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 - SteveMDFP

Pages: [1] 2 3
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 15, 2019, 07:22:53 PM »

Whenever a curve or line is fitted to a graph it is to illustrate a correlation; such a correlation is the decline in sea ice volume over the last few decades. I'm no expert in sea ice modelling but, there is a fundamental need to understand how one would apply a model to be able to predict future conditions.

To understand a correlation a model is built. The model can perhaps take the starting data and then show how sea ice has changed on a year to year basis (hind casting). It can then be used to predict the future, and it's skill tested by it's ability to do so. Models are only as good as the test conditions applied. Hindcasting can be tricky as there is the temptation to model fit the data.

Obviously models based on a line fit are incorrect, they can be trivial disproved by projecting backwards in time and showing that there wasn't that much ice 10000 years ago. I hear the 'but there wasn't GHG emissions" so immediately the model has to include global warming from GHG gases. Assumptions are disproved, the model improves. If a model can effectively hind cast current sea ice from pre industrial times, then we perhaps have a chance of predicting more accurately what the future holds.

At least correlate global temperatures with sea ice volume, that seems like a better starting point than time.

« on: August 26, 2019, 03:34:40 AM »
Maybe there should be a quiz before you can post to rule out stupid comments???   It might shut me up sometimes 😝

PS. I hope this does not turn out to be my most liked comment. 🤔

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 18, 2019, 05:14:14 PM »
the value of pms .. Neven can read at his leisure and respond in kind rather than search for posts that may be 10 or 20 pages back when he returns or maty never read .. b.c.


Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: June 11, 2019, 01:12:34 PM »
I agree with Tom and Kiwi. This all can be explained by (misguided) optimism. Kat has to be given the benefit of the doubt.

That said, i wonder when this thread will calm down and goes on topic again. Endless debates of who might be a troll are tiring and aren't helpful.

If someone thinks someone isn't suited for this forum, isn't the way to go to bring it to Nevens attention? He has shown to act accordingly when the concerns are grounded in reality.

Can we please stop accusing and insulting other members now?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 02, 2019, 06:58:28 AM »
the area above Ellesmere and Greenland (is that what gets called the CAB)?
yes.  In the upper right corner of this page is a link to the ASI Graphs.  Click it, then click the "Regional graphs" tab.  There you'll see the Cryosphere Today based map of the Arctic showing the several (main) areas in the Arctic.  (They ignore the Baltic Sea, for example.)  Click on the map for an enlargement.  Once on the ASIG, you can spend hours (months, years even) studying the maps and graphs and links.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:59:51 AM »
be cause: can only guestimate area that heads out of the basin but it is a lot
Right. Wind-driven ice motion has been extraordinary this freeze/melt season. By translocating thicker, older ice into zones that will melt out later in the summer, or exporting ice altogether out of the basin via the Fram, Nares and Svalbard-FJL chain plus blocking Kara Sea ice on the import side, wind-driven ice motion may challenge conventional bottom and top melt this year as the leading ice volume loss mechanism.

The first image below shows  on mid-basin Atlantic-side feature drift (boundary between old and new ice) over the the last 195 days using twenty-day contours.

A similar area of ice ahead of the front has been (or will be if wind patterns keeps up) irreversibly displaced out of the basin. This area can be measured, not adjusting for compression or extension, by lifting geo-referenced Ascat images onto Google Earth Pro for its ellipsoidal (WGS84) area and length calculations (2nd image shows the 7.109 million sq km polygon of relevant Arctic Ocean.

Wx predictions are the proverbial drunk looking for her car keys under the street lamp because the light is better there -- winds thousands of meters above the ice are easier to predict than the 0m winds, yet only the latter actually move the ice pack (by coupling to pressure ridges and floe edges rather than flat pan).

You can see this on any given day by comparing ice motion vectors observed by OSISAF/NSIDC to winds GFS or ECMWF are showing, before or after reanalysis (3rd image). Surface currents are negligible (or as oceanographer R Woodward notes, induced by ice keels) outside the intake funnels of the Nares and Fram and inconsistent Bering Strait flows to/from the Chukchi. Note the ice pack has a certain amount of mechanical rigidity, leading to cohesive motion despite a heterogeneous stress field.

The Arctic Ocean is seriously 'under-instrumented', meaning models have never had sufficient calibration or feedback guidance. On the rare instances an instrumented ship has been out there in May (eg N-ICE spring 2015), measurements departed markedly even from nearby land stations like Ny-Ă…lesund. However nobody ever fixed a weather model or reanalysis based on a basin instrument account.

Help is in sight (with a 2-3 year delay?): this Sept, AWI's Polarstern will drift for a full year on a thick Siberian-side floe (lol !) to collect "direct in-situ observations of the climate processes that couple the atmosphere, ocean, sea ice, bio-geochemistry and ecosystem ... to enhance understanding of the regional and global consequences of Arctic climate change and sea-ice loss and improve weather and climate predictions.

This won't be meagre point weather and ice properties because they are going out to a 50 km swath radius on both sides of the drift track. The 4th image shows a hypothetic drift trajectory. They'd have been home early this year whereas in 2017/18 the ship would hardly have moved in the hoped-for direction:

233 days of anti-transpolar drift 2017-2018.mp4,2278.msg155398.html#msg155398

The Oden made a remarkable observation of open water at the north pole on 25 Aug 18, photographing a walrus there, messing with a research sled. Ask yourself how much open water there had to be regionally for a walrus to swim to the NP on that date and when it last ate: the water is 4,087 m deep whereas the deepest walrus dive ever recorded is 500m.

This and a few little things like ice thickness went seriously under-reported (except by Jim Hunt and twitter). This has really got to change -- scientists chewing on their cud for years (buffing their journal articles) while leaving everyone else in the dark.

I had an identical experience trying to get even the most mundane CTD casts from the Polarstern when by great good fortune they were able to reach the Weddell Sea during that unprecedented reversal of the Fram in Feb 18 attributed to a sudden stratospheric warming. A cr*ppy article by another research group ensued who also couldn't get the data. Where is the public benefit in  hoarding?

There is no country in the world without socialism. That's a fact.

Even in the US, there are plenty of examples. Socialism is a financing scheme for services needed in a society more than a political ideology.

The very creation of the nation state results in socialism as the state pursues the common good. Ayn Rand proponents would have you believe that absolute personal freedom without constraints in the pursuit of self interest is the perfect state for man. Hobbes more accurately characterized life in this state of nature as "nasty, brutish and short."

The rest / Re: The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out
« on: February 24, 2019, 01:01:08 PM »
There have been 1878 posts in this thread.

Lots of accusations against "corporate" Democrats, named and unnamed.
No accusations against Republicans, but if you bring that up you're chased off the thread as being off topic.

So I was wondering.

Do we have a list of Democrats that are NOT considered "corporate" by the posters in this forum ?

They would be the one's no one has heard off because they don't have any money.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 05, 2019, 02:28:24 AM »
The circular arguments in this thread are so tiresome. At their heart is the conviction that Tesla and Musk are to blame for the world's woes, regardless of any evidence or logic.
There are 80+ million new cars being sold each and every year, globally, burning fossil fuels. A total of more than 1 billion are prowling the globe. This is the problem. Is Tesla/Musk to blame for that? No. Does it matter if Musk is a liar or not? No. Does it matter how many Tesla execs have come and gone? No. Does it matter if Tesla goes chapter 11 or 7? No. And yet the concerned citizens on this thread keep coming back to those issues.

But when confronted with opposing arguments on these issues, they swoop with the killer argument - we, the posters on this thread are the problem, because we support a non-ideal solutions to these 80 million annual new cars. Instead of banishing them with a flick of the fingers and a carbon tax and some regulations, we support electrifying them.

To put things straight - I would bet >90% of thread posters support reducing the number of cars worldwide, a steep carbon tax, and any and all other regulations aimed at reducing fossil fuel use and GHG emissions, even if it means reducing living standards and shrinking economies. If anyone wants to argue these arguments, I strongly suggest that the place is not in this thread. Banishing cars, public transportation, curbing over-consumption, all have nothing to do with Tesla. Should these measures be adopted, Tesla will be bankrupt anyway, and good riddance.

I do beg the question - in the interim, while these measures are sadly not adopted yet, should we continue to build fossil fuel cars, or is it better that these cars are electrified? I personally believe that the answer is an obvious yes to electrified vehicles. I strongly suggest that if you believe otherwise the place to argue that argument is in the cars cars cars thread, or some other thread, but certainly not here.

The subject of this thread is - will Tesla succeed or fail in its mission to convert global transportation to electric (as well as converting energy generation to renewable, but that is currently the secondary focus)? If you hate Tesla for what it represents, a Green BAU partial solution to a BAU problem, why do you care if is succeeds or fails? It's all the same anyway, BAU. If Tesla goes bankrupt, somebody else will make these 80 million cars. I strongly suggest that if Green BAU hatred is your motivation, this thread is not for you. The underlying assumption in this thread is that cars are being electrified, Tesla is the supposed leader in this field, but some claim it is a fraud or a failure. Is it or is it not? These are the arguments appropriate for this thread.
When you lose or get tired of such arguments and immediately jump the high horse of cars are evil and we are the problem, it strongly smacks of concern trolling to me.

Zizek's " The world does not have the capacity for more cars. We need to move away from the suburban lifestyle. And Elon Musk is not offering an alternative to excessive consumption, but rather a very expensive replacement to a single problem that exists within a much bigger picture." - True, but totally does not belong here. Sorry.
GSY's "It is so sad and kinda weird that people get transfixed by the way things function now, and don't think anything else is realistic. " - Does not belong here. Sorry.

The way to resolve arguments and move this thread forward, is to focus on each relevant issue, rather than issue hopping. Fraud or not. Executive rollover. Financial Results. Cash balance. Bankruptcy scenarios. Upcoming new models. Base version will happen or not. Competition. Energy business.

The rest / Re: The Media: Examples of Good AND Bad Journalism
« on: January 14, 2019, 08:54:13 AM »
<snip, I've decided not to go through the same motions>

Martin, maybe you haven't noticed, but ever since I've taken some measures to limit the amount of space mainstream conditioned thinking gets to take up on this forum, the belligerent bitching has been reduced by 90%. I really like it that way, much more quiet and interesting. Things have improved massively.

It's not that you have "taken some measures".
It's that a fair amount of commenters (including me) left, after we were told in no uncertain terms that our input on the ASIF was no longer appreciated.
And yes, that cleared up things tremendously, since now only the pro-Russia crowd is left over.
They are still promoting Jimmy Dore and RT, as you can see above.

It's just that there is no more push-back against that Russian propaganda.

This place can do without missionaries who impose their worn-out, 20th century narratives that come straight out of the divide-and-conquer strategies pushed by concentrated wealth (irrespective of nationality) to keep the wars and AGW going strong, because this Forum is about Arctic sea ice loss, not about politics.

You know, Neven : this hurts.

I came here in 2011, while fighting the deniers at WUWT, hoping to find here a crowd that was using evidence-based reasoning and science to come to conclusions about AGW and Arctic Sea Ice decline.

I feel extremely strong about AGW. Probably even more so than you do. But I approach the problem and the solution from a scientific, and engineering and economics point of view. For example : Solar farms make sense, and solar roads don't. Shutting down coal plants make sense, and so does installing grid batteries, but geo-engineering doesn't make sense, and neither does the Keystone XL (tar-sands) pipeline.

And yes, I feel very strong about Russia too. Russia has no business invading in Ukraine, and their role in the downing of MH17 cannot be denied, and neither can their meddling in foreign elections, including the US 2016 elections, and neither can we deny the poisoning of the Skripals in the UK nor the Russian bombing of hospitals in Syria.

I'm really sorry you disagree with me and some other posters here (like Martin, Susan, ASLR, Bob Wallace etc) on some issues.

But I think you are making a big mistake in booting these fine people out.

Instead, you could have booted out the Russian propagandists that we argued with.
That would have quieted down the discussion too.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 21, 2018, 02:23:33 AM »
If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: November 15, 2018, 05:33:28 PM »
Thanks (as always), vox. I had a feeling that I had seen those doctored and intentionally mis-representing graphs from other denialists and pseudo-sceptics on other sites. Thanks for doing the extra work of actually tracking them down.

I had the impression that this was one place we wouldn't have to put up with non-stop trolling from WUWT enthusiasts. Sadly, some still seem to squeak through. Apparently they've learned that all they have to do is mouth approval of some of the head moderators pet favorite sites (Dore, etc) and positions, and then they can get away with all sorts of crap not usually allowed here.

On another note, I was a bit surprised that this now-fairly-common denialist trope has not yet made it into the "Most Used Climate Myths" over at Skeptical Science (unless I missed it).

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: October 04, 2018, 06:04:38 AM »
I would like to thank Mr. Neven and Mr. Petit (and perhaps other moderators i have missed) for their patience in wading thru the muck while moderating this forum. It is easy for members like me to disregard entire threads or individual posters but they do not have that luxury.  They have to deal with every temper tantrum on every thread, i am quite impressed by their forbearance. I have run moderated lists and groups before and i would have ejected many more than they have.

I offer a lesson from Usenet: i have found the best (moderated) newsgroups are the ones most tightly focussed with draconian moderation. Some of the better newsgroups have a policy that any complaint about moderation is instantly rejected.

The next best are those where the posters and audience  know how to use killfiles (in this case, ignore lists)  and do.

Lastly, i would remind that this forum is Mr. Neven's forum. When I visit someone, i defer to his wishes as to what may or may not be discussed. If those limits displease me, i am free to go elsewhere. That is merely common courtesy. I suggest those unhappy with Mr. Neven's judgements start their own forum.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: May 30, 2018, 12:46:27 PM »
Melt season looking pretty ho-hum thus far. I see you mention dipole, Neven. Should post in stupid questions bin but what is a dipole? And how do you "like" comments? I see many likes but can't figure it out.

Pages: [1] 2 3