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 - beachykeen

Pages: [1]
1
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: December 22, 2020, 08:36:25 PM »
Hoping our way out of the collapse of society has always been our go-to approach.

Let's introduce 8 billion humans on a planet that never sustained more than a few hundred million before civilization, let's all rely on magical wires supported by dead tree posts for the basic survival functions of 90% of the population.  Let's stop growing our own food, and force ourselves to truck everything across the globe on carbon emitting cargo ships and diesel trucks.

Let's make a magical economy where we trade our time for mysterious digits on a screen and call it a "career".

What could possibly go wrong?   ;D

2
The rest / Re: SpaceX
« on: October 20, 2020, 02:10:22 PM »
you beat me ...

For the First Time, a Starship Prototype Roars to Life With Three Engines
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/10/for-the-first-time-a-starship-prototype-roars-to-life-with-three-engines/



SpaceX engineers achieved another milestone early Tuesday morning when the company's Starship vehicle roared to life for the first time with multiple Raptor engines.

At 3:13 AM local time in South Texas, a Starship prototype dubbed SN8, or Serial Number 8, fired three Raptor engines for several seconds during a static fire test. Although there was no immediate confirmation from the company, the test at the company's Boca Chica launch site appeared to be successful.

... kinda like that 5:00 AM whistle in 'My Cousin Vinny'


3
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 12, 2020, 04:08:41 PM »

There are like a thousand murderers in Germany. Every time someone gets killed, it's in the news. I guess you wouldn't call that alarmist media cabal, would you? But you do when the media reports on hundreds of thousands of deaths? WTF?

I agree.  My country has had more preventable deaths in a few months than in major wars over multiple years.  It's damn peculiar for an anti-war individual to shrug over this carnage.

The needed response to this is less draconian than what happens in a major war.  Though there is some pandemic profiteering going on, I think there's a lot less profiteering per dollar spent than we see in major wars.

It's also completely false to claim that Covid is only a problem in "unhealthy" societies.  The opposite is true.  Healthy societies control their birth rate, and so have a smaller proportion of young people.  Healthy societies succeed in keeping people alive and active into late age.  Age is the overwhelming risk factor for bad outcomes.  Societies with a higher average age are the healthiest societies.  These are the societies hardest hit by Covid.

It is playing into the hands of corporate capitalists to suggest we should be less assertive in addressing this pandemic.  This is the worst global public health crisis in 102 years.  Halting non-essential activities for some months to save many thousands of lives is not a disproportionate response at all.

The core response we need to agitate for politically is some version of universal basic income, to avoid suffering of the unemployed. 

Shutting down many airline flights, tourism, hospitaltiy, sporting events--these are the kinds of things that need to happen to address the climate crisis anyway. 

4
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: July 29, 2020, 09:23:50 PM »
I wanted to add a lighter version:
with two intervals of 24 days: 17/02, 12/03 and 05/04,
and three intervals of 36 days: 05/04, 11/05, 16/06 and 22/07,
and adding little comments.

Click twice to zoom in



5
Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: July 09, 2020, 05:06:17 AM »
^^
I haven't read the nature article, sorry, but here some (important?) side-notes from thinking about the concept:


Will the rock dust just appear on half the farm fields of the world by magic?

Where does the enormous amount rock dust come from? Only from mining? Only some types of rock can be used and they have to be crushed. How much FF used in the making of the rock dust?
How will the rock dust be transported to half of the farm fields all over the world? More FF?
How will the rock dust be put on half the farm fields all over the world? By aeroplane? Even more FF?
Rock dust is very heavy. Logistics and storage? More FF?

Is the rock dust effective if wet? Can the rock dust get saturated by other chemicals (pesticides, nitrogen/phosphor artificial manure)? Interactions with UV? Can the wind blow it away from the fields and concentrate it (or make it airborne as aerosols)? Do animals think it is food? Does it interact/stick with e.g. microplastic?
How will the saturated rock dust interact in water with biological functions of fish, amphibians, molluscs and other life? Will it pile up and block?

Applying this would be just enough (2bn) to offset the annual indirect-anthropogenic CO₂ emissions from the melting permafrost alone. It wouldn't cover anything from our anthropogenic annual emissions and perhaps not even the FF used in its application.

Unforeseen consequences for soil health (funghi & other microorganisms) and productivity in the future?

With this, the all-important soil biotopes of farmland get hammered with another human invention. Abused and degraded, but essential for our food. How many more harvests?

We must stop with geo-engineering (I include our GHG emissions, habitat destruction and mass extinction) before it is over for humanity. Why not start using less energy and consume less? That'll make a bigger difference than the effect of this proposal. And it will be good for you.

edit: disclaimer: I do not have much knowledge of chemistry and biology.

6
If the forecasts are correct China is going to add the equivalent of the US economy in a 10 year period. The scale of the additional energy and material throughput is mind-boggling, and probably a disaster for the global ecology. Same of India meets its forecast growth in the next 10 years.

2.8 billion people doubling their economies in a decade, adding the equivalent of the US+EU28. We have never seen growth on this scale in such a short period. We could be tripping over many ecological tipping points, not just climate change, in the next decade. Will Steffen pretty much agrees that the 2020's will be when the proverbial hits the fan.

7
Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: April 20, 2020, 09:55:30 AM »
The day has finally come.

F


8
...
One example of billions of that.... When the cod fisheries were collapsing on the great bank, then President Reagan responded by supporting the fishermen buying and building bigger and better boats with better equipment to catch more fish to maintain their lifestyle and their catch. That of course accelerated the destruction of the ecosystem and the evolutionary response to fish becomming smaller than the nets could catch, and smaller than were economically viable. This only stopped when there were simply no more fish to catch. At no point were those in charge or involved able or willing to recognize the right answer. They had to not just dramatically reduce the catch to allow the stocks to recover, they had to stop fishing for them entirely. Instead they chose precisely the opposite action and destroyed the ecosystem, and with it any potential of returning to "normal" in anyones lifetime.


Sam,

As an engineer I concur with your various assessments, and I note that not only does your example of conservative President Reagan counterproductive efforts to help cod fisherman work to accelerate the degradation of the environment, but the linked article discusses how left-wing efforts to implement green technology can also work to create a rebound effect that encourages the general public to consume more goods and thus to work to further degrade various Earth Systems:

Title: "Green technology will not save us"

https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2019/06/27/1561608044000/Green-technology-will-not-save-us/

Extract: "The UN also warns that using green technology may be less beneficial (and in some cases, more harmful) than expected. It’s called the rebound effect - instances where technologically-driven advances in energy efficiency increase, rather than decrease, consumption leading to net-zero (or worse) emissions. For example, because electric cars cost less to run, consumers may drive them further and more often which wipes out the eco-advantage these vehicles have over their gasoline-powered counterparts. According to the Breakthrough Institute, a research centre that promotes tech solutions for environmental and human challenges, this effect means that “for every two steps forward we take in energy savings through efficiency, rebound effects take us one (and sometimes more) steps backwards.” This may erode up to 50 per cent of the eco-benefits promised by green technology by 2030, according to a paper by Barker, Dagoumas and Rubin."

Best,
ASLR

ASLR,

I can go you one better - closer - in terms of impacts on climate change. The Powers that be (TPTB) decided that electricity use for lighting was low hanging fruit that they could attack to reduce energy consumption in the battle against climate change. New lighting was developed with a discovery in Japan that allowed for the energetically efficient production of blue light using photodiodes. This discovery was combined with phosphors (mostly pure orange) place on top of the diodes to absorb some of the blue and remit it as orange to produce a light that appears to humans to be sort of white. Depending on the mix of blue and orange the light is either harshly blue, or orangish (warm).

The technology advanced and the devices went into mass production. Governments around the world then mandated that these highly energy efficient lights be used and that "wasteful" incandescent lights be banned. The US passed this in the 2007 Energy and Infrastructure act.

Unfortunately no one seems to have thought this through. The safety standards for the lights are based off of retinal heating lessons involving lasers and bright light sources, with some minor recognition of the blue light hazard. In the case of LED lights they chose to set a "safe" standard of 1,000,000 watt-seconds/square meter/steradian. They then set a series of groups RG0, RG1, RG2 that allowed different illuminance values (100 watts/square meter/steradian for RG0) and allowed exposure times per day (10,000 seconds for RG0). The thinking was I suspect that 10,000 is a big number and 100 is sufficiently bright, that that seems a good combination to define as "exempt".

10,000 seconds is 2 hours and 47 minutes. After that period of exposure, no additional exposure is safe for the rest of the day.The body needs time to recover from the photobleaching of the retina.  Almost all of the lights being sold commercially are of this type. One manufacturer, SORAA, has lights that are somewhat different. They are based on producing violet light and using a broader range of colored phosphors.

A number of factors were not considered.

1) How people actually use light. (more than 10,000 seconds a day, and computer and device use adds to the exposure).
2) That once this level of exposure is exceeded that retinal injury IS occurring - and that that leads to insidious progressive blindness as the blue light bleaches the retina and triggers the body to order cells showing excessive damage to commit suicide.
3) That blue light also impacts the intrinsic photosensitive retinal ganglion cells (ipRGC) which control the circadian rhythm response
4) That the conversion of AC power to DC with inexpensive circuitry results in light that oscillates at twice the power frequency (100 or 120 hz in most of the world), AND shifts back and forth from intensely blue to intensely orange as the diodes drive the phosphors out of phase with themselves. This results in all manner of eye stress, guaranteed inability to focus as the eye tries to focus at two different focal lengths, and loud tinnitus, optical migraines and migraines as the brain sees motion everywhere in the visual field and activates the default mode network warning of danger.
5) That the LED lights do not have the throw of the lights they replaced, necessitating twice as many street lights
6) That the disruption of the circadian rhythm would inevitably lead to increase rates of hormone sensitive cancers, heart disease, obesity, type 2 diabetes, depression, suicide, behavior disorders, performance disorders, etc...
7) That advertisers would quickly realize that they could use this technology to light entire sides of buildings in full color displays, thereby increasing light pollution, circadian rhythm disruption and light pollution.
8 ) That the increase in blue light would destroy the night sky and astronomy
9) That animals, plants and insects would respond adversely to such light at night (e.g. salmon will not migrate upstream at night under bridges using LED light; that bird migration is disrupted, that insects are highly disrupted)
10) That people vary in the way they see and respond to light, with some being highly sensitive, and some much less so, that they have strong differences in color and light level response, that these change with age (young and old are especially vulnerable), or that some people are distinctly different in having eye diseases (AMD) or immune system disorders that are strongly impacted by intense blue light
11) That green light (which these lights generally do not produce) is incredibly important in reducing pain, and thereby offsetting opiate needs
12) That red light is essential in driving mitochondrial function through skin and tissue exposure to red light
10) and on and on and on

Lets look at just two of these aspects.

1) The sleep disrupting effects of blue light impacting the ipRGCs is well documented. The most recent study from Barcelona, Spain last year documented an actual observed 47% increase in the rate of breast cancers and a 105% increase in the rate of prostate cancers from the introduction of LED streetlights alone. Indoor use in the home of LED lighting further increased these rates by 50%.

Applied to the United States for example the first 15 years use of LED lighting (the expected life of the lights), should result in an increase of 20 million cancers and 4-5 million cancer fatalities. At some point attorneys will likely realize that their clients and their families can and should assert that the light injured them through the sleep impacts. Because the increase is so large (105% for prostate cancers), that it is more likely than not that the cancers were -caused- by the lights, making the lighting manufacturers potentially liable for ALL prostate cancers. I am not a lawyer, and this is for the courts to decide. But that seems all too obvious and preventable. For people with macular degeneration, no exposure is acceptable. They are effectively denied their rights to free travel and free association. They are injured everywhere these lights are used.

2) The flicker of the lights is causing differential impact to a small fraction of the population. For them the impact is extreme. They can no longer safely leave their homes at night, shop in stores, or participate in public functions or government. And they cannot safely work. The tinnitus, migraines and optical migraines essentially end their productive lives.

What should be clear is that the solution is to eliminate blue from all light use at night. because of the impact to sensitive people (infants, the elderly, those with AMD ...) that likely means essentially eliminating blue light from all lighting.

Interestingly, the increase in prostate and breast cancers occurred after fluorescent lighting entered the scene. It is conceptually possible that a large fraction of the base rate of these cancers may have been caused by the blue light from fluorescent lamps. This is unproven. But the direct impact of the LED lights on observed cancer rates, and the mechanistic understanding of how that works via the circadian rhythm impacts make that suggestive.

What is needed then to resolve this is the elimination of blue light from LED lighting, and the elimination of flicker. More over, to be effective the base of LED lighting already produced would need to be recalled and destroyed.

ALL of the energy used in the manufacture, distribution, recall, and destruction of these lights is then a sunk energy cost that cannot be recovered by using the lights through to the end of their lives.

Rather than saving energy, the conversion to LED lighting will have cost energy and worked against us in the battle to fight climate change.

Additionally, the Jevon's Paradox is fully on display. The intended reduction in energy use hasn't materialized because of the increased use of the lights compared to their predecessors and because of their use for new purposes.

But the simple idea that these lights are more efficient, therefor better, combined with the incredible complexity involved in understanding how light affects us, makes this a nearly impossible discussion.

Sam

9
Some posters in this thread have expressed surprise that I have been able to provide so many peer reviewed references indicating that consensus climate science prior to the release of AR5 have erred on the side of least drama (ESLD) so many different ways.  However, as an engineer I am amazed that the public has been exposed to so little discuss about climate risks and public safety.  In this regard, I note that even if/when AR6, AR7 and/or AR8 finally address many/most of the technical short-comings of earlier consensus climate projections the general public will likely still not understand the risk that has been transferred to them by those with much more power.  While the topic of risk assessment is too complex to address in this post, nevertheless I provide the following examples of risk that the general public likely misunderstands.

The first image shows how currently the partial load and resistance safety approach is applied to safeguard the public.  This image shows how for each load pdf a relevant partial load factor is applied to increase the partial design load, and that for each capacity pdf a relevant partial capacity factor is applied to decrease the partial design capacity and any acceptable design must maintain at a probability of failure below the acceptable level for the given design limit state.  Currently, policy makers are shifting criteria for much of our infrastructure to resiliency limit states where failure is allowed, on the assumption that the general public is tough enough to take some abuse before collapsing.  In this image note that load pdf is assumed to be un-skewed.

The second image shows that as one accepts the reality of more and more positive climate feedback mechanisms that the pdf for climate sensitivity becomes more and more right-skewed and I note that if this image considered ice sheet forcing mechanisms the ECS pdf would be even more right-skewed and fat-tailed.

The third image shows that for right-skewed load probability density functions (the image shows the case for right-skewed wind gust loading for an aircraft design) it is rather complicated (& thus is not commonly used for evaluating infrastructure to keep the public safe) to calculate the probability of failure (or as shown the related reliability probability)  and that for an acceptable design the capacity pdf has to engineered to be far to the right.  Furthermore, as the right-skewed climate sensitivity pdf is used for determining likely climate change consequences and as there is only one Earth one would assume that decision makers would maintain an adequate factor of safety against the risk of a cascade of Earth System tipping points, but they do not.

Lastly, the fourth image illustrates the concept of lifetime factor of safety to account for system deterioration with time.  If this reliability concept were to be applied to climate change one would need to evaluate how the deterioration of various Earth Systems (like permafrost, etc.) decreases system reliability with time thus progressively increasing our joint risk as GMSTA increases (a concept that is not adequately conveyed to the public by the Carbon Budget approach).

ASLR,

As an engineer I am not at all surprised. We engineers truly think differently. For us, facts and technical analysis like these have tangible reality and extreme importance. Understanding risks requires understanding all of these things and more.

For the lay person, the process isn't just different, it is fundamentally different. The facts as we would know them have little to do with their analysis, reasoning or response. Rhetorical arguments, and more importantly emotional arguments have the largest sway. They are completely unable to understand, let alone evaluate, the technical merits of the analyses or even of the underlying data and facts. Theirs is not an analysis of what is happening in real terms. Theirs is analysis of trust of those speaking based on other factors. Someone speaking definitely and confidently (regardless of the merits of their speech) is assessed as more credible. Someone speaking emotionally and powerfully is assigned either greater or lesser credibility based on the character of that emotion, the degree to which they are able to engage the listeners mirror neuron network, and the degree to which the speech and emotion matches the existing state of the listener. I.e. is it supportive of what they already believe or desire.

What they already believe is highly dependent on what is beneficial to them in their near term environment, and in terms of their desires.

Conversely, if the speaker can strongly engage the mirror neuron network to get past the persons filters, they become viewed as an ally and someone to trust. Once there, the speaker can engender strong fears which the listener will take on as their own. Fear is a powerful driver. It speaks to personal physical safety, or lack of safety. That drives action to minimize the things causing the fear. But none of that need be based on reality. Neither does it even have to align in any way with reality and truth. It can and often is direct opposed to objective reality and truth.

The papers you have posted have been and continue to be an amazing summary of the state of our current knowledge of the physical world, of the path we are now on, and of the potentials for where that takes the Earth's systems, and with them - us.

The picture is terrifying. We still have fundamental uncertainties about precisely where the points of no return are. But what is clear is that knowing that will not matter. Humanity has chosen to push beyond those limits and to only respond AFTER it is clear that we have entered thermal run away to a different stable state for the Earth. We humans do respond to direct palpable information. We do not generally (with exceptions) respond to reason or reasoning. We are really bad at using precautionary principles, safety bounds and margins, or any related ideas. We are particularly terrible at those when there are countering forces, such as near term gain or emotional desires, wishes, dreams, conceptions, and preconceptions involved. All of those are involved here.

As a result, we will push the Earth beyond the points of no return. We will collectivley wail and scream about how horrible it is and about how someone else should have done something. By then it will of course be far too late to do anything. All of the emotional responses are rendered meaningless drivel. Worse, they will likely engender actions that are counter productive to where we find ourselves.

One example of billions of that.... When the cod fisheries were collapsing on the great bank, then President Reagan responded by supporting the fishermen buying and building bigger and better boats with better equipment to catch more fish to maintain their lifestyle and their catch. That of course accelerated the destruction of the ecosystem and the evolutionary response to fish becomming smaller than the nets could catch, and smaller than were economically viable. This only stopped when there were simply no more fish to catch. At no point were those in charge or involved able or willing to recognize the right answer. They had to not just dramatically reduce the catch to allow the stocks to recover, they had to stop fishing for them entirely. Instead they chose precisely the opposite action and destroyed the ecosystem, and with it any potential of returning to "normal" in anyones lifetime.

We face the same fate here. We humans are responding in exactly the same fashion in a myriad of different decisions and ways.

Rather than recognize the catastrophe we are in and doing what is required to save ourselves, the current leadership in the US (and several other countries) is making decisions that not only ignore that reality, but rather instead drive in exactly the wrong direction. Just as with the great banks cod, the result will be an acceleration of the shifts and a magnification of the catastrophe both in scope, size, and speed.

Whereas 20 years ago I thought we could avert what was coming, I have come to realize now that what I thought I knew then was wholly insufficient, and that our last real chance to avert major shifts in the environment likely passed in about 1970 - fifty years ago. Likewise, I recognize that we still lack understanding of major aspects needed for where we truly are and how fast and severe the shifts will be.

I now fully expect that climate change (through its subsidiary catastrophes on economy, finance, health, etc...) will likely play a major and possibly deciding role in when and how I personally will die. I am no spring chicken. For the young the situation is far more dire. For them other aspects like war, pestilence, disease and economic and ecological collapse are likely deciding factors in their demise.

And still - humanity will not listen, at least not until it is far far too late to do anything meaningful.

Sam

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 17, 2019, 05:03:43 PM »
No attachment needed. The view of the whole icecap in Worldview is stunning today. Go see it.

11
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 10, 2019, 03:46:52 PM »
votes for children concentration camp emergency funding after a tea-session with Nancy Pelosi sharing her investment portfolio tips about the companies that profit of it.

I don't think these sort of comments are helpful or fair as there's no evidence for this, it's just conjecture that suits your bias. Wouldn't it be better to find what she actually said about the situation ?

As an outsider (Perth Australia) with no knowledge of the details I would imagine emergency funding would be kind of essential after locking the children up (which wasn't her doing) what's she supposed to do block funding and allow them to starve?

Is there any better reason with any evidence of why this happened ?
Sometimes I get lost in trying to imagine the real world behind those political words. There's no reason to expect news will cover the majority of the horrific side of the establishment so I feel like I try to make sense in the best way I can. Don't get me started on Betsy deVos.

They cannot vote for such funding under the motto of providing better care. The taxpayer pays over $700 per night per child. https://www.gq.com/story/trump-detention-camps-cost
Trump hotels don't even charge that much.
Nancy does hold a lot investments. In companies linked to these firms, and that's what we know. https://gizmodo.com/turns-out-all-kinds-of-tech-companies-are-working-with-1827006046
A little far fetched maybe but in the end is all about creating demand for the companies you can pick.

AOC recently got rid of her good leftist political advisors and has since voted yes on a recent emergency funding addition of a few hundred million I cannot find back.. I looked at the house voting records. I can only imagine what happened and apologize for stating my conjecture as fact.

12
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 10, 2019, 02:11:09 PM »
The Democractic party is not centrist. Hillary nuked socialism, as I mention AOC (the most leftist??) votes for children concentration camp emergency funding after a tea-session with Nancy Pelosi sharing her investment portfolio tips about the companies that profit of it.

The 2016 election showed that they don't even care about what little electoralism is left of Democracy in the US. It's a nepotistic party of anti-humanitarians who'd rather see the world burn so they don't have to take care of all the poor folks anymore.

Franzen re-prioritizes the same things we already know, while in the meantime providing fodder for all kinds of AGW denialists, Collapse fantasizers and most importantly the status quo to not really change anything, because he says right there it's extremely unlikely to happen.

What about some actual, realistic suggestions? If you want to highlight problems with the Green Deal, do so properly, I read this yesterday and makes for a lot saner perspective than this drama inviting provocation. https://www.marxist.com/marxism-vs-modern-monetary-theory-mmt.htm

Saying we can't afford solar panels because else we might miss funds to take care of people later is a completely useless and bs argument. How about taking care of both? And yes, also reducing productivity greatly. It's all possible if we stop being so obsessed about having to prove how other peoples ideologies are wrong. Just prove that yours is right.

13
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: September 10, 2019, 01:23:19 PM »
A couple of points here.  The Democratic party in the US would be a centrist party in much of the world.  Warren regularly calls herself a "capitalist" and argues that fighting climate change will be good for the economy and create tons of great jobs. The Green New Deal sells itself as a jobs program.  Only Andrew Yang is talking about the future of work, which is one of the key issues facing humanity.  Bernie comes close to getting it (maybe), but with the balance of powers in the US Constitution and the current make up of the Supreme Court, no president could possibly create change at the scale that is required.

Just because renewables are "cheaper than coal" does not mean that we can transform the global energy system in anything remotely close to the needed timescale. The fossil fuel industry will fight for DECADES to amortize the sunk costs of its infrastructure and to avoid stranding its booked assets.

It is these socio-economic forces that makes Franzen pessimistic that humanity will rise to the challenge.  By all means fight them, but they are massive and tenacious.

And finally, Franzen is NOT saying "Give up and party 'cause the game is up." He is saying we need to think carefully about our priorities.  Taking the argument to its extreme, if a storm flooded New York and a million people were homeless and desperate should the government say "Hey, sorry, we're building solar farm and have no money to help you"?  That's (one of) the questions he asking.

14
...

Will be interesting to see what happens during the next ten years, could we see battery driven or hybrid light tanks as battery ranges increase? The advantage of the latter would be no complex ICE to break down in the middle of a battle, no hot exhaust fumes and noise to give away a position, and if the batteries are at the bottom of the tank maybe fewer fires (although mines could be really dangerous).

One of my colleagues is studying the carbon emissions of the military, which are colossal. Governments try really hard not to disclose the scale of the military's GHG emissions.

I read somewhere that the US military GHG emissions would rank in the top 50 nations if they were a separate Country.  I think it's among the low lying fruit that a new President could tap if they want to immediately cut US GHG emissions.

They could by executive order:
- Require all military bases to be powered by green energy through PPAs.
- Require all new non-combat vehicles to be battery powered (there are a lot of sedans, pickups, vans and buses used to get around the huge military bases)
- Increase the amount of solar panels on military housing and buildings (there are already a lot, started under the Obama administration)
- Fund grid interconnection projects to strengthen the electrical grid against potential terrorist attack (and in the meantime alleviate intermittency problems that could occur with large amounts of solar and wind powering the grid)
- Fund research in solid-state batteries for ships and combat vehicles through DARPA and the other military research funds (it's a large budget)



15
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 05, 2019, 07:26:29 PM »
Look at this big piece of fast ice go poof in just 1 day... Today - one day later - it's blue ocean...
This is to the east of Greenland, in the Fram strait.

https://go.nasa.gov/2LmJBVg

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 05, 2019, 12:36:55 PM »
August Area, Extent & Volume losses may have been low, but SST anomalies continued to climb and expand.

I wish I had saved the images from the beginning of the melting season. But I did not. mea culpa.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 05, 2019, 04:35:55 AM »
A few frames from Climate Reanalyser (at 33, 99 and 186 hours out)with yesterdays Bremen extent map marked to show where I think melt will cease very soon and freezing perhaps begin(perhaps I've drawn the area a little too large?), and where melt will continue.

Its looking like we're for a series of massive influxes of warmth (and storminess - N Pacific storms are showing signs of penetrating the Arctic  basin more often, wrapping around Chukotka)from the Pacific, and some from the Atlantic as well

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 05, 2019, 04:29:46 AM »
It seems that a lot more ice has melted out in the Beaufort this year than virtually any other year. The only recent year that is maybe worse is 2015. This year is a lot worse than 2012 (notwithstanding the remaining tongue).

Attached: North of Prince Patrick Island (CAA), early Sept 2019, 2015, 2012 (relatively cloud-free days).

https://go.nasa.gov/2LiEJ3r

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 04, 2019, 09:40:55 PM »
I've been watching Lingling and Dorian recently, and I'm interested that they both undergo extratropical transition and integrate their momentum into the jet stream around the same time:



Dorian and Lingling are the symmetrically opposite 968mb lows here. Their angular momentum seems to enhance a dipole pattern, and the timing of their momentum transfer will be critical to how it sets up here. Regardless of the exact configuration, it looks like this will split the initiating tropospheric polar vortex into two lobes and allow a major heat/moisture intrusion from the Pacific



As we enter peak hurricane season, it's important to remember that one of the major heat engines that moves heat from equator to pole are tropical cyclones, so watching their activity will be critical to see how the freezing season initiates (or fails to)

This to me indicates that the melting season is not over yet and way may see losses for the next two weeks. I would be stunned if the AO does not go negative again in the next two weeks, but then again I'm just a naive observer and not a pro meteorologist.

Edit: And after looking at this month's PIOMAS, I really wonder if this will push the Sept 15 update into first place.

Pages: [1]