scientist with expertise and experience in Arctic weather (while acknowledging that forecasts can change, that June is not the whole summer, and that the Arctic is fickle) is having his own "Holy Cow" moments this week, to put it politely.  Stay tuned.  And vote climate. 

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 05, 2019, 06:02:37 AM »
Juan, I know we all appreciate how reliable you are! And I cannot replicate your graphs or tables, so will always delete if you post later.
I think that the best part of my posts is that they are made half an hour later than the ADS NIPR VISHOP data release. I will continue trying to make them as soon as possible, but some days it is difficult to make it in that time frame. So, I think that it is good for the ASIF if someone else makes the post, if I haven’t made it at 4:15 UTC (13:15 Tokyo time).
I really appreciate your post and you don’t have to delete it. Even that my table and graph doesn’t come out, Gerontocrat post has the information with a better analysis and he usually post it a couple of hours later.

5
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: May 25, 2019, 09:42:22 AM »
Re: 15 meters - it is almost 10 floors.

0.15 meter per floor ?

sidd

6
Consequences / Re: Widespread Ocean Anoxia to be Noticeable by 2030
« on: April 14, 2019, 06:05:02 PM »
Thanks for the second paper as well. I need to look into the systematics of U-isotopes, but would expect that the isotope anomaly would also match a low in U/Ca.  The main problem with the Paleozoic studies is that essentially all the preserved material is from shallow water--plate tectonics has wiped out Ordivician age sea floor.  So, significant confirming evidence is needed before the hypothesis is accepted. 

It is very hard to make the whole ocean anoxic, since cutting off oxygen to the deep prevents recycling of nutrients to the surface. Shelf areas are most susceptible, like the anoxia that now appears off Oregon, e.g.:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JPO-D-15-0119.1

7
Walking the walk / Re: Terra Preta / Biochar - Theory and Practice
« on: February 05, 2019, 11:51:37 PM »
dbarce, I render lard , convert it to biodiesel , and run my tractors on my homemade fuel.
Technically not totally fossil fuel free yet because I buy barley for the pigs and there is embedded fossil fuel in the purchased feed. I am confident however that I could feed the pigs without purchased food if I only kept a few pigs rather than trying to make a living as a pig farmer. Making money is always a trick without fossil fuel consumption.
 Any carbon I might be able to sink on my farm from feedstocks for compost and cover crops I produce without fossil fuel should be potentially negative carbon. Bio char should contribute to long term soil carbon content furthering potential negative carbon goals.
A question for you dbarce, do you know any examples of anyone sinking more carbon than they consume ?
 

8
The linked reference indicates that Permafrost carbon feedback (PCF) will be stronger than currently assumed by consensus climate change models:

Katey Walter Anthony, Thomas Schneider von Deimling, Ingmar Nitze, Steve Frolking, Abraham Emond, Ronald Daanen, Peter Anthony, Prajna Lindgren, Benjamin Jones, Guido Grosse. 21st-century modeled permafrost carbon emissions accelerated by abrupt thaw beneath lakes. Nature Communications, 2018; 9 (1) DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05738-9

http://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05738-9

Extract: "These finding demonstrate the need to incorporate abrupt thaw processes in earth system models for more comprehensive projection of the PCF this century."

See also:

Title: "'Abrupt thaw' of permafrost beneath lakes could significantly affect climate change models"

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/08/180816143035.htm

9
I have been periodically encouraged to post again in other threads, but I have decided not to do so; nevertheless, while the following information could easily be posted in the "Adapting to the Anthropocene", the "Systemic Isolation" and/or other threads, I post it here because I feel that it may help some readers to better understand why mankind seems to be barreling towards an "Ice Apocalypse" when it is within our collective 'free feel' to stop proceeding on such a harmful path.

All of the following links lead to information about Karl Friston's various efforts to explain his 'free energy principle' which uses formulae (e.g. see the attached image) from physics to define the 'prediction error' of models (or 'inference engines') where by minimizing the 'free energy' one minimizes the 'prediction error' and thus minimizes surprises.  Friston go on beyond considering only traditional Bayesian 'inference engines' to define 'active inference' where active systems (say human minds) can use their free will to deal with surprises by either accepting the short-comings of the model (or 'inference engine' associated with a particular 'Markov Blanket') and make changes to the model, or by acting to make their predictions come true.

The 'free energy principle' can used to better understand how human society has made the collective decision that it has made to stay on a BAU pathway, and its mathematics can also be used to improve AI projections; that could possibly help society to better deal with abrupt climate change in the coming decades:

Title: "The Genius Neuroscientist Who Might Hold the Key to True AI"

https://www.wired.com/story/karl-friston-free-energy-principle-artificial-intelligence/

Extract: "Friston calls this his first scientific insight, a moment when “all these contrived, anthropomorphized explanations of purpose and survival and the like all seemed to just peel away,” he says. “And the thing you were observing just was. In the sense that it could be no other way.”

Hinton described a new technique he’d devised to allow computer programs to emulate human decisionmaking more efficiently—a process for integrating the input of many different probabilistic models, now known in machine learning as a “product of experts.”

Inspired by Hinton’s ideas, and in a spirit of intellectual reciprocity, Friston sent Hinton a set of notes about an idea he had for connecting several seemingly “unrelated anatomical, physiological, and psychophysical attributes of the brain.” Friston published those notes in 2005—the first of many dozens of papers he would go on to write about the free energy principle.

The psychologist Christopher Frith—who has an h-index on par with Friston’s—once described a Markov blanket as “a cognitive version of a cell membrane, shielding states inside the blanket from states outside.”

In Friston’s mind, the universe is made up of Markov blankets inside of Markov blankets. Each of us has a Markov blanket that keeps us apart from what is not us. And within us are blankets separating organs, which contain blankets separating cells, which contain blankets separating their organelles. The blankets define how biological things exist over time and behave distinctly from one another. Without them, we’re just hot gas dissipating into the ether.

The concept of free energy itself comes from physics, which means it’s difficult to explain precisely without wading into mathematical formulas. In a sense that’s what makes it powerful: It isn’t a merely rhetorical concept. It’s a measurable quantity that can be modeled, using much the same math that Friston has used to interpret brain images to such world-¬changing effect. But if you translate the concept from math into English, here’s roughly what you get: Free energy is the difference between the states you expect to be in and the states your sensors tell you that you are in. Or, to put it another way, when you are minimizing free energy, you are minimizing surprise.

So far, as you might have noticed, this sounds a lot like the Bayesian idea of the brain as an “inference engine” that Hinton told Friston about in the 1990s. And indeed, Friston regards the Bayesian model as a foundation of the free energy principle (“free energy” is even a rough synonym for “prediction error”). But the limitation of the Bayesian model, for Friston, is that it only accounts for the interaction between beliefs and perceptions; it has nothing to say about the body or action. It can’t get you out of your chair.

This isn’t enough for Friston, who uses the term “active inference” to describe the way organisms minimize surprise while moving about the world. When the brain makes a prediction that isn’t immediately borne out by what the senses relay back, Friston believes, it can minimize free energy in one of two ways: It can revise its prediction—absorb the surprise, concede the error, update its model of the world—or it can act to make the prediction true.

And in fact, this is how the free energy principle accounts for everything we do: perception, action, planning, problem solving. When I get into the car to run an errand, I am minimizing free energy by confirming my hypothesis—my fantasy—through action.

For Friston, folding action and movement into the equation is immensely important. Even perception itself, he says, is “enslaved by action”: To gather information, the eye darts, the diaphragm draws air into the nose, the fingers generate friction against a surface. And all of this fine motor movement exists on a continuum with bigger plans, explorations, and actions.

So what happens when our prophecies are not self-fulfilling? What does it look like for a system to be overwhelmed by surprise? The free energy principle, it turns out, isn’t just a unified theory of action, perception, and planning; it’s also a theory of mental illness."

See also:

Title: "Free energy principle"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle
&

Title: "Free Energy Principle — Karl Friston"


&

Title: "Karl Friston: Active inference and artificial curiosity"


&

Title: "Markov blanket"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markov_blanket

Extract: "In statistics and machine learning, the Markov blanket for a node in a graphical model contains all the variables that shield the node from the rest of the network. This means that the Markov blanket of a node is the only knowledge needed to predict the behavior of that node and its children. The term was coined by Judea Pearl in 1988."

Pages: [1]