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 - Tom_Mazanec

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
If you include land use changes then we are still on RCP8.5.


2
Arctic sea ice / Re: Near Real Time Sea Ice Volume
« on: January 14, 2020, 07:32:39 AM »
Using a preliminary GISS-equivalent temperature for December and filtering out those short-term influences shows 2019 as the warmest year since modern records began.
Ocean temps apparently reached their highest levels yet, according to this article in the Guardian.

2019 shows a marked jump on the year before, also interesting is the apparent change in slope after 1990.


3
Arctic sea ice / Re: Near Real Time Sea Ice Volume
« on: January 14, 2020, 02:36:59 AM »
    It could just be another example of year to year variation, but seen as a trend indicator, losing 13% of thickness over a one year span is ominous.  Really makes me wonder what the upcoming melt season will bring. 

    Apart from the direct effect on total volume, the change in ice quality does not bode well for ice survival.  Maybe the remaining 2020 winter will reverse the striking difference between 2019 and 2020 in fraction of ice over 3 meters thick.  If not, 2020 melt season will start with the ASI preconditioned to match or exceed previous record for amount of summer ice melt, and from a low volume starting point.  It is both interesting and devastating to witness this process unfold.

    The NASA and NOAA GISS temperature observations for December 2019 will come out next week and thus statements about the 2019 full-year global average surface temperature.  By the face value, 2019 will almost certainly rank #2, just a bit (ca. 0.02C) below 2016. 

    But 2016 was a monster El Nino year and at the peak of upward solar cycle influence on temperature.  Filtering out the effect of the ENSO ONI3-4 sea surface temperature, solar, and aerosol influences that cause year to year variation reveals the underlying trend.  Using a preliminary GISS-equivalent temperature for December and filtering out those short-term influences shows 2019 as the warmest year since modern records began.

4
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 09, 2020, 01:45:26 PM »
Does anyone have access to the red graph that shows each year as a wavy horizontal line stacked above previous years?
Thanks
Terry
Hi Terry, were you thinking of these? From http://folk.uio.no/roberan
Mozi

Thank you so much!
They provide a very easy to visualize picture of the increasing growth of CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as the fluxuations through the year.

Thanks again
Terry
You can also download the movie at http://folk.uio.no/roberan/t/MLO_weekly.shtml

5
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 10:55:00 AM »
El Cid, anthropogenic biosphere collapse (and mass extinction of life) are happening without a high temperature rise. Civilisation is doing it by itself.
The +4°C GMST is a separate effect. It is from anthropogenic global warming i.e. civilisation is doing it.

I think you are deluded if you think Canada will improve. Wait until the forests start burning and dying. Wait until Canada has received millions of climate refugees. Could the Alberta tar sands burn? Where will Canada's food come from without ecosystem functions? Where will Canada's potable water come from once aquifers are empty? Glaciers are disappearing so no hydropower.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 08, 2020, 01:06:07 AM »
ps .. please don't all but the shit dumper's jump ship .. there is a long way to go to the melting season .
It was never about the videos I posted, was it, you little shit? You just don't want me to post anything at all, isn't it, you miserable little shit?
Seriously?
First, you want Australia to burn in hell, then you blame drunkness and fail to apologize.
When asked to stop derailing the thread then immediately double down and derail it even more.
To add insult to injury, you ask Neven to delete personal attacks (I assume) on you and not long after you are insulting people.
Seriously.... just stop it, you are killing the thread.

7
The unfortunate reality is that people do not behave logically. Neither does economics work in the way that free marketeers would wish to believe. People work diligently to protect their own interests. For many extremely wealthy interests that means distorting the political, social, and economic systems to ensure their investments continue to pay out.

That renewables are cheaper than coal and oil only now means that political and financial incentives and disincentives are being put in place to prevent economic factors from causing change. As with everything else, this is less effective than those interests would like, and far more effective than prudence necessitates to avoid calamity.

Said differently- economics will not save us because a whole lot of very financially interested parties have their very heavy hands on the scales. Wisdom and intellect won’t save us either for the same reason. Self interest also won’t save us for the same reason.

Add to all of those the time lags involved. People tend to act primarily based on felt pain. With climate change, by the time we feel the change it is already decades too late to act meaningfully.

ASLR does a great service for us in highlighting many of the papers that show the various factors involved. Under current rules, those won’t even be considered until a decade after they are published.

That of course is based on the lame idea that we need to base our decisions on settled science solely. Rather than using the precautionary principle (looking out through the windshield to see what’s coming) our rules require that the windshield be painted black and that we base our decisions on using binoculars to look at where we were in the past. 

Add to that the several year to decade long lag between the time the data comes into existence and the time the studies are completed and published and we are forced to base our decisions on information and reality that is at least a dozen years old.

Under that system we have no possibility of avoiding calamity and catastrophe. The real trajectory will then be based on the high end of the range of projected outcomes - made worse by our refusal to recognize our own limited understanding of the positive feedbacks that makes the reality even worse than our projections.

Sam

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 28, 2019, 04:27:25 PM »
From Sig's figures at #1135 above.


VW emits ~1% of global CO2 emissions while producing 1 of every 8 vehicles globally.

therefor


All cars combined must account for ~ 8% of global CO2 emissions.


............


Will a < 8% reduction put us in line for a 1.5 or 2C future, or is much more required of us?


Is reducing some fraction of this 8% through generous subsidies a reasonable approach? Would tossing money at more efficient HVAC, demanding better insulated homes, or requiring freight to travel by rail produce better results for fewer dollars?


I'm in favor of electrified buses, light rail & HSR, but if 8% is the maximum savings possible from automotive travel, then perhaps other avenues need to be explored.


Would a 4 day work week make a difference in the most polluting nations?
Mandatory white roofs would have a huge bang for the buck.
Declaring certain regions off limits for human habitation due to the high ecological costs of heating or cooling would produce immediate results.
Outlawing/discouraging lawns while mandating or encouraging ornamental trees in urban settings would save potable water, provide shade & eliminate powered lawnmowers. A triple headed winner!
Mandating repairable appliances saves dollars and GHGs.
Encouraging adobe style construction to moderate diurnal temperature swings is hard to beat.
Eliminating single use cans and bottles saves waste and eliminates plastic.
Mandate dual pane windows/doors cut power bills winter and summer.
High tariffs on AC units, high subsidies for evaporative coolers - wherever applicable.
Encourage high rises that incorporate housing, retail, government offices, service industries & light manufacturing/assembling. - a village within a building.
Discourage/eliminate bitcoin mining.
Mandate tree preservation.
Discourage/eliminate outdoor lighting.


None of these address transportation, yet combined have the potential to eliminate far more CO2 from the atmosphere than the electrification of automobiles.


I fear that many are focusing so tightly on the presumed advantages of eliminating ICE vehicles that they've lost sight of the other 92% of our problem. If we drain the coffers to promote EV's, will we have enough dollar$ left over when the bill for the other expensive programs our governments will face comes due? Will promoting an EV subsidy satisfy most voters demand for an ecological electoral platform?


Terry

9
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 24, 2019, 09:53:21 PM »
To win in today's twitter world, the Democrats need a snake-oil salesman with a better pitch than Trump.

Forget decent policies, forget reasoned debate, find someone to out-Trump Trump.

Trouble is, then the Democrat establishment is likely to find itself as the Republican establishment finds itself - in thrall to a demagogue.

10
A little thing called scientific reticence:

11
Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:57:19 PM »
Hypothetical situation:
"I can't handle this. It must not be true that only civilisation is destroying all the forests, all life. I must find ways to water down all the good talk about those wild savages. To convince them that the savages are not better than us! Aarrgg. CAN'T be better than us. Impossible! I must convince them that us is all there is. Aaarrgg! it can't be trueee!"
hypothetical situation:

"Oh no! It can't be! I want to believe that there truly was a Golden Age, when man and all the beasts of this world lived in harmony in the Garden of Eden. What is this guy saying? He is destroying my butterfly-filled dreams! I know that modern industrial civilization is evil, and it was perfect during the great old days, when half of babies died before age 5 and expected lifespan was 35 years at most. Oh yes, those were the days. I won't let anyone spoil the glorious past when there still was balance in the Force!"

12
Policy and solutions / Re: Solar Roadways
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:10:48 PM »
You just have to watch the road gangs laying 3 feet of concrete, to support the weight of traffic in the expectation that they will have to dig it up and relay it 10 years later and redo it.

No further debunking needed. You will not create a solar panel that has the strength to resist something feet of concrete cannot.

13
Hot off the presses

https://www.nature.com/collections/bfihgidbhc

Arctic change and mid-latitude weather
The Arctic is warming much faster than the rest of the planet, a phenomenon called Arctic amplification. The enhanced warming results in a massive loss in sea ice and snow cover, which in turn interact with the atmosphere. These changes can have consequences beyond the Arctic region and they have been related to an increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events across the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes.
The possible link between Arctic change and mid-latitude climate and weather has spurred a rush of new observational and modelling studies. While there are some arguments for a causal relationship between Arctic amplification and mid-latitude weather extremes, the significance of an Arctic influence is still discussed. To reflect on this vivid debate, this Nature Research collection combines commentary and reviews articles with primary research articles published in Nature Communications, Nature, Nature Geoscience and Nature Climate Change. show less

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: November 22, 2019, 08:36:31 AM »
I remember the Occupy Wall Street process:

1. The state and media play nice and try to placate them, including politicians, media stars etc. engaging with them
- Doesn't make them go away or accept the "normal behaviour" of asking politely for mild changes

2. The state and media make fun of them and belittle them, "naive young people" blah, blah, blah.
- They still don't go away

3. The state and media try to make it harder for them, insult them, assume winter will empty the encampments
- They still don't go away

4. The state forcibly shuts them down and the media mostly look the other way and blame OWS for any violence
- They are forced underground and dispersed

For XR moving past stage 1 onto stage 2?

15
The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: November 21, 2019, 04:36:37 AM »
philopek
I don't believe we've a lot of time left before were faced with a horrific catastrophe. I don't think it kills everyone, but I do believe it's the end of the of the civilization cycle that we're in. By the time hominids again reach a stage where space travel is possible they won't be Homo Sapiens any longer. Evolution leaps about after a "Great Die Off", and I think we're just about due for one.


Whatever succeeds us will have a much harder time making 'progress' than our ancestors had, simply because we've picked all of the low hanging fruit. It took us ~ 10k yrs. to get from the end of the old stone age (paleolithic), to where we are in an "information" age, but we did it with abundant coal, copper, and oil that was pooling on the surface, ready for use to seal early sailboats - before we discovered how valuable it could become as liquid fuel. The beasties that we father may even be brighter than ourselves, but they'll have none of our advantages and it will take them much longer (if ever) to reach our stage of development.


I think they'll reach a paleolithic level with no particular problems. (We did leave plenty of knappable rocks). :) But the neolithic will be more difficult with the lack of diverse species, the poisoning of large swaths of land, and much of the oceans still (hopefully) recovering. The copper age, bronze age and iron ages are steps that they'll need to circumvent, and it's difficult to imagine an industrial age without coal, copper or iron.


If they do follow our lead and look quizzically towards space, it will take many eons to get there, many more that it took our species, and we probably wouldn't recognize them as our descendants. We certainly wouldn't view them as being human.


Sorry about the rambling, but I craved a distraction from Spacex. ::)
Terry


16
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: November 20, 2019, 08:31:26 PM »
IMHO the best thing for astronomy is to launch very large space-based telescopes. The interference of the atmosphere, pollution, dust, LEO and GEO satellites, Earth gravity, Earth rotation, seismic activity, and other disruptions could be avoided, parallax could be increased, and measurement precision could be much improved (layman's opinion, not substantiated).
SpaceX could pave the way for such launches both by increased launch weight and by lower costs. Maybe Musk could win some points with astronomers by offering a free or half-price launch for such a telescope.

17
The rest / Re: Astronomical news
« on: November 19, 2019, 06:32:28 PM »
With our current technology, I still reckon that for humankind - there is no Planet B
Raman !
It's not clear to me that manned interplanetary travel will ever take place.

This all depends what is meant with "ever"

While i think i get your meaning and ever is meant to say "any time soon" and i agree, ever is only right if mankind does not survive the next billion years.

I'm not trying to have an opinion, that would be somehow futile, whether mankind will be still around in 1 billion years, but IF "we" are still around we shall HAVE to go, before the great heat up and ultimate digestion of planet earth by the red giant the sun will become.

I'm not saying the number o 1B is a straight valid number, just an approximate time in time when we shall seriously have to do some building, developing and testing to be capable once we have to space travel to survive.

https://phys.org/news/2015-02-sun-wont-die-billion-years.html

https://www.universetoday.com/12648/will-earth-survive-when-the-sun-becomes-a-red-giant/

https://phys.org/news/2016-05-earth-survive-sun-red-giant.html

18
...
 Furthermore, the 40-year update of Limits to Growth provides projections very much inline with our current BAU situation, and which projects a coming major socioeconomic contraction very much inline with my proposed sixth family of IPCC forcing scenarios (see the last two images, respectively).

Not only did Limits to Growth project a socio-economic collapse circa 2050, but so have the Australians:

Title: "Climate Change Could End Human Civilisation as We Know It by 2050, Analysis Finds"

https://www.sciencealert.com/by-2050-climate-change-could-alter-human-civilisation-as-we-know-it

Extract: "The new report, co-written by a former executive in the fossil fuel industry, is a harrowing follow-up to the Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration's 2018 paper, which found that climate models often underestimate the most extreme scenarios.

Endorsed by former Australian defence chief Admiral Chris Barrie, the message is simple: if we do not take climate action in the next 30 years, it is entirely plausible that our planet warms by 3°C and that human civilisation as we know it collapses.

Under this scenario, the authors explain, the world will be locked into a "hothouse Earth" scenario, where 35 percent of the global land area, and 55 percent of the global population, will be subject to more than 20 days a year of "lethal heat conditions, beyond the threshold of human survivability."

With a runaway event like this, climate change will not present as a normal distribution, but instead will be skewed by a fat tail – indicating a greater likelihood of warming that is well in excess of average climate models.
Under a business-as-usual scenario, the authors explain, warming is set to reach 2.4°C by 2050. If feedback cycles are taken into account, however, there may be another 0.6°C that current models do not assume.

"It should be noted," the paper adds, "that this is far from an extreme scenario: the low-probability, high-impact warming (five percent probability) can exceed 3.5–4°C by 2050.""

Edit: For ease of reference, I provide the two attached Limits to Growth images updated on its 40th anniversary

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 08:36:40 PM »
lacking a plausible mechanism in no way minimizes the deductions from the data.  We cannot ignore the data, just because we do not understand why.

C'mon, you'd be the first to jump on the "correlation does not imply causation" bandwagon if the data were saying something different.

20
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: November 18, 2019, 06:36:18 PM »
Tom, does every woman that you value agree that you should make her reproductive decisions?   

Neven, likewise for your position.  I suppose every person you value agrees that you should prioritize their political considerations?

I think we need the broadest possible coalition of compatible ideology.  Unfortunately Tom, your ideology is tightly aligned, at least in the US, with those in the other party.  And a full-throated campaign effort on AGW will likely lose more votes than it gains.  Its better to have the conversation that science is good, and we will follow where the science takes us.   Notwithstanding that the results are in and the time for action is now.  You cannot take action if you do not have the power.  The candidate must have a portfolio of ideas and aggregate a plurality with those ideas.

21
For those who think that my estimate of a global socioeconomic collapse circa 2050 is too aggressive, consider that the first attached image showing the influence of deep uncertainty on global SLR projections (which indicates upper estimates of over 1m by 2050 and almost 5m by 2100); while the second image shows the distribution of world population impacted by a 5m SLR without considering any other climate change impacts.  The third image reminds readers (by replacing the magnitude curve with a consequence curve one gets risk in place of the 'Work' curve shown) that deep uncertainty carries much more risk with it than do left-tail consequences.

22
Microsoft is Storing Source Code in an Arctic Cave
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/security/a29811351/microsoft-secret-code-vault/

In case, you know, the apocalypse happens.



Microsoft, which acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018, is preparing both companies for the apocalypse. No, not by storing cases of water bottles or Kombucha taps, but by locking down copies of original source code for projects stored on the GitHub code library.

The Arctic World Archive, as it's called, is tucked inside an old coal mine in Svalbard, an archipelago between mainland Norway and the North Pole.

Data is stored on specialized ultra-durable film, which is coated in iron oxide powder to add extra durability. According to the company that makes them, Piql, the reels should last for up to 750 years in normal conditions. It's possible that they could even remain intact for 2,000 years if stored in a cold, dry and low-oxygen cave.

GitHub intends to become the largest tenant of the cave. It will leave 200 platters of data, each carrying 120 gigabytes of open source software code. The first reel, for example, holds both the Linux and Android operating systems' code, plus that of 6,000 other important open source applications.

According to Piql's website, the data is all stored offline, where hackers can't tamper with it. The vault it's all inside is "disaster-proof," and "in one of the most geopolitically secure places in the world." It shares a home with Vatican archives, Brazilian land registry records, Italian movies, and the recipe for McDonald's "Special Sauce."

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

Code is useless without a computer  :o

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 10, 2019, 06:39:41 PM »
GSY,
  I'm sure you read up on it.  Why not mention that Tesla has not taken the write-down, just the non-profit 'man in the middle'.  No, that runs against your narrative.  I think you would be much more effective if you took a more nuanced bear position.  I look forward to your posts because they generally contain some food for thought.  Unfortunately that nugget is typically surrounded by some heavy bias, and unnecessary attacks.

"
What the write-down doesn't reflect is the economic value of the solar panel factory's operations – and state officials warned against interpreting the write-down as an indication that the RiverBend factory's value has dropped by more than would be normal for a three-year-old factory. The size of write-down also reflects that Fort Schuyler receives only $1 a year in rent from Tesla, they said.
"The value to Fort Schuyler is what we're looking at here, not the value to Tesla or to New York State," said a Fort Schuyler official, who said the valuation is "somewhat subjective" and was arrived at after considerable discussions with its auditors."

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 06, 2019, 03:07:04 PM »
Gerontocrat, being one of your biggest admirers I am absolutely sure that you yourself are aware that just because some curve seems to fit the data, e.g. in the following, there is still no reason to think that the curve somehow represents reality. You can make an x^3 curve visually fit data from a few decades, fine, but without some thorough reasoning behind any claim that sea ice behaves according to a third power exponential law, it's just playing around with graphics. Which can be fun but doesn't tell us anything whatsoever about what is going on.

I put two different trend lines to show exactly what you are saying. the x3 trend shows the volume loss stopped, the x2 trend shows the volume continuing to decrease. I'm for x2 - annual increases in ppm getting higher, little sign of any real decrease in CO2 emissions, my data saying the carbon sinks are soaking up less than half of CO2 emissions while the literature says more than half.

I spent some time a month or two ago on this thread to show that there is no hiatus when it comes to sea ice loss in the whole Arctic. (see my graph used in the post by "Wherestheice" on Nov 5). I looked at the Central Arctic Sea to see if there is a contrast between the Central Arctic Sea and the 13 other seas in the NSIDC / PIOMAS data.

But to me the data does suggest that there is a contrast - for example one sees that seas such as the Chukchi, the ESS, the Laptev and the Kara have longer open water periods (i.e. extending the time when sea ice extent, area and volume is very low), while the Bering is now basically an open water sea. But the Central Arctic Sea is still basically an icy desert where sea ice area and extent are as yet only marginally impacted by AGW+polar amplification.

Volume is also showing that contrast since 2007 and, I think, will be the key. When thickness declines enough, area and extent will collapse. (That's my speculation that belongs to me). Or will it be earlier open water in the surrounding seas causing gradual nibbling away of the edges of the Central Arctic Sea ice?

When? NOT A CLUE - a pure guess is within the next 10 years.
_________________________________________________________
ps: I am gratified to see some of my graphs sprayed around this thread.  I sometimes wonder what happens to the stuff I throw at the forum.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 22, 2019, 06:45:42 PM »
Maybe the best solution would be for GSY to drop by once every quarter, after the results are published. During that day he can post whatever he likes, say whatever he likes (even that people are morons), troll, be trolled, and so on.

A bit like that movie, The Purge (haven't seen it, as I don't enjoy watching violence, but the premise is interesting).

How about it, GSY?

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 19, 2019, 05:02:15 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 18 October 2019 (5 day trailing average) 4,313,171 km2 ...

Arctic Sea Ice Area is 752 k below the 2010's average.
...
In general, as climate change has caused, decade by decade, sea ice loss in the Arctic, I would expect the end of a decade to have less than the decade's average.

28
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: October 17, 2019, 03:48:55 PM »
It is a big problem in the whole thing. People will understand the problem and support moves to fix it.

But the second you start really screwing with people's lives, when those people have little option, sympathy goes out the window fast.

Then what exactly are they trying to prove?

FF cars, check
Flights, check

One of the largest and most heavily used public transport infrastructures which runs on Electricity in a country which is already in compliance with the Paris accord?

FAIL.

The message is supposed to be getting out of your fuel guzzling car and onto shared transport which runs on renewable energy.

"Own Goal" doesn't even begin to describe it.

All I can say is that if this continues in this way people are going to get hurt and those who get hurt will be the honest caring people, not those who organise XR.

29
The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: October 15, 2019, 12:00:56 PM »
Intelligence of Ignorance
(Longing to Know)


What i know, i know
what i do not know, i do not know
i have no reason to believe
i have no reason to disbelieve
i can enjoy it all
while longing to know.



30
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: October 06, 2019, 08:44:03 PM »
Here is a quote which I provide first, and hope it will be read before being dismissed. The explanation of why it is here follows directly. Since this is one of the best summaries of the problem I've ever seen, I felt it was worth putting it out of context, and lead this comment with it. It is equal opportunity in accusing big fossil of corruption everywhere.

Quote
The saga includes, among other incidents, the purposeful detonation of a 50-kiloton nuclear bomb 8,000 feet below the earth's surface (unsettlingly close to an I70 exit ramp in Colorado); an international financial crisis; a 28,000 ton vessel dragging unmoored and unmanned on the craggy coast of Alaska; tornadoes; the novelty of man-made earthquakes; murdered cows; and a third-grade public school teacher panhandling to provide school supplies for her students. Even an inept Russian spy ring ferreted out of suburban tract houses in New Jersey and Virginia. Even Russia's interference in the 2016 US presidential election. Seems unlikely, but it all ties.

The motive force of all the action - its fuel as well as its engine - is the most consequential, the most lucrative, the most powerful, and the least-well-governed major industry in the history of mankind. Oil and gas. I do not propose to discount or minimize the powerful and positive effects the producers of our hydrocarbons have had on our own country and on the world at large. I like driving ... and heating my house as much as the next person, and the through line between energy and economic growth and development is as clear to me as an electric streetlight piercing the black night. But the political impact of the industry that brings us those things is also worth recognizing as a key ingredient in the global chaos and democratic downturn we're now living through.

I don't mean to be rude, but I also want to be clear: the oil and gas industry is essentially a big casino that can produce both power and triumphant great gobs of cash, often with little regard for merit. This equation invites gangsterism, extortion, thuggery, and the sorts of folks who enjoy these hobbies. Its practitioners have been lumbering across the globe of late, causing mindless damage and laying the groundwork for the global catastrophe that is the climate crisis, but also reordering short-term geopolitics in a strong-but-dumb survival contest that renders everything we think of as politics as just theatre. It's worth understanding why. And why now.

Why is this here? Because Neven has shut down a discussion about Rachel Maddow's superb book about the history of oil and gas and its takeover of the world (quote is from her introduction), with some blistering insults and misrepresentations (see below). This is not true (I was going to say something stronger, the lack of skepticism reflects a strange lack of interest in the facts or the truth; it is hard to understand why Neven, who has does the world a great service as one of the world's most superb reporters on the cryosphere, chooses to be guided by hate on this). It is gaslighting, ad hominem, using personal attacks to discredit some of the best reporting on big fossil we have in the world today. I didn't know exactly where to put it, so here it is.

Please at least read the above quote with an open mind (it's from the introduction to Blowout. It is a powerful bit of truthtelling. To call the author one of the out-of-touch-millionnaire stooges of smoke-and-mirrors neoliberalism is wrong, and it does harm.

Quote
Re: Last Stand of The Fossil Fools« Reply #1 on: Today at 12:38:02 PM »

But this has nothing to do whatsoever with Arctic sea ice, and a video with two out-of-touch-millionnaire stooges of smoke-and-mirrors neoliberalism is about the worst starting point one could imagine.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:04:49 PM »
One could look at that image and say "Wow, data for last 10-15 years BELOW the prediction every single year."  One year also blasts way below the uncertainty estimates for the model.

32
The rest / Re: Unsorted
« on: October 03, 2019, 07:19:29 PM »
Golden Ratio Observed in Human Skulls
https://phys.org/news/2019-10-golden-ratio-human-skulls.html



In a new study investigating whether skull shape follows the Golden Ratio (1.61803398875 … ), Johns Hopkins researchers compared 100 human skulls to 70 skulls from six other animals, and found that the human skull dimensions followed the Golden Ratio. The skulls of less related species such as dogs, two kinds of monkeys, rabbits, lions and tigers, however, diverged from this ratio.

Rafael J. Tamargo et al. Mammalian Skull Dimensions and the Golden Ratio (Φ), Journal of Craniofacial Surgery (2019)


33
Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: October 01, 2019, 08:18:55 PM »
Excellent work by Gerontocrat into carbon sinks. However, I am surprised to find the quantity in gigatonne of carbon sunk being on the same axis as percentage sunk given that total emissions are not constant.
It isn't.

Percentages - refer to the right axis (green)
Amounts in GT - refer to the left axis (red).

Revised graph attached with amount left in atmosphere (in GT) added. (Also after rooting around online found a better figure to convert CO2 ppm to CO2 Gigatons - minor change).

Note that as regards percentages of CO2 sunk, the most often quoted figures are 30% Ocean, 26% Land, Total Percent of Emissions captured 56%.

The ten year average on 1980 to 2019 data is never higher than just over 52%.

If 2019 data ends up in line with current estimates, the percent of CO2 captured in 2019 will be only about 42%

34
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: October 01, 2019, 02:11:24 AM »
From reading some of the comments, and watching some of the videos in them, it seems that a lot of people have misconceptions about the impeachment inquiry and even the process of impeachment.  The story linked below is a good summary:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/09/impeachment-ukraine-and-its-costs-three-key-questions.amp

Quote
Given these complexities, responsible discussions of impeachment must consider three questions. First, has the president engaged in conduct that warrants his removal under the Constitution? Second, is the effort to remove him likely to make a positive impact—or will impeachment be a mere quixotic quest? And third, would impeachment be worth the resulting rupturing of our national fabric?

Quote
Americans have never reduced to a simple formula what it means to commit “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” A working definition captures two general elements. First, impeachable offenses represent betrayal of office. And second, those offenses pose such a serious risk of harm that they require preventive action—in other words, they suggest that the president endangers the nation. Such offenses may involve a pattern of closely related abuses, rather than a single deed. But the ultimate inquiry is whether the president has so betrayed his office and poses such a continuing threat that leaving him in power could imperil our constitutional democracy.

This president has done just that.

Begin with the White House readout of Trump’s phone conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. That readout, even in its presumably sanitized form, reveals a multitude of impeachable offenses. On that call, Trump abused the foreign policy and military powers entrusted to the president by Article II to serve his own political interests—and perhaps those of his sometime-benefactor, Russian President Vladimir Putin, whose tanks have penetrated Ukrainian territory and would be opposed by the military aid Trump was unilaterally withholding—rather than the interests of the American people.
 
The resultant cover-up, too, is staggering. We have learned that the effort to protect the president ensnared numerous senior White House officials, including the lawyers representing not the president personally but the presidential office. Indeed, the whistleblower complaint alleges that the cover-up was part of a pattern of systematically overclassifying politically embarrassing information to protect the president. Such conduct betrays the institution of the presidency and poses a clear and present danger to our national security. It does so by compromising the integrity of our system for classifying intelligence, thereby undermining the confidence of our key allies in how the secrets they share with us will be handled. And it conceals the ongoing danger posed to our most sensitive secrets by the seemingly reckless way our commander in chief deploys those secrets for personal advantage or political leverage.

Quote
The primary arguments against impeachment—articulated by liberals like Bruce Ackerman, moderates like Frank Bruni, and reactionaries like John Yoo—do not deny the gravity of the president’s violations. Rather, they argue that impeachment is not worth the national costs of enraging the incumbent president’s supporters, fanning the flames of the white-hot anger that drove many of them into his camp in the first place, and leaving even some who might be prepared to vote against Trump in 2020 with the sense that a group composed almost entirely of Democrats is illegitimately undoing the results of an election with which they never came to terms. We should weigh those costs carefully as we consider how to proceed.

But those concerns cannot outweigh the imminent concern of a lawless presidency. Yes, impeachment would be traumatic. But what is the alternative? Acquiescing to lawlessness out of fear? And declining to impeach would be traumatic as well.

35
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: September 30, 2019, 09:47:38 PM »
Protest.

36
Policy and solutions / Re: Greta Thunberg's Atlantic crossing
« on: September 28, 2019, 02:42:48 PM »
Quote
Regina McCarthy (born May 3, 1954) is an American environmental health and air quality expert who served as the 13th Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from 2013 to 2017

...becoming the face of Obama's global warming and climate change initiative.

...

Link >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gina_McCarthy

But:




Perhaps she should have done something about it while in office?

What is the purpose of these people now sitting in talkshows other than asking them why they did nothing?

37
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: September 26, 2019, 09:17:43 PM »
Mysterious 'Pocket' of Underwater Gas Could Contain 50 Million Tons of CO2
https://www.livescience.com/amp/massive-underwater-gas-trough-mystery.html

New research from Japan reminds us, enormous, miles-wide reservoirs of greenhouse gases lurk in untouched pockets just below the seafloor.

In a study published Aug. 19 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, a team of researchers discovered one such pocket at the bottom of the Okinawa Trough, a massive submarine basin sitting southwest of Japan where the Philippine Sea plate is slowly sinking below the Eurasian plate. Using seismic waves to map the trough's structure, the team found a huge gas pocket stretching at least 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) wide and potentially containing more than 100 million tons (90.7 million metric tons) of CO2, methane or some combination of the two.

... Pressure wave velocities slowed down significantly over a wide area in the middle part of the trough, indicating a massive gas pocket. The team estimated that the pocket's width, but were unable to calculate how deep or concentrated the reservoir was.

... If the gas in the undersea reservoir is mostly CO2, it could have an even greater impact on climate change. If the pocket were to pop and release 50 million tons (45 million metric tons) of CO2 into the air at once, it could have a measurable effect on CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, and thus on climate change. If pockets like this one are a widespread feature at ocean rifts, as the researchers suspect they might be, then the potential consequences could be even more significant.

... Based on the flow of heat around the study area, the researchers think another possibility is that a low-permeability cap of methane hydrate--a methane-containing ice--acts as the lid.



Large Gas Reservoir Along the Rift Axis of a Continental Back‐Arc Basin Revealed by Automated Seismic Velocity Analysis in the Okinawa Trough. Kota Mukumoto, Takeshi Tsuji, Andri Hendriyana. Geophysical Research Letters

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL083065

38
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: September 25, 2019, 09:02:03 PM »
Somehow this reminds me of this one:



 ;D

39
Consequences / Re: Sea Level Rise and Social Cost of Carbon
« on: September 25, 2019, 02:37:33 PM »
The BBC's report about the UN report

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49817804

All you city dwellers - take note. It isn't just the South Pacific Island States and Louisiana's Boot.

Not 2100, try 2050, and for some even earlier.

40
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:57:56 PM »
Why are you using a charging station as opposed to charging at home?

Lisa the LEAF usually charges "at home". However the distance from Tremail to Bristol is more than she can cover with a single full "tank".

41
Consequences / IPCC Ocean & Cryosphere Report 2019
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:40:08 PM »
IPCC Ocean & Cryosphere Report: Humans are Rapidly Turning Oceans into Warm, Acidifying Basins Hostile to Life
https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/energy-and-environment/2019/9/25/20881595/ipcc-report-ocean-cryosphere-2019

A new UN report warns changes to the oceans this century will be “unprecedented.”

https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_SPM_Approved.pdf

“The ocean has been acting like a sponge, absorbing heat and carbon dioxide to regulate global temperatures, but it can’t keep up,” IPCC vice chair Ko Barrett said at a press conference. “The world’s oceans and cryosphere have been taking the heat of climate change for decades. The consequences for nature and humanity are sweeping and severe.”

On Wednesday, the IPCC, convened by the UN to assess climate science, released a summary of the report on the oceans and frozen regions of the world, or cryosphere, for policymakers after more than 100 scientists reviewed thousands of scientific papers. The findings are immense and comprehensive, and seeing them all in one place is sobering.

In all, “over the 21st century, the ocean is projected to transition to unprecedented conditions,” the report warns. The ocean will be warmer, more acidic, hold less oxygen, be more greatly stratified (i.e. the top and bottom layers won’t mix as much). Ocean heat waves are growing more common, and it’s likely extreme El Niño and La Niña systems will form, leading to more extreme weather around the globe.

... The report makes it clear: the two largest ice sheets on Earth — the Greenland ice sheet, and the Antarctic ice sheet — are melting at an accelerating rate. “Mass loss from the Antarctic ice sheet over the period 2007 – 2016 tripled relative to 1997 –2006,” the report finds. “For Greenland, mass loss doubled over the same period.”

The new IPCC report finds that “between 1979 and 2018, Arctic sea ice extent has very likely decreased for all months of the year.” Additionally, every year, the amount of ice older than five years (which is thicker and more stable) decreases in proportion to young ice. It’s a sign the whole region is unstable.








42
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 11:50:44 PM »
Over on the ASIB, I've just posted the late(st) PIOMAS update, and I just wanted to share the final half here, because it's how I view this melting season. Normally, I don't like it when people post long texts, but I'm the exception to that rule, of course.  ;)

Quote
Last month, I wrote at the end of the PIOMAS update:

Quote
From what I've seen on the Arctic Sea Ice Forum, written by commenters I've known for years and highly respect, my gut feeling says this year won't be able to break the 2012 records.

But for weeks now, I've been thinking of those prophetic words uttered by Peter Wadhams, back in 2007: 'In the end, it will just melt away quite suddenly.' I don't think all of it will melt away quite suddenly in coming weeks, but maybe more than one would expect just looking at the data.

This year is a great test that will tell us a lot about the importance of melting momentum.

To be honest, I expected a clearer melting momentum signal during this final phase of the melting season. Melting momentum took off slower than years like 2012 and 2016, but when it did take off, it was fireworks (see June 2019, one hell of a month). David Schröder's melt pond fraction maps, the SMOS pixel chart, the compactness charts, the Albedo-Warming Potential graphs, the snow cover graphs, more and more they were pointing to a massive build-up of melting momentum. On top of that, PIOMAS was showing that this year was very competitive volume-wise, and for five months in a row, 2019 was in the top 3 when it came to temperature records (August coming in lowest on record):



It was clear that the spell of extremely sunny, warm weather was ending during August. That, to me, was the great test for my melting momentum theory. Weather conditions switched, but for a week or so extent loss was keeping up with 2012's pace, despite the boost provided by the GAC. But then halfway through the month, things slowed down to a crawl after all (see red trend line):



So, what happened? Of course, there was a cyclone that was in a perfect position to disperse the ice, but there was so much weak ice that in my view, momentum should have gone on for a while longer.

There are two possibilities:

1) There wasn't as much melting momentum as I assumed.

2) Melting momentum is less important than I think it is.

As said, it took a while for melting momentum to get going. Timing is of the essence when it comes to breaking melting season records. May was actually very sunny this year, but most of the radiation coming from a Sun at a still low angle, got bounced off the pristine white ice. It may sound counterintuitive, but before the real melt ponding gets going due to open skies, cloudy weather is actually worse for the ice, because with clouds comes humidity and the clouds also block outgoing radiation. This can cause the snow on top of the ice to melt just a tiny bit, deforming the structure of the snow, making it more prone to melt when the sun starts to shine in earnest. 2019 came short in this respect, as evidenced by visual inspection of satellite images. Never mind the fact that the 2018/2019 freezing season was much less spectacular compared to the previous three winters, when it comes to temperatures and extreme weather conditions.

I'm still convinced that without a decent amount of melting momentum no records will be broken. That's why in years like 2016, 2017 and 2018 it was possible to announce at an early date that the 2012 record was safe. But conversely, a massive amount of melting momentum doesn't guarantee records either. Initial ice conditions and late stage weather obviously play important roles as well.

Maybe I'm emphasizing melting momentum too much, but I still feel kind of vindicated by recent developments on the extent front. Over the last week, just a small amount of weather conducive to melting has helped nudge 2019 below the 2007 and 2016 minimums, with quite an impressive run of daily drops. Tomorrow or the day after, the 4 million km2 mark could even be breached. I always thought that this year would come in second whatever would happen, and it looks like it has:



Either way, after almost 10 years of blogging, I'm now clearly seeing the contours of that first year when ice-free conditions will be reached (in other words, an ice cover smaller than 1 million km2, which amounts to ice-free for all practical purposes). It is preceded by a freezing season similar to that of 2015/2016, starts with the melt onset 2012 saw, builds up the massive melting momentum of 2019, and ends with the crazy weather of 2016. It makes me shudder to think what the satellite images will look like then. It may take more time than most cryospheric scientists think it will take, but unfortunately, that's not much of a comfort.

The ingredients are there, AGW is the cook.

43
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: September 16, 2019, 10:59:11 AM »
Osborne Brothers - Rocky Top (1967)


44
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 16, 2019, 03:03:23 AM »
Here is why we will never reduce CO2 in time: I present the prisoner's dilemma. A classic game.

We have a multi person prisoner's dilemma in which any individual is pitted against the entire rest of the world. This prisoner's dilemma would hold true for the vast majority of people, i.e. if you replaced individual A with individual B from the "everybody else" section, this would still be true.

We look at the individual's preference ranking.

1st choice - Individual makes no, or minimal lifestyle changes. Individual does not attempt to reduce CO2 output. Individual makes no significant sacrifices. CO2 still reduced enough by rest of the world to avoid major consequences of CC.

2nd choice - Individual makes lifestyle changes to reduce CO2. Some lifestyle changes may cause discomfort. CO2 production by everybody else also decreases enough to avoid major consequences of CC.

3rd choice - Individual makes no, or minimal lifestyle changes. Individual does not attempt to reduce CO2 output. Individual makes no significant sacrifices. The rest of the world also does not reduce CO2 output. Climate change has severe and widespread impacts.

4th choice - Individual makes lifestyle changes to reduce CO2. Some lifestyle changes may cause discomfort. CO2 production by everybody else does not decrease by enough to avoid major consequences of climate change. Individual feels that he/she was played for a fool, made sacrifices for no reason.

Unfortunately, the dominant strategy here is for the individual to make no lifestyle changes. And indeed, we see that playing out with the vast majority of the general populace.

45
The Amazon likely is closer to a tipping point (in 20 to 30 years) than many people think:

Title: "Will Deforestation and Warming Push the Amazon to a Tipping Point?"

https://e360.yale.edu/features/will-deforestation-and-warming-push-the-amazon-to-a-tipping-point

Extract: "In an e360 interview, Carlos Nobre, Brazil’s leading expert on the Amazon and climate change, discusses the key perils facing the world’s largest rainforest, where a record number of fires are now raging, and lays out what can be done to stave off a ruinous transformation of the region.
...
“At the current rates of deforestation, we are 20 to 30 years off from reaching this tipping point.”"

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon tax
« on: September 14, 2019, 06:36:13 AM »
For direct emissions: Since we should have decabonised >2 decades ago, I propose a meaningful carbon tax of EUR 5000/tonne (EUR 5/Kg). This also applies to personal travel by aeroplane, boat and bus. But not for public transport which is exempted.
Corporations are legal persons and to be treated as natural persons wrt carbon tax.

To ease the change, step it up in three years from EUR 500, EUR 1000 to EUR 5000. Right now, we should be shaking from being in a feverish hurry to change our ways if we take reality and eco/climate science seriously. "I want you to panic".

Half of the carbon tax revenue must be distributed to poor people in your rich country, so rich people will have a strong incentive to change their behaviour. The other half must be invested in electrification of all public transport and making it free for all. A beautiful effect will be the disappearance of the abomination of foodbanks. And oil-derived biocides.

For indirect emissions of products (food, clothes, packaging etc): make it mandatory to state the carbon footprint per unit of mass/volume on the packaging so consumers are aware of the real cost. After 2 years, impose the same carbon tax on the products. By this time the poor people should have enough money cover the increased costs of basic products such as food. Organic food (local) will be cheaper so that sector can grow and expand.


I haven't really thought it through for the many unintended/unforeseen consequences (too complex and not enough knowledge). Financial breakdown is not an unintended consequence. We need to stop these high energy, high carbon footprint lifestyles! We are already too late to prevent catastrophic climate change (>2C GMST).


edit: changed "a" to "the same" in 2nd to last pararaph.

47
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: September 12, 2019, 04:30:19 PM »
A real classic (I can strongly recommend the movie as well :) ):
Oh how things were better in those days. Tranquility and freedom. And humour. And really deep connections and trust.

Henry Mancini - Theme From 'The Pink Panther' (i) (1975)


48
The following represents an example of one possible cascade of tipping points (not considered in consensus climate models) that could lead to a 'Hothouse Earth':

1. Emissions of ozone depleting substances in the 1970s-1980s creates an ozone hole over Antarctica, which accelerates circumpolar wind velocities, that induces the upwelling of relatively warm CDW (note that until 2019 consensus climate scientist disputed whether humans were responsible for this increase in upwell; however, it has now been proven that humans are responsible), which accelerates melting of Antarctic ice shelves; which freshens the Southern Ocean surface waters; which begins to slow the MOC since 1990s-2000s; which increases the tropical SST since 2015; which increases water evaporation from the tropical ocean surface; which increase atmospheric convection near the tropical; which increases high altitude cloud formation on both sides of the equator; which increases positive cloud feedback.

2. As the Pacific Ocean has the largest tropical belt in the world and as the Pacific's Western Warm Pool (or Western Pacific Warm Pool) is the warmest large body of water in the world; and the warming of this region of the ocean telecommunicates (both via the ocean and via the atmosphere) heat both into the Bering Sea area and into the Southern Ocean off the coast of West Antarctica; which has been accelerating the warming of these regions relative to the GMSTA; which has accelerated ice melting both in the Arctic and more particularly in the coastal regions of West Antarctica; which has weakened the buttressing action of key West Antarctic ice shelves such as from the Pine Island Ice Shelf (PIIS) and the Thwaites Ice Shelf (this has been confirmed this year) and Ice Tongue.

3. The observed (& projected) increase in extreme ENSO events has also accelerated the advection of warm CDW across the Antarctic continental shelf into the Amundson Sea Embayment (ASE) where it has periodically accelerated the weakening of the local ice shelves and accelerated the grounding line retreat for key marine glaciers in that area; which threaten MICI types of marine glacier failures in this region beginning around 2035 to 2040 (in my opinion) both due to potential collapse of buttressing action of key ice shelves, and due to a potential increasing in low elevation hydrofracturing of the marine glacial ice in the ASE.

4.  A potential MICI-type of collapse of the marine glaciers in the ASE beginning around 2035-2040, would likely send a decades long armada of icebergs into the Southern Ocean, thus cooling it and abruptly slowing down the MOC; which would abruptly increase the Earth planetary energy imbalance, by: a) abruptly increasing evaporation from the tropical oceans; b) abruptly poleward advecting energy from the tropical oceans thus accelerating Polar Amplification; and c) triggering the bipolar seesaw to accelerate ice mass loss from Greenland.

5.  As the tropical SST increases the atmospheric Hadley Cells would expand poleward, thus increasing the risk (depending on factors such as the true value of ECS over this period, anthropogenic radiative forcing, etc.) of a flip into an equable atmospheric pattern in the Northern Hemisphere by the end of this century; which would most likely lead to a hothouse condition for most of the planet.

49
The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: September 01, 2019, 05:29:57 AM »
Just saw this one over at Reddit:


50
The rest / Re: Good music
« on: August 29, 2019, 06:12:03 AM »
blumenkraft,
I love it! Delightfully absurd.  ;D ;D
Where can I buy this wonderful 'Holtz'?

(sorry sedziobs to unintentionally 'drown' your posts :P)

The Muppets - Mahna Mahna (1977)




Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10