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 - Klondike Kat

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: November 23, 2019, 04:06:26 PM »
Does anybody have an idea when this article was written?
I ask because:
1) There is a date given. It is today's date. It is always today's date. It was the date I put the article in my Bookmarks awhile ago when I put it in.
2) There is this sentence in it:
Chance of avoiding two degrees of global warming: 93%, but only if emissions of greenhouse gases are reduced by 60% over the next 10 years.
If this article was written in 2018, that is one thing. If it was written in 2008, that is something else.
Anybody know?

EDIT: I tried the Wayback Machine:*/
First saving December 7, 2007.
Definitely ----ed.

Or we can hope that the scientists saying these '10 years to save the world' articles are misleading:


Indeed, the jokes are being made. "Deja Vu - the Rio Climate Summit was in 1992. Back then 26 years ago activists said that we only had ten years to get climate change under control", grumbled one Twitter user. I doubt that this new deadline, coming after so many others, is going to sway anyone that wasn't already convinced of the significance of climate change.

It seems 'only had 10 years' goes back to 1992 or maybe further.

Back in 1992, maybe the narrative had a chance of being believed. After 27 years of it ... the reaction is more likely to be:
better hope it is all exaggeration to try to create more action,
or else it may become:  this proves the stuff is rubbish.

Exaggeration to try to create more action has it drawbacks.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 21, 2019, 03:28:09 PM »
"But I presume that you have no idea as to any mechanism behind why there should be any correlation between the edge of the continental shelf and the summer ice edge"

Well, people did not know for a long time the mechanisms behind why some herbs are useful, or eg. why winters are colder than summers. But they realized the pattern and without knowing the exact mechanisms, used these...

Well, I was dubious about Trump's prolife stance, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt since he had the endorsement (I voted for Kasich in the Primary). His picks to the Supreme Court seem to be in line with Right to Life, although I think he could have done better.
And I am serious about AGW. But I am also serious about abortion. If a million Americans were dying of heatstroke each year, I would vote for the environmentalist candidate, even if s/he were prochoice. Maybe in 2040 that will be the case, and I will be voting that way. But I am not living in 2040. I am living in 2019 and I have to arrange the issues in order of importance as they are right now. If there were a prolife environmentalist candidate who had an Irish Sweepstakes chance of winning I would vote for himer right now. But there isn't one to my knowledge.
I will be perfectly happy to discuss the science, economics, technology, etc. of AGW and leave politics out, if you do the same. Otherwise, you are saying that you can make any political assertions you want and I have the choice, if I disagree:
1) Agree with you (and lie).
2) Shut up (and you are the only one who gets to talk).
On the other hand, if you bring politics into it then I will bring my own beliefs here. If you can dish it out, you can take it. I have been called nasty things in my 20+ years on the Web, and I have never reported a post, and only one PM (who seemed to be taking on the role of moderator or administrator unannounced).
EDIT: And that is an interesting view on laws and God. I take it you think God is against legislating against the sin of rape? That is a less serious sin than Murder, which abortion is. So God is against meddling with people's free will to commit rape?

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 14, 2019, 05:53:48 PM »

"This means the effects of sea-ice loss are not limited to the ice-free regions themselves, but also lead to increased heat accumulation in the interior of the Arctic Ocean that can have climate effects well beyond the summer season," Timmermans said. "Presently this heat is trapped below the surface layer. Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year." "

What they don't tell you is

i) the most likely time of year for a mixing event to happen is when there is no ice and the heat would just get lost to space. (like happens with most of the excess heat that gets into the ocean during the summer already, it comes back out in the autumn)

ii) even if Capt. Nemo came along with his magic submarine and mixed it up during mid-winter, it would promptly freeze back over again. Ice keeps the underlying water warm during winter, take the ice away and it cools fast. There would be a year of thinner than normal ice, faster than normal summer melt out, and the impact would have dissipated.

iii) and in both of these cases its a one-off, that 30 years of stored heat has had its brief impact and disappeared to space and its going to take another few decades before its been stored back up again.

If you see a phrase like "two-fold increase in heat content" alarm bells should go off. Its a sign that results have been manipulated to make them seem more impressive than they actually are. Heat content multiples are meaningless because they can be set at whatever value the researcher likes by the choice of baseline. Choose a different baseline and the same data will give a 2% increase or a 10-fold decrease instead. Heat content increase by 0.1 J/kg is meaningful, but doubling isn't.

Premise one: human bodies to an extent generate their own body heat, primarily in response to the actions of their muscle mass; more muscular and physically active bodies generate more body heat than less muscled and less active bodies.

Premise two: muscle mass tends to peak in a person's twenties

It follows that each year would tend to feel warmer than the last to people until they hit peak muscle mass in their 20s, after which each year would tend to feel colder

It would seem to follow from this that climate change would seem more in keeping with subjective experience for younger people, and less in keeping for older people. Might this not extend to how people at different ages respond emotionally to climate change, and differing political beliefs regarding the need for action?  (Speaking in terms of overall population tendencies with many individual variations, of course).

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 06, 2019, 05:27:06 PM »
Kat, you are cherrypicking again. Global temperatures are rising. You know that!

PLS, put it into context. We were talking about the fact, that the US population does not really feel adverse effects of climate change as opposed to eg Germany, and that is why most of the population (again, as opposed to Germany, or more broadly Europe) does not feel the need to act.

Plain and simple: people act when they themselves feel the change not because the IPCC or anyone else says so.

Europe experienced some very strange summers (hot and dry) and that directly led to much more popular support for green parties. Again, as opposed to the US.

See attached chart of very hot summers in Central and Western) Europe vs the US

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 05, 2019, 01:11:18 PM »
I’m wondering if the very quick refreeze is actually a bad thing? I remember several people here stating there was a lot of snow on the ice pack in May. Which delayed melting (melt ponds didn’t form). I know the snow can come from other areas but the quicker the refreeze of the Arctic Ocean the less moisture would be available for snow to fall in the arctic.

Does this make sense?

While there are arguments pro and con - "sealing in heat", less venting to space, less snow vs more humidity and warmth in the lower atmosphere, more insulating snow, etc. etc. I have to defer to Occam's Razor: more and earlier freezing is good for the ice; less and later freezing is bad. This is probably overly simplistic and there are likely countervailing samples here and there across the arctic, but overall, that's my guess.

There are 2 poles so n=2 and a 2-sided dice is a coin ;)

Science / Re: Climate Change Deniers can’t Spin the Truth!
« on: October 22, 2019, 10:03:26 PM »
Undoubtedly the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was slow to awareness:  just contrast that 2014 response to their current website (also linked earlier).

They write:
We stand with every American seeking a cleaner, stronger environment—for today and tomorrow.
Our climate is changing and humans are contributing to these changes. Inaction is simply not an option.

Combating climate change will require citizens, government, and business to work together. American businesses play a vital role in creating innovative solutions to protect our planet.

A challenge of this magnitude requires collaboration, not confrontation, to advance the best ideas and policies. Together, we can forge solutions that improve our environment and grow our economy—leaving the world better for generations to come.
I will quibble with their antagonism to confrontation and their faith in economic growth, but they are not the voice of a certain President of the United States (any more).

Can we have our cake & eat it ?

"Together, we can forge solutions that improve our environment and grow our economy"

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 02:48:55 PM »
We can't possibly know!

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 02:28:52 PM »
Yes, but when will the Arctic go ice free?

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 07, 2019, 02:48:52 PM »
I do think this is more than a little overblown.
But I won't get drawn into a debate.
It was stupid. It didn't bring the NOAA to a halt.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 06, 2019, 07:50:41 AM »
The major problem with this linear (or any other) projections is: why do you start your projection from 1979 why not 1969 or 1989? And the only reason is that that is when the dataset starts. And that is a very very poor reason...

at the minimum you should start your projection when AGW started in earnest...if you can nail it

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 05, 2019, 06:40:42 PM »
What do the posters know that the experts do not?

Shouldn't we assume the experts know more than the posters here?
Shouldn't it be:
 What do the experts know that the posters here do not?

I certainly don't count myself as an expert.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 05, 2019, 03:58:23 PM »
Unless there is a well supported physical reason why ice has stopped melting.

The ice at minimum now is mostly north of 80 degrees and still nested along the CAA. This ice will be more difficult to melt out and thus will continue to result in 2nd year ice forming.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: September 02, 2019, 07:27:09 PM »
Hence, they is little agreement.

Totally agree to disagree. :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: September 02, 2019, 05:36:11 PM »
To be specific: 40 datapoints are not enough to decide whether there has been a change in trend. But it's plenty sufficient to show that there is a downward trend!

The number of datapoints needed does of course depend on how much the trend changes, the level of noise in the data, and perhaps other factors.

Also 40 datapoints is not all we have got. We have other months data which also show similar shapes. How much use that is may depend on autocorrelation, but I think there isn't much autocorrelation between maximum and minimum.

So anyone want to venture a calculation of when we should be able to say change of trend is statistically significant rather than just plucking 10 years out of the air? 10 years seems a bit long to me if the difference in trend rate is noticeably different. If new data points tend to be just above long term linear rate then it will take a long time, probably longer than 10 years. So the answer may need to be in terms of 'if x difference then y years but if z different then w years. So maybe a better question is at what statistical level of confidence are we at now? (Where not reasonably established until 95% confidence reached.)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Basic questions about melting physics
« on: September 01, 2019, 04:08:48 AM »
Nobody else cares if somebody insults you.

Good post imo Glen but I disagree with this last bit because I do care.
If somebody uses nasty language, impolite insults, name calling etc. they don't get a like from me, even if I think the rest of the post is really good.
I don't think it has any influence but it is my way. In some cases I'll post a question about it.

OK back to topic, sorry.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: August 30, 2019, 08:42:39 AM »
I intensely dislike Trump, but I'd appreciate it if folks would refrain from posting wishes for a direct hit anywhere, including Mar a Lago. A hurricane is not a pinpoint bomb and there are real people living there and around, I am sure they are unhappy and offended to read such stuff even if made jokingly.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: August 30, 2019, 07:59:42 AM »
So much hate over here.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 01:32:41 AM »
I'm split .. now or never . I chose one .. b.c.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: July 13, 2019, 05:33:40 PM »
The army Corp of engineers stated that the river crested earlier today at just below 17 feet, due to the storm surge.  Below the original forecast of 20.  The levees have held - so far
I think there was also talk about the levees further up river that will get the effect of a load of water coming down in two or thre days time, i.e. not all about the storm surge in the lower reaches.

Maybe I was wrong about that.

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 10, 2019, 11:57:06 PM »
The difficulty with hurricane/cyclone numbers is that there are too few of them to give statistically robust results. Right now the consensus seems to be that there will be an increase in intensity, but not necessarily an increase in the number.

As for the models, they do not have the resolution to effectively simulate processes within a hurricane. Some techniques such as downscaling make the attempt, but there are questions as to their effectiveness.

Aside: Accusations of trolling and denial do not advance the discussion. I reply in another thread.,1562.msg204822.html#msg204822


The water level of the Great Lakes rises and falls seasonally and the longer term trend of the Lake Michigan does not suggest imminent catastrophe.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 29, 2019, 08:11:36 PM »
wdnm said:
On the other hand, even Americans are starting to wake up to what is happening. The next 10 years will be full of more awakenings, and quite certainly attempts at massive political responses. Whether they will succeed or fail is another thing.

Juan C. García said:
So what do I expect for 2030? Global consciousness on the importance of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I hope this will happen on 2019, though!

Maybe. But I don't see it yet around where I am...alarmists are still alarming, deniers are still denying. I changed my view on AGW only because I changed my view on PO...I always knew BAU would heat up the Earth if it went on, I just was surprised how long it is going on. And as long as the political situation is as it is, I will have to reluctantly continue voting for a GOP while simultaneously crying "A pox on both parties!" If I had a candidate who agreed with me on all issues it would be different, but I guess the only way to do that is if each person votes for themselves. Then it would go to the House for POTUS and each congressperson would cast a vote for themselves, for example. Nobody would get elected.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:26:49 PM »
As something still of a newbie, was I unwise in starting this thread?

There are loads of other threads about the when and how of planetary eco-system collapse.
They often seem to end up bad-tempered.

But what the hell, here is my prediction for 2030.

- We know CO2 ppm will have increased considerably. (That 12 years we had is now 10, as the 2019 increase in CO2 emissions and CO2 ppm that is happening and will happen has stolen two years),
- We know that deforestation will continue apace certainly in the tropical forests of West Africa, South East Asia and South America,
-desertification and decline in soil mass and fertility will continue,
- At best surface air temperatureswill have increased to close to +1.5 degrees, at worst at or above +1.5,
- The 365 day trailing average of Arctic sea ice extent and area will be less than it is now,
- Life in the oceans will continue to decline through over fishing, hypoxia and all the other oxias,
 - there will be geo-engineering field experiments of various forms in operation at considerable scale,
- Water will continue to be often in excess where it is not wanted and often in shortage where it is needed.
etc etc etc....
- For most, but not all, forms of life, the planet will be a place a little / a lot less livable. (delete as applicable).

Billion dollar disasters may well be a minor part of that less livable scenario, even if that is what does and will get the headlines. It is having to walk a long way for a bucketful of dirty water every day for year after year when suffering from endemic malnutrition that makes a place a lot less livable. When even that is gone less livable becomes unlivable. So to my last prediction. A lot more climate refugees within countries and between countries.

And to finish, there is no point in disputing that which I have written . I am right. If you disagree you are merely deluded and demonstrate your total woeful ignorance of the reality of the environmental change that is well underway. Your comments even though as yet unposted are not worthy of reply. For this reason "this is all I am going to say about that".

(This is called getting one's bad-tempered retaliation in first).

The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: April 15, 2019, 10:58:21 AM »
I had a funny thought.

Not so funny at all. Americans are made believe the Russian interference in the 2016 US elections was something extraordinary. In fact, it's the most normal thing in the world. It has happened all the time throughout history.

Let's look into the history books and see what Trump did to support Netanyahu for example. Oh wait, this is not yet printed. But the internet has it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 06, 2019, 10:38:04 PM »

      Which one is more important? 42.

@Arachmid: I fear you misstate the question. All true HHGTTG scholars know that the true
question is "What is six times nine?"

      42 definitely!  It has ultimate meaning.

That, at least, we can agree on.

(Aside - We can therefore conclude that the world only makes sense in base 13)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are 3 dimensions better than 2?
« on: April 03, 2019, 02:51:19 PM »
Extent has fallen by nearly 1 million km2 since extent maximum on March 12th to March 31st. That is 10% of the average total season melt c.f. the average of 3%. Area decreased by 862 k.

In the same period volume increased by 209 km3 from 22,209 to 22,218 km3.

As a result thickness increased.

So, did sea ice increase or decrease in that period? Which dimensions will you choose to use to make the call?


Tamino usually makes sense.  (?)

So Tamino still believes the illusion that whoever wins the Democrat primary and the US Presidency will actually make a difference to the global climate crisis and the GHG emissions of the USA into the future. Gosh they might even be able to roll out a Green New Deal ... wow.


There's one born every minute.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: March 07, 2019, 12:53:37 PM »
This is largely a two-dimensional system,

it's about energy and how much energy is needed to melt how much ice is mostly about volume.

of course area plays a role when it comes to insolation and air-flow but nevertheless it's about how much energy is needed to melt a given amount of ice and "amount" is equivalent to volume.

And greater surface area absorbs more energy.

or reflects ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: March 07, 2019, 06:22:15 AM »
Two points is enough to define a line but it is not nearly enough to even consider defining a trend. Maybe it wasn't intentional but that is cherry picking the data and can be used to say practically anything.  :)

I remember Shared Humanity complaining last summer when Chicago was breaking heat records.  I was there during some of the worst of it.  I guess this is payback for everyone who complained about the heat 🤔

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: March 05, 2019, 12:46:29 PM »
Polio is the result of infection by the poliovirus.

The politics / Re: The Empire vs Venezuela - News and History
« on: February 22, 2019, 07:52:00 AM »
The Empire vs Venezuela? Seriously?

Venezuela vs. Reason
Venezuela vs. its own people
Socialism still doesn't work

These 3 are the real subjects, not the above

I am truly amazed by the spread of socilaism in the West especially amongst the youth. It can only happen to those who did not live in a totalitarian-socialist/communist regime. I did. I know how terrible it is and why it does not work. We had a joke: "Introduce socialism in the Sahara and soon sand will be in short supply". These regimes ALWAYS destroy human dignity, lead to opression, suffering, and lowered living standards. I can not comprehend how anyone can take the side of Maduro (Chavez).

The West has lived too well for too long. You do not appreciate what you have, that is why you will lose it and be sorry afterwards but it will be too late by then. Witness the stupidity of Trump and Brexit - the writing is on the wall.

Consequences / Re: Abrupt Warming Event
« on: February 12, 2019, 05:03:45 PM »
Agreed, the "UN FCCC system" has turned into a force for cognitive dissonance, allowing us to continue to believe things that are being proven patently false by actual real world events - like being able to reconcile endless growth with combating climate change. The next IPCC report will be interesting reading as to what is the next wheeze to reconcile the unreconcilable, maybe ramping up BECCS and fossil fuel CCS even more, adding in speculative DACS (Direct Air Capture), or perhaps even a little SRM (Solar Radiation Management). A menu for self-deception.

-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?

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 26, 2019, 04:35:07 PM »

I think this qualifies as "weird" weather:

The NCEP GFS 0.5deg analysis 2m air temperature has the Northern Hemisphere average temperature dropping to it's lowest in at least 4 years over the coming 7 days.

Hmmmm....if I read this chart correctly, the temperatures will drop all the way to the average temperature for the days in question. What is weird about this?

The rest / Re: Elections 2018 USA-Poll
« on: November 08, 2018, 01:18:45 PM »
Well, there *was* a Blue Wave, seriously under-reported.

Ok, you can have "small wave" instead of "big ripple"  ;)

Again - this still wasn't as big as people have been saying for the last 2 years. Trump still has 100% negative coverage besides FOX, endless protests and demonstrations against him , he still has about the same 42'ish average rating and the best the dems managed was to win the house by 10-12 seats and also lose more in the senate.  I guess each side feels better claiming victory.

The rest / Re: Elections 2018 USA
« on: November 07, 2018, 07:47:36 PM »
VICTORY !! said the democrats

VICTORY !! said Trump.

Not a lot has changed in opinions amongst the population of the USA in general. Say I

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: November 02, 2018, 09:11:13 AM »
The simple fact is that, with climate change, food insecurity across the planet will grow unrelentingly. Pointing to the effects of a couple of years of global bountiful harvests as a way of arguing that this need not be the case is no different than pointing to the effects of a La Nina as evidence that global warming will not continue.

As we are force marched to our inevitable future where billions will die of starvation and heat stress, it is necessarily so that the weakest and most vulnerable will die first. The sick, the elderly, young children, the poor will go first. This is no different than what happened in the Nazi death camps during WWII. The rest will toil relentlessly until we meet a similar fate.

The thing is, however, that those three years came on the back of a few decades of year on year reductions in the number of people going hungry. The last 3 years have set us back to where we stood 7 years beforehand, but there are still many fewer people going hungry than there were a decade before that, and it remains to be seen whether the previous downward trend will resume, or whether we truly are experiencing this sad change of direction now.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October mid-monthly update)
« on: October 25, 2018, 03:12:07 PM »
It doesn't really belong in this thread, but a lot of the argument between bbr and others hinges on the speed at which arctic warming is likely to speed up Greenland ice cap melting and  bbr is right that the Greenland ice caps's loss rate hasn't really been dented yet - which certainly doesn't mean that there isn't any climate change, as all the sea ice data presented on this thread shows.

Sam writes of the ice cap being "big and deep" and taking something like "100 - 200" years to go.

I am not sure whether some of the participants of this thread realise just how massive the ice cap is.

With a mass of over 2.6 x 106 Gt at the present annual rate of loss (ca. 3  x 102 Gt /yr), the cap would take ca. 8000 yrs to melt, 40 - 80x longer than the figure mentioned by Sam.

To my way of thinking the rate of the ice cap's loss is going to have to speed up by a factor of 10 to 100 before ice cap loss in itself is going to be a big determining factor in climate change and until that happens - and this is bbr's point - there are a number of negative feedback loops that, at least in the last few years, tend to have slowed down rather than speeded up the rate of Greenland ice cap ice loss.

So the question of what happens next to climate and weather after the likely occurrence of an ice free arctic in summer during the next decade or so remains open to speculation - the effects will probably be as dramatic as bbr thinks, but one scenario that is unlikely is that there will be any really significant change to the mass of the Greenland ice cap, which still has ca. 99.9% of its mass intact compared to 2002.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 18, 2018, 01:00:03 PM »
James Hansen just posted this graph a couple of days ago. Idea being that when you connect La Niña minima you get a decadal trend (for the last decade) of 0.38C.

There was talk about that in the comments at Tamino's recently.  I'm not the only person who was disappointed to see Hansen doing that.  It's the kind of cheesy amateurish thing that you'd normally see elsewhere.  Like, I remember some denialist connecting the 1998 El Nino and 2010 El Ninos in HADCRUT and saying "see, no warming".

Hansen can do better than that. 

Edit to add: Welcome to ASIF, wdmn.  Sorry about the grumpy response to your first post here...

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 12, 2018, 03:48:45 AM »
Here is the animation I mentioned. It focuses on the behavior of the Chukchi on its way to being seasonally ice-free. Before 1990 the Chukchi was rather stable, with about half of it melting each year. But then changes came along - earlier melt onset, a higher percentage of melt culminated by the first BOE in 2007, a later refreeze onset, and a later refreeze completion. The process wasn't immediate, but over two decades the changes are enormous. The length of time in which the Chukchi is less than fully ice-covered has increased from ~5 months to ~8 months.
I believe the CAB will undergo a quite similar process, though hopefully longer. The process has already started, and 2012 and 2016 proved a lot of the CAB is vulnerable, while 2018 is proving that the refreeze can be delayed significantly.

Notable years pushing the Chukchi envelope:
1991 (late refreeze)
1993 (new minimum)
1998 (new minimum)
2004 (new minimum)
2006 (late refreeze)
2007 (new minimum near zero, late refreeze)
2012 (earlier near zero)
2016 (late final refreeze, first into January)
2017 (early melt, late refreeze)

Notes: January of the following year is appended to each year. The date range shown is April 15th to January 20th. Data is NSIDC extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 08, 2018, 10:02:04 AM »
I'm amazed that people can still take extrapolations seriously. If you had extrapolated in 2007, 8, or 12 based on either extent or volume or whatever, we should already be ice free. We are not, which proves the point: extrapolation does not work. It doesn't work, beacuse it is a nonlinear system, and melting the shelf is not the same as melting the central pack. Therefore extrapolations are rather a waste of time.

Even if you wanted to extrapolate I would urge to disregard anything other than the central pack, as most everything else melts out anyway, and extrapolate just the central pack going down to zero. Even this is probably close to useless but much better than using the total volume or extent numbers.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 07, 2018, 04:25:25 PM »
....snip  Focusing too much on Kavanaugh, and ignoring other issues, may be detrimental.

It sure will be. Also I have heard from the GOP side people calling to continue and haunt Ford ,her lawyers and some of the other accusers to "get to the bottom of this". For both sides this is really a bad idea.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 03, 2018, 08:07:34 AM »
At the same time as all the stuff you have written up there...  Fords testimony is being attacked for multiple perjury instances. One of her ex boyfriend has said in written statement

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.

The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her "life-long best friend" prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's office.

He also claimed Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a small, 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door -- apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh's alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.

Ford "never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit," the former boyfriend wrote. On Thursday, Ford testified, "I was hoping to avoid getting on an airplane. But I eventually was able to get up the gumption with the help of some friends and get on the plane." She also acknowledged regularly -- and, in her words, "unfortunately" -- traveling on planes for work and hobbies.

It seems the more one digs the more comes up. EVERYONE is lying at some level.

I also see that Feinstein is asking that the new FBI investigation not go public. Strange.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: October 02, 2018, 04:18:49 PM »

Trump's approval/disapproval ratings are pretty stable, according to  But at this stage, the important opinion polls are about the upcoming Congressional races.  There does seem to be a slow, steady  trend of improving chances for the Dems:

The problem with most of these polls is that the total of both sides is not 100%. In this specific aggregate we have a total of 90% and most others are the same. Where are those other 10% going? In the current atmosphere I would say many are GOP or Trump supporters that aren't sure or don't want to be in polls.

The rest / Re: GOP Losing Ground for the 2018 Mid-Term Election
« on: September 30, 2018, 11:25:13 PM »

I suspect that will happen only if the FBI finds some credible evidence to support Ford’s allegations.  If their investigation supports Kavanaugh’s claims or they find nothing, then I would expect a confirmation.  The Democrats have bet everything on an FBI investigation.  If it comes up blank, they will be out of options.  On a side note, the latest poll in Cal, shows Feinstein’s lead down to 11, and her support at less than half.  This is a big drop, since before the allegations of Dr. Ford were presented.
That's a huge loss of support in a very Blue State.
If Ford vs Kavanaugh isn't playing well in California, what does that do to Democratic hopes in much needed Purple States?

FWIW I'm ignoring the possibility of the FBI digging up anything new that will sway opinions in the next few days. Feinstein has had Ford's claims for some time & if more corroboration was out there we would have heard it by now.

Pages: [1]