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 - Paddy

Pages: [1]
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 15, 2020, 02:40:34 AM »
Trump has been sabotaging the world's response since the beginning of this emergency, and he has to sabotage it even further to save face he will do so. It does not matter how many people die.

He just called for the US to end WHO funding. Right in the middle of a global pandemic.

We are witnessing Trump get away with mass murder for everyone to see. It will not get better.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 04:58:21 PM »
Your best friends daughter is with a chinese, and that's why harpy is an asshole ? You are an asshole.

Question: 1+1 = ?

Alex: I can't possibly see where you are going with this.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: March 22, 2020, 12:13:50 AM »
If your small farm was dependent upon restaurant sales you are in deep trouble right now. Those of us who use a shipping service for individuals ( direct customer business ) are still OK for now . However we are by far in the minority as far as farm plans go. Farming and restaurants operate on thin margins and many businesses will fail as expenses continue and incomes drop. My feed bill alone is about $2,000 a month and if you can’t sell your products you can get in trouble very quickly.
 Markets and market perturbations are far scarier than climate change, one slow the other instantaneous . Same is true for commercial fishing.
 Most decisions evolve around what you can sell at a profit rather than what will grow on your farm. If the profitable business fails because the market collapsed you probably can’t shift sideways to a different crop. You just go out of business like thousands of farms soon will.
 Because seafood is usually consumed at restaurants here in the US my fishermen friends are in trouble too. Exports market collapses had already truncated markets and with restaurant closures now delivering the season ending blow.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 02, 2020, 04:28:43 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT: 14,386,278 km2(March 1, 2020)

- Extent gain in the last 2 days 91 k,

I think this is a 3 day gain. Leap day isn't in your spreadsheet, but I fear it's real.
My reality belongs to me, even though you are correct.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: January 16, 2020, 05:14:43 PM »
I openly worried , through the noughties, just how folk would climb down from their lazy acceptance of the climate change denial they were being inundated with?

I guess that we're seeing how 'The Many' can be expected to react now?

Rather than accept their error they seek to compound it by believing ever more fantastical reasons why they have been right all along....

I do not believe we can expect any aid from such quarters? (once the world finally decides to act with the sense of urgency our Crisis demands)

Sadly the whacked out politics of both UK & USA appear to mirror all of this with supporters of the Lunatics they placed in power unable to see anything wrong with their choice for President/Prime Minister?

Ho Hum.....

Arctic sea ice / Re: 365 day average extent poll
« on: October 15, 2019, 09:04:50 PM »
Things have changed.

The difference in JAXA Extent 2019 from 2018 reduced from 545k on the 14 September to just 243k on 2nd October. This pushed the date of a straight line projection of a new 365 day average record low from early January 2020 to early May 2020.

But since that date the very low extent 2019 extent gains has increased the difference with 2018 to 597k by the 14th October. So the date of a new record low is back to early January.

There is 136 k to go to a new record 365 day low, (9,683,735 km2), with the daily change on 14th October at 1,589 k.

Outlook- from this date 2018 daily gain was fairly high to very high in the next month.
IFF (if & only if) 2019 extent gains are generally at or below average, we could see a record 365 day average low late in this year.

Data table & graphs attached
ps: If what is happening with extent this month had happened last month - there would have been many headlines

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: September 21, 2019, 08:27:14 AM »

Anyone feeling nervous about JAXA dropping below 3.75 yet?

It will drop below 3.75 M km², but not in 2019  ;)

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

Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: September 03, 2019, 07:50:05 AM »
I am just glad there is a U.S. Coasty out there who has the guts to go out and try to give comfort and help as much as that ship and crew can for those people while we continue under the illegitimate rule of that bastard in the White House. This retired Army officer salutes that Coast Guard commander, all of the crew, and that boat. Any decent COC of American services would free up a LOT of help via our military and civil services for something as disastrous as this situation just a few miles off our coast but our current president will ignore it to the best of his ability, even with a chattering group of staff people suggesting that just maybe something should be done to help an allied power who did so much for us in WWII and some of people he other dust ups we have been in since. I tend to wonder if the Commander of that ship is allowed to finish service with the honor deserved ... especially if the commander is a woman.

Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 21, 2019, 09:13:15 PM »
As loyal Canadians we don't want to focus on the folly of selling off the nations gold. ::)

As far a Brexit goes I think you're spot on. Leaving Europe will push the Brits into the waiting arms of the Americans. Not the best place to be if you value your sovereignty.


Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: August 14, 2019, 11:31:25 PM »
Blaming the climate crisis on overpopulation means blaming the most marginalised for a problem caused by the rich.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 31, 2019, 03:11:31 PM »
IMO, the data which would best represent what is going on in the Arctic is a 5 or 10 year rolling average.

Individual summers bring a lot of weather volatility which will swing the 365 day average around a lot.

The mob awaits the spectacle of the mythical event that suddenly transforms us from ok to calamity. But AGW isn't a lion attack. It's a constrictor. Slowly and steadily tightening it's grip and suffocating us.

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: July 27, 2019, 10:46:24 PM »
 GRACE-FO is producing new mass loss data that I can read. Also posted on what's new.

We will get a much better handle on what's going on from now on.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 23, 2019, 12:07:34 AM »
Going Sea by Sea:

Beaufort - large amounts of dispersion, but also mostly larger floes, and weather has mostly been cooler in this region.  I suspect the ice is thicker and more durable than might be assumed at first glance looking at the broken appearance.  However the forecast high will hit this hard with heat and sun going into all that open water between the floes.  In 2012

Chukchi - the big story of the season with an ice boundary much further advanced than anything seen before.  Ice floes are much smaller than Beaufort, there is a lot of dispersion on the edge.  The forecast high will hit this area with heat, sun and wind, and the ice slaughter will continue.

ESS - Very weak ice, and an ice edge that has advanced further than 2012, but not as far as 2007.  Bore the brunt of early heatwaves, has been under low pressur and clouds since and the forecast continues this.  Ice would appear to be too weak to survive even under mostly favourable conditions.

Laptev - had a massive start early in June, but has been partly protected in the last few weeks.  A burst of warm air is pushed into this region with a sharp low early in the forecast which will do some more damage, but overall I see this region has fallen behind 2012 which had significant dispersion deep in the pack.  This year is a little like 2007 which had weaker melt in this region due to weather patterns pushing ice towards the Atlantic side, however NE passage remained blocked in this region in 2007 even at minimum and is now open (or at least very close to it).

CAB - the mystery.  Previous heat hasn't impacted this region as much, although there have been at least a couple significant warm incursions.  The forecast hits this region quite hard and it will be under serious assault from at least the Chukchi direction.  Perhaps the ice in this region is healthy enough to slow the melt down and prevent a record.  Or perhaps I'm clutching at straws.    Have a look at this region and compare to some other years.  Dispersion starting on top and left edge, 2012 maybe a little ahead, especially towards top right.  2016, 2008 and 2010 also have some significant dispersion much deeper into this region.  And 2010 wasn't a big melt year so no guarantees that this means anything.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 13, 2019, 11:21:13 PM »
The best book I have read about collapse (perhaps except the one by Jared Diamond) was "When money dies" (pdf link). And the city dwellers did raid the farms.
But now the economy is global, supply chains are long, no country and no city is self-sufficient, and everything depends on high maintenance items - computers, satellites, the power grid, dams, nuclear plants. Agriculture depends on technological support. The population is dense. Even if no nuclear war happens (with India starving/becoming unlivable, will they wait quietly for death?), the chances of survival for a city dweller are nil. No food, too many hungry people. Highest survival chances are for those who are the most isolated, living in some forest or mountain or grassland, in low pop density countries, and growing their own food. Solar panels a plus.
Get away from high density countries, especially those in hot climates. Move somewhere isolated and empty. Patagonia? Canada? Wisconsin? Portugal? (Really I have no clue). Is it worth it to give up your current relatively good life, in order to increase survival odds from 0% to 20% in a world not much worth living in? I doubt it.
Don't expect hospitals, airports etc., when civilization is too complex its unwinding will be terrible. In 1500 or 1900 or even 1942 people were much more self sufficient, much less dependent on technology and imports of necessities. In 2040 or 2050 WTSHTF most people will be useless and hopeless in the face of a sudden collapse. It's not as if they will be told to prepare a decade or two in advance.
BTW Rich - I think you are an optimist of sorts, looking at your assumptions.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 13, 2019, 04:14:21 AM »
If society truly collapsed, all the nuclear reactors would meltdown and the Northern Hemisphere would be uninhabitable within weeks, and the Southern Hemisphere would probably follow within a few months. So you would probably just be dead.

Chernobyl melted down and 20 km away, things never become uninhabitable. Japan got nuked twice and had a recent meltdown and the island densely populated. The world is large, so even 400 meltdowns down destroy all life.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:39:38 PM »
too much meta discussion...


Please take the discussions about the data to the melting thread. This is the thread for the data. This is not for discussions about the data.

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 16, 2019, 02:55:30 PM »
JAXA minimum extent:       3.5 to 4.0,  medium confidence
NSIDC September extent: 4.0 to 4.5,  medium confidence

This is based on linear regression, using the NSIDC sea ice area in mid-June as a predictor for the minimum/September extent.

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 15, 2019, 03:28:26 PM »
Another hostage to fortune..

JAXA Daily minimum 3.75 to 4.25 million km2 - High Confidence
NSIDC September average 4.00 to 4.50 million km2 - High Confidence

I am going for a relatively small difference between the daily and monthly figures. This is because
- it looks like the slope to minimum is usually shallower than the increase afterwards,
- and I read somewhere (I think) that a study said their model trended to later minimum dates in the future.
This would tend to bring a September average closer to the daily minimum (I think).

What if the weather was so weird it pushed the minimum date to the 1st October?
Earliest minimum 7 Sept 2016,
Latest minimum 21 Sep 2018.
Average 13 Sep. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 15, 2019, 12:53:14 PM »
4.25-4.75 jaxa
4.50-5.00 nsidc
OK. But what confidence level?

Since there's still time, I'm revising my JAXA prediction:

JAXA 3.75 - 4.25 medium confidence (down from 4.00 - 4.50 medium confidence last week)
NSIDC 4.25 - 4.75 medium confidence (no change)

Things progressed more than expected in the last week! (though not extent data)

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 15, 2019, 12:00:47 PM »
I had guessed there might be a June stall in extent decline, something that is now occurring. Therefore a  “high” bin was selected, which is only “high” in context of the new normal, relative to earlier decades of the satellite measurement era:

4.25-4.75 jaxa
Oh, sorry about confidence level omission. I say “low” confidence because the current stall may not last much longer and because July and August weather metrics are not foreseeable, other than temps should be above 0°.

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 12, 2019, 05:23:46 AM »

JAXA: 3.75 to 4.25, medium
NSIDC: 4.00 to 4.50, medium

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 12, 2019, 12:30:08 AM »
To enter, post guess and confidence in this thread before the closing date of the poll.

When is the deadline for June predictions in this thread?  Last year the deadline was 16 June, 23:59 UTC, is it the same this year?
For context, the polls last year closed:
JAXA: 2018-06-15 23h52m49s UTC
NSIDC: 2018-06-12 22h10m19s UTC

So basically the deadline for predictions was 24 hours after the later of the polls closed.

This year:
JAXA: 2019-06-11 18h24m20s UTC
NSIDC: 2019-06-11 19h45m19s UTC

I only posted in this thread some hours after the polls closed, but linked to predictions (including confidence level) I posted in the poll threads. Those posts were last edited on June 8. Please let my prediction qualify!  :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: September predictions challenge 2019
« on: June 12, 2019, 12:19:13 AM »
June 2019

JAXA: 4.00 - 4.50 medium confidence
NSIDC: 4.25 - 4.75 medium confidence

Walking the walk / Re: Top climate-friendly actions
« on: April 30, 2019, 10:51:13 AM »
Or support a value based bank. 55 of 'em around the globe now:

A small but growing issue is that cash payments are on decline and some even refuse to take cash nowadays, Ekobanken (the only one here) doesn't provide card payments.

The politics / Re: Brexit...
« on: April 12, 2019, 07:54:34 PM »
So, as a thoroughly pro-Remain Brit

Sensible chap :)

How much of a shambles is needed before it is decided that current views of current electorate should be considered?

While I voted remain and remain firmly pro remain, I don't really have any good argument why my position should be treated any more favourably than someone else's views from the other side. Also I don't hear of many people changing views from leave to remain. However, I think there must be lots who abstained who would now vote remain to end this shambles as soon as possible and people who voted leave that might think it is such a shambles that they would abstain.

I consider not consulting people again something like 3.5 years later when there is much more info on how it is going to be more serious abuse of democracy than the problem of failing to honour result of first referendum.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 19, 2019, 01:50:44 AM »
JAXA max extent on March 12th, with an extent on 14,271,121 km^2. This requires a daily extent loss of -72,520 km^2 for 183 straight days (on average) for a blue ocean event to occur.
I like your comment, but the truth, I discard a blue ocean event (BOE) on the near future.

I think that we are on a new stage, in which it will be bad enough if on the following 12 years (2030):
   a) We have 3 years like 2012 or a little worst.
   b) We have an increase in the annual average sea level rise.
   c) We have an increase in methane emissions, because of permafrost melting.

I think that we have a big probability of seeing these three events on the following 12 years, no matter what we do.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: March 12, 2019, 01:43:26 PM »
A longer take on Germany’s news from January.

Germany to close all 84 of its coal-fired power plants, will rely primarily on renewable energy
Germany, one of the world’s biggest consumers of coal, will shut down all 84 of its coal-fired power plants over the next 19 years to meet its international commitments in the fight against climate change, a government commission said Saturday.

The announcement marked a significant shift for Europe’s largest country — a nation that had long been a leader on cutting CO2 emissions before turning into a laggard in recent years and badly missing its reduction targets. Coal plants account for 40% of Germany’s electricity, itself a reduction from recent years when coal dominated power production.
The decision to quit coal follows an earlier bold energy policy move by the German government, which decided to shut down all of its nuclear power plants by 2022 in the wake of Japan’s Fukushima disaster in 2011.
Included in the recommendations was that the phase-out target be reviewed every three years. Also, the final deadline could be moved forward, if possible, by three years to 2035.

The initial targets are considerable, calling for a quarter of the country’s coal-burning plants with a capacity of 12.5 gigawatts to be shut down by 2022. That means about 24 plants will be shut within the first three years. By 2030, Germany should have about eight coal-burning plants remaining, producing 17 gigawatts of electricity, the commission said.

The rest / Re: Relative sanity of fringe groups
« on: March 05, 2019, 04:26:11 AM »
It is difficult to choose between the anti-vaxxers and the climate denialists for the most harmful group.
The anti-vaxxers are causing death and disfigurement every day, but one hopes this fad will fade away or be legislated out of existence.
Climate denialists are threatening the very future of life on earth, but their influence wanes with every fire, flood, storm and drought.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: February 26, 2019, 02:20:43 PM »
Down 176K in 3 days, with average gain left 180k & 5 of the last 10 years having less - Does that not sound like 50/50 that the maximum is already in?
On to melting season!  8)

Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll 2019: JAXA Maximum
« on: February 25, 2019, 09:44:11 AM »
I’m calling max

Let us know if he says anything interesting.  ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 24, 2019, 03:56:04 AM »
Oh my god, someone has created AI bots with multiple names like Zizek, GoSouthYoungins, Lurk ... just not sure whether funded by Tesla shorts or by FF interests trying to ruin the signal to noise ratio here on Neven's blog by posts and by deliberate flailing wind up attempts.

How is this sort of post contributing anything?

No I don't really think so, but it feels like it sometimes.

Yeah, sorry for criticizing the echo chamber of technofetish capitalists. Next friday I'll be receiving my cheque from the fossil fuel industry and investment bankers for.....

*checks notes*

calling for a revolutionary action against capitalism

hmmm. interesting priorities they have these days.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 13, 2019, 05:07:15 PM »

Canada's Answer to Tesla Is a $15,500 Electric Three-Wheeler
Carmakers from Tesla Inc. to Nissan Motor Co. and Volkswagen AG are racing to make the car of the future. So far they’ve produced cleaner, quieter but costlier versions of the ones already out there. Profitability has been elusive -- many manufacturers are likely losing money on each unit, but sell in pursuit of future market share, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Electra Meccanica says its quirky reimagination of an automobile aims to redefine the category.

"Tesla is doing a good job on building big cars -- conventional cars that are electric," says Kroll, who earlier worked on electric drive systems for NASA in California and befriended the co-founders of Tesla, Marc Tarpenning and Martin Eberhard.

“This company is producing the car that Elon Musk wishes he were building,” Kroll said in a separate interview with Bloomberg Television. “It is great to produce a $45,000, a $100,000 car or a $250,000 car. But for the masses? A $15,000 car that can get them to stop using gas. That’s creative."

Leona Green, 64, and her son Matthew, 41, were the Solo’s first customers and have been driving it for two years in Vancouver. They park it on the sidewalk in front of the deli they own for catering runs and have ordered a second because they kept fighting over it.

“I almost don’t want everybody having one,” she says. At least a few times a day, she passes out cards with the Solo’s specs, kept on hand to avoid answering the same questions repeatedly.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 12, 2019, 08:43:54 PM »
A secondhand car with 65 MPG, I don't think any shame is due at the current stage of available/affordable alternatives.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 12, 2019, 03:58:19 PM »
Admission of shame:
- Currently I'm driving about 10k miles a year for work
- Recently I had to get a new car after an accident
- For budget reasons I went for a small efficient secondhand 1.0L petrol vehicle with a combined MPG of 65 rather than an electric or hybrid. I intend to drive conservatively, liftshare, walk/cycle when possible etc, but still... not ideal.

A big factor in an individual’s EV transition is time. Many people simply can’t wait for the EV they want, because their current car died or they otherwise need a replacement right now.  Price is another reason.  Soon there will be cheaper options, including a more robust used EV market.  Kudos for your effort to be as sustainable as possible!

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: January 14, 2019, 11:46:39 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC Sea Ice Extent : 3,840,057 km2(January 13, 2019)

Extent loss of 84k , 58 k less than the average for this day.

Extent is lowest in the satellite record for this day, 110 k less than 2017 on this day, and 539 k km2 below 2018. Extent loss from maximum is 732k km2 (5.4%) greater than the 10 year average so far, with on average 84.4% of extent loss for the season done and on average 37 days to minimum.

The average remaining melt from this day to minimum would produce a minimum of 1.34 million km2,  810k km2 less than the record low in 2016-17.  Most of the remaining ice is at high concentration. With low concentration ice mostly gone the remaining solid ice close to the coast will likely continue to slow melt down further to a crawl.

Nevertheless, a record low minimum, the first below 2 million km2, is still my guess for the 2019 minimum, continuing the loss of Antarctic sea ice over the last three years (currently 3.8 million km2 less than the record high in 2014-15). However, the drop in daily extent losses has reduced confidence in that prediction.

All models have limitations. The first table attached shows that remaining melt in one of the previous years would result in an extent minimum of less than zero, an impossibility. Nevertheless, that is useful in that it shows how much extent this year is below that of the years to 2015.

Being still in the Austral summer, low extent and area means with insolation high, albedo warming potential in the Antarctic is also high and well above average.  This effect is gradually declining as 47 days of the highest insolation have now passed, and will quickly decline come February.

- see Tealight graphs at

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: October 29, 2018, 06:58:42 PM »
Here is a graph of O2 levels since 1991.   It does show a decline, as well as a seasonal variation, similar to the CO2 levels.   I will see if I can find a graph that shows both C02 and O2:

Losing oxygen at 19 molecules per million per annum for 100 years would reduce the concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere from an average of 20.9 percent (at sea level) to 20.7%. This is equivalent to walking up hill from wherever you are by about 20 metres (66 feet).

The average height of the world's land above sea level is 840 metres. If you lived at that average height you would be breathing oxygen at a concentration of about 19%. Many of the world's best long distance runners come from high plateaus such as in Kenya and Ethiopia. Many generations of people living at such high altitudes has led to better lung, heart and blood supply function. Olympic athlete hopefuls (especially long-distance runners) often go to such places for as long as they can as even a few months can improve these body functions.

In other words, oxygen depletion through fossil fuel burning has no effect on human health or any direct impact on global warming. It is merely an interesting side-effect of burning fossil fuels.

Now losing oxygen from the oceans is something to be scared about.
Try this website - for some background.
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels are Decreasing
Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide. These plots show the atmospheric O2 concentration relative to the level around 1985. The observed downward trend amounts to 19 'per meg' per year. This corresponds to losing 19 O2 molecules out of every 1 million O2 molecules in the atmosphere each year.

ps: CO2 graphs at

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: October 29, 2018, 05:06:15 PM »
The simple fact is that, with climate change, food insecurity across the planet will grow unrelentingly. Pointing to the effects of a couple of years of global bountiful harvests as a way of arguing that this need not be the case is no different than pointing to the effects of a La Nina as evidence that global warming will not continue.

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

I think you understood the report backwards.  Pointing to the effects of a couple of years of poor harvests (and social unrest) does not counter the evidence that food insecurity and world hunger has been on a long, steady decline.

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: September 25, 2018, 11:53:37 PM »
US fertility drops to all time low:


Pages: [1]