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 - Ken Feldman

Pages: [1] 2
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 27, 2019, 06:49:20 PM »
This interview is from 2015, so things will have moved on quite a bit from then:

https://energypost.eu/interview-steve-holliday-ceo-national-grid-idea-large-power-stations-baseload-power-outdated/

What is the future of baseload generation in such a system? “That’s asking the wrong question”, says Holliday. “The idea of baseload power is already outdated. I think you should look at this the other way around. From a consumer’s point of view, baseload is what I am producing myself. The solar on my rooftop, my heat pump – that’s the baseload. Those are the electrons that are free at the margin. The point is: this is an industry that was based on meeting demand. An extraordinary amount of capital was tied up for an unusual set of circumstances: to ensure supply at any moment. This is now turned on its head. The future will be much more driven by availability of supply: by demand side response and management which will enable the market to balance price of supply and of demand. It’s how we balance these things that will determine the future shape of our business.”

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 26, 2019, 08:54:16 PM »
And since there is no need.......
And that is the final and conclusive point.

There is no need for nuclear power. So why do it?

3
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 04, 2019, 05:30:34 PM »
SH, not great news, but not awful either:

From the link: Global coal demand in the next five years is set to be stable, with declines in United States and Europe offset by growth in India and other Asian countries ­– though China, the main player in the global coal market, will see a gradual decline in demand. In terms of the total energy mix, coal’s contribution will decline from 27% to 25%, mainly due to growth of renewables and natural gas.

A few years ago, the mainstream forecasts all argued that coal demand would continue to expand extremely rapidly for the foreseeable future. I suspect that the forecasts continue to overestimate rather than underestimate demand for coal in 5 years' time.

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: May 22, 2019, 10:42:01 AM »
A fusion plant would be nice to have, assuming it's feasible, but we can't afford the years going by. Instead we can already harvest the local existing fusion plant with PV.

5
Geez...we jumped into the nasty politics very quickly.

How about we let people figure out for themselves what kind of regime they want to live in?

No, that's totally impossible. Neven is the emperor here and I guess this thread will be locked soonish. 3 degrees is not a stable place for the earth to stop historically so given the premise of the thread and the peaceful co-op world is currently showing on reducing the flood of ghgs., I propose the thread should be renamed to have 4,5°Kelvin on its topic. (Please say i wrote the temperature wrongly).

+1 for shutting this thread, even though it's on the personally mostly ignored section of the forum.

6
Permafrost / Re: Toward Improved Discussions of Methane & Climate
« on: May 17, 2019, 09:33:56 AM »
Climate models already do use the "immediate" impact of methane and everything else. They use the modtran codes and derivatives to calculate instantaneous radiative imbalance. Then they integrate over time to get the long term results. And thats the right way to do it.

sidd

7
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: May 12, 2019, 04:32:09 PM »
10 year averages on CO2 growth shows the dent in the 1990s much clearer.
You should keep in mind that 1991 and 1992 were those two years which saw the collapse of most of the Eastern European / Soviet economies (much of it was energy-intensive and not "green"). For this reason these two years should be somehow excluded from evaluation. And if you did that the 90s had almost the same CO2 increase rate than the 80s.

8
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 01:45:11 PM »
Guy McPherson? I'll pass.

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 12:49:56 PM »
Yes, for some scientists to learn: avoid dissemination of catastrophic alarmist results if they don't have an extremely solid basis. 10-year linear trends? WTF?

Many deniers nowadays are using to discredit AGW claims from the 80's that were based on worst case scenarios and that did not come to happen.

I find alarmist scientists absolutely reckless. Fattening career and fame with +3sigma claims as baseline. As reckless as denier scientists paid with gold by the Cato Institute

Fortunately most of scientists take a more humble, more rigorous approach, something that is seen by some in forums like this as "coward" "staying in an ivory tower" "irresponsible" "slow science supports deniers" etc etc

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (April 2019)
« on: April 15, 2019, 03:39:33 PM »
Quote
Is this the  'slow transition' at work or 'statistical noise'?
I think it's a hint that an exponential regression is not appropriate in this case.

11
 

That is absolutely not true, as it depends on the average mpg of the ICE cars in the market and the amount of coal in the electricity supply. The Union of Concerned Scientists shows this below for the different US states. China has an over 60% share of coal in its electricity supply (plus some natural gas and oil) and an average mpg for its new cars of 37.4mpg in 2017.

You are wrong. And everyday that goes by you become even more wrong.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal

Quote
That’s the conclusion of research by BloombergNEF, which found carbon dioxide emissions from battery-powered vehicles were about 40 percent lower than for internal combustion engines last year. The difference was biggest in Britain and the U.K., which have large renewables industries. It still held in China, which is more reliant on coal to make electricity.


Even in China with its coal thirsty grid EVs emit less. The efficiency of EVs is just too high for ICEs to compete

Quote
So at best, a marginal emissions benefit for new EV's.

a 20% reduction in emissions reduction in one of the worst grids, China, is not marginal. It is significant. At 40% globally, and reduced with every renewable added to the grid, we have a real solution in our hands.

Quote
With EV emissions front-loaded (i.e. in manufacturing), emissions could get worse in the short-term. A short-term that could last quite a long time if EV volumes keep growing fast

The front loading of emissions in batteries is being reduced with every solar lithium farm, every solar panel on top of battery factories, every e-truck that enters the logistics chain of battery manufacturing.

Once batteries are cheap enough manufacturing can become 100% emissions free.

Right now the dirty machine is building the green machine with the hope that when adoption of renewable reaches critical mass green machines will be building green machines.

12
Federal judge casts doubt on Trump’s drilling plans across the U.S. because they ignore climate change

Quote
The decision by U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Judge Rudolph Contreras marks the first time the Trump administration has been held to account for the climate impact of its energy-dominance agenda, and it could have sweeping implications for the president’s plan to boost fossil fuel production across the country. Contreras concluded that Interior’s Bureau of Land Management “did not sufficiently consider climate change” when making decisions to auction off federal land in Wyoming to oil and gas drilling. The judge temporarily blocked drilling on roughly 300,000 acres of land in the state.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/03/20/federal-judge-casts-doubt-trumps-drilling-plans-across-us-because-they-ignore-climate-change/?utm_term=.9f36f698de39&wpisrc=al_news__alert-hse--alert-national&wpmk=1

13
Tamino on Why you need to support Jay Inslee, even though you’d rather choose another candidate
Quote


So I suggest you throw your support 100% behind the candidate who I don’t think can get the nomination. Jay Inslee.

What??? Why would I suggest you not only support, but vigourously support the guy I think won’t even get the nomination? Let me tell you.



If you love Bernie, keep Jay in the race so when the bitch-slaps come, the only ones left standing are Jay and Bernie. If you love Elizabeth, give her the bitch-slap she desperately needs, not just to get the nomination and the presidency, but to do right by us when she does.

Whoever gets the democratic nomination, needs to hear Jay Inslee’s voice loud and clear, right on their heels.

Tamino usually makes sense.

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 06, 2019, 02:13:47 AM »
It seems he objects to my pollyana-ish language ...


You are correct about the first part of your comment. But off the mark with this one above. How you speak, your style, beliefs and your opinions are fine. As is your "emphasis" even if I think it;s a little over the top/exaggerated at times. But we all do that when it comes to what we feel and believe is the important "message".

I think (and hope) if one had an objective view at my own (at times over-exaggerated) responses I generally "focus" on the missing details, especially in regard "media/blog" references. I don't claim to know everything about everything but when I see distortions and extreme cherry-picking or laziness by "journos/PR hucksters" this is what motivates me. I abhor people being misled by only hearing a slice of a story that claims to be the whole cake.

And/or appears to be the most important issue when it is not. Or where a series, a pattern of narratives keeps saying the same things that when taken together overtime presents a distorted reality of what is - this can occur even when everything said is basically correct and true in itself - but it's what is consistently missing from that narrative that causes the distortions in peoples minds and therefore their beliefs if they hear it often enough. 

That's my focus on these pages. Nothing personal and yes my own style and choice of words can also be a pain but that's really not the point is it. I do try to look past peoples beliefs opinions and style and see what the "information" is behind that which they are relying on. That's my "focus" even if sometimes I get the "facts" wrong myself or miss the mark in telling the whole story or placing things in the broader context - but no one can ever do that to everyone else's satisfaction.

Misrepresentations by the media, by politicians, by lukewarm scientists, by deniers, by greenies, by corporations, by PR writers, by advertisers, by bloggers, by forum/news media comment posters, by CEOs including Elon Musk, by religion and cults, by anyone in fact, has been a life long trigger and therefore a personal interest for all kinds of psychological personal reasons. The later half of my life has been spent learning everything I can about this phenomena. It's a key reason why I was never ever a potential victim of climate science denialism - and that had little to do with my climate science knowledge at the time - but was a motivator to get to the scientific facts as well and what they really "meant".

My Taurus Excretus antennas are highly tuned and nuanced. ;) (imho)  It is not a necessity to always know the all the objective facts to still be able to establish someone is lying through their teeth or so biased and unknowing their word is always unreliable and not credible.

eg I have a lot of faith in my ability to pick a Pathological Narcissist on the other side of the world - when I have had enough time to see them speaking and/or reading what they say and how they say it and what they look like when they are saying it. (That is not to say anyone else's here is worse or I am better than.) And it is not a comment about participants here but about those in power and those who have positions of 'authority' including in the media eg Luke Harding of The Guardian, Chris Monckton, or as easy as 'nailing' Donald Trump and his main competition in 2016. 

However my apologies for when I do come across as too harsh, strident, or intolerant and might appear to be blaming the 'poster' for the material they post. I try hard not to yet it is still a work in progress.

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 03, 2019, 05:46:52 PM »
Hornsea 1 in the North Sea (UK) has begun production 7 MW wind turbines

This video shows the current project and how Hornsea 2 will come in at a price about half that of Hornsea 1  Hornsea 2 will tout higher turbines at 8.4 MW each.



Upon completion it will have 1.2 GW of generational capacity at a very high capacity factor.

Hornsea II will tout larger wind turbines and their projected capacity factor will approach 60%

http://euanmearns.com/uk-offshore-wind-capacity-factors-a-semi-statistical-analysis/


16
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: February 13, 2019, 04:22:20 PM »
The logic of keeping coal plants open is getting weaker and weaker:

Trump intervenes in support of coal plant owned by major donor
Quote
...And why, pray tell, would Trump take time out of his crushingly busy schedule to lobby the Tennessee Valley Authority in support of a single aging coal plant? Because as Politico reported overnight, the president apparently wants to help one of his top supporters, who’s eager to keep the TVA as a customer.

[Trump’s] missive came just days before the TVA board is slated to vote on the future of Paradise Unit 3, a 49-year-old coal plant that the federally owned utility has said would be too expensive to keep operating.

The 1,150-megawatt plant gets the bulk of its coal from a subsidiary of Murray Energy, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. Robert Murray, the CEO of the mining company, is a major Trump supporter who has personally lobbied the president to take other actions to help the ailing coal industry, particularly in regions where he sells coal.

Murray is also, the report added, “a prolific GOP donor.” His support included exceedingly generous contributions to a leading pro-Trump super PAC in 2016. ...
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trump-intervenes-support-coal-plant-owned-major-donor


TVA Tells Trump & McConnell To Take A Hike
Quote
For its part, the TVA assured the Hater in Chief that in fact it had done its due diligence and decided it had chosen the correct course based on business realities rather than ideological niceties. It said it actually had given “serious consideration to all factors” in making its decision. Some 16.9 GW of coal fired capacity were retired in the US last year, according to S&P. The coal industry is dying and there is nothing those two lunatics in Assington can do to stop the decline. That’s a good thing.
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/02/12/tva-tells-trump-mcconnell-to-take-a-hike/

17
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: February 12, 2019, 12:20:46 AM »
If you look at Ken Feldman's post, your fears are unlikely.

He quotes a report of proposed net renewable installation of 183,800 million watts in 3 years.  Round to approx 60,000 million watts per year or 60 gigawatts per year.

If you assume each eV travels 12,000 miles a year at 0.36 kWh per year that would be 4080 kWh per car per year.

If you also assume a 25% capacity factor for renewables, that would be 2190 kWh/year for each kW installed.

That would mean that each eV need 2 kW installed.  By those calculations, the 60,000 million watt addition of renewables would support 30 million additional new eVs each year.

At that rate of renewable installation, even when we get to the point where every gas vehicle junked is replaced by a new eV, we still have additional capacity to replace ff electicity generation.

18
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: December 01, 2018, 05:14:09 AM »
The ESAS is releasing at least 17 Tg, not 2.9.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131125172113.htm

Different field studies give very different results.

Shakhova et al. 2014 says  17 Tg/yr
Berchet et al. 2016 says 0.0 to 4.5 Tg/yr
Thornton et al. 2016 says 2.9 Tg/yr

There are probably others I'm forgetting...

19
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 30, 2018, 01:51:42 PM »
That’s the thing. Do we listen to a modeler sitting behind a desk, or perhaps the actual researchers in the field who say it’s a problem

No, actually, the only way to determine whether X is a problem on the global scale is to listen to the whole community of scientists, most definitely including modelers.  Field science is important, but it's only one piece of the puzzle.  Or to switch metaphors, you need to look at the entire forest, not just individual trees.


20
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 09:02:39 PM »
I think most climate scientists would accept that as the Arctic warms there will be an increase in the Arctic methane flux from a variety of sources (terrestrial permafrost, lakes, etc.)

I think most climate scientists would reject the idea of a "methane bomb" in the sense of a very sudden (decade or less) release of a large volume of methane.  What is released will be spread out over centuries and thus have time to oxidize to CO2 along the way.

It is OK if people choose to believe something that most climate scientists would reject.  But you should understand what the consensus actually is, and be conscious that you're choosing to follow a small minority that disagrees with the consensus.  And you should not let that disagreement turn into contempt for scientists or accusations of bad faith.

That's what happens at WUWT.  People don't just politely disagree with the consensus, they (a) exaggerate the amount of disagreement among scientists, and (b) accuse mainstream, consensus scientists of being idiots or dishonest. 

Don't be like that.

21
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: November 29, 2018, 01:06:39 PM »
Terry wrote:
Quote
MIS 1 = the Holocene, and the numbers increase the further back in time we go. The peak of the Eemian is referred to as MIS - e.
It's easily explained at;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_isotope_stage

The second suggestion I have is a return to the more collegial air that prevailed at Neven's sites until rather recently. It only takes a few extra keystrokes to write "I believe you may be mistaken" than to scribble "Screw you, you're wrong".

I believe you may be mistaken, as the wiki entry you linked to identifies the Eemian as MIS 5e...

(But it would have been so much more fun to say, "Screw you, Terri, you're wrong...again!!!...or maybe just, "Terry, you ignorant slut!"  ;D )




22
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018/2019 freezing season
« on: November 16, 2018, 02:45:57 PM »
I removed the link. My blood is boiling.  ;)

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 10, 2018, 07:16:12 PM »
Nice table and graph. Really shows how extraordinary the beginning of the 2018 melting season is.

I agree it's a nice graph, but there is the issue that it kind of conflates "rate of refreezing" with "date of the minimum".  A year with an early minimum will have had more days to refreeze by now, vs a year with a late minimum. 

Here's an alternate version -- instead of looking at extent gain at a given date, it's extent gain during the first X days after whenever the minimum was:


2018 is still in the slower-freezing half, but it's not an outlier.

Which of these is a "better" way to look at it?  Not sure.  Probably good to consider both.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 07, 2018, 10:25:40 PM »
2018 is the 11th year with a minimum below 5'000'000 km². Since 2007, every year with exception of 2009 had a minimum below 5'000'000 km².

Here are the dates when the other 10 years passed the 5 million mark again in the freezing season, ordered from earliest to latest.

2014 - 21. September
2013 - 22. September
2010 - 25. September
2016 - 27. September
2017 - 29. September
2008 & 2015 - 30. September
2011 - 2. October
2007 - 9. October
2012 - 14. October

Let's see which position 2018 will take in this statistic

25
Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 26, 2018, 03:50:55 AM »
Rodius, glad you found something useful in our responses.

If you need a one-stop-shop for debunking denialist dummies, try:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Note that 'It's the sun' is number 2, indicating just how worn out and over used that particular lie is.

Also see: https://www.skepticalscience.com/10-Indicators-of-a-Human-Fingerprint-on-Climate-Change.html

Also, besides the fact that the poles, the night and the troposphere are warming faster than they would if warming was due only to (non-existent) increased solar activity, winters are also warming at a faster rate than summers are--again, the exact opposite of what would happen if the sun were responsible for the increase in global warming.

26
Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 22, 2018, 04:59:44 PM »
I would just like to point out that the total range of TSI here is from 1360 to 1362.  Two parts in 1300.  It's inconceivable to me that solar variation has any measurable impact on climate, in comparison to far more potent effects like CO2, particulates, land use changes, etc.

It's not really the ratio that matters here, it's the number of watts per square meter. 

Start with that range of 2 W/m2 (but note that most of the time it varies within a much narrower range).

Divide by 4, because the circular cross-section of the solar beam is being projected over the spherical surface of the Earth.  (The surface area of a sphere is 4x the area of a circle with the same radius).

Then multiply by 0.7, to account for the Earth's albedo (30% of incoming shortwave radiation is reflected).

That works out to a total range of variation of 0.35 W/m2 for the absorbed fraction of TSI, over all of the historical record.  And as crandles points out, it's not a linear trend, more of an irregular oscillation. 

Meanwhile, the forcing from CO2 over the same time period is nearly 10X larger.  And it's not an oscillation, it's a (nonlinearly increasing) trend.

27
Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 21, 2018, 07:46:00 PM »
Sunspots are an ok but imperfect proxy:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/04/22/sunspots-and-solar-output/

The sunspots are the dark spots we counted. They are darker areas.
TSI includes the bright spots too:

Recent satellite observations have found that the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI), the amount of solar radiation received at the top of the Earth's atmosphere, does vary -- see the graph for the results from six satellites. "The variations on solar rotational and active region time scales are clearly seen. The large, short-term decreases are caused by the TSI blocking effect of sunspots in magnetically active regions as they rotate through our view from Earth. The peaks of TSI preceding and following these sunpot "dips" are caused by the faculae of solar active regions whose larger areal extent causes them to be seen first as the region rotates onto our side of the sun and last as they rotate over the opposite solar limb." [Excerpted from the UARS descriptive text] The TSI provides the energy that determines the Earth's climate.

https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/solar/solarirrad.html

Well, yes, sunspot number is a fairly good proxy for TSI.  But for years where TSI is available, there's no point I can see to considering sunspots.
While sunspot numbers vary dramatically over a cycle, the TSI variation is tiny, about 2 parts in 1300. 
I'd suggested that modern changes in various forcings utterly overwhelm such tiny variations in TSI.  I'm attaching a graph from SkepticalScience, which shows only a vague relationship between TSI and climate up to about 1970, and then an utter divergence.  This would be at least consistent with my point here.


28
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 17, 2018, 06:44:57 AM »

I'm happy to have this thread polluted with calls for action. 

Please don't.  This is "2018 sea ice area and extent data."  There are other places in the forum for such topics.  Please don't disrespect the community here.

29
I'm with Rod.  I miss the atmosphere here about 3-5 years ago.  Even 2 years ago.  It used to be straight information.  I loved lurking here and learning.  Now there's a high signal-to-noise ratio requiring much sorting and sifting to get to the goods.  I still enjoy lurking here but...  it's more taxing than it once was.

On topic, about 9 years ago when I was just beginning my journey into self-education on weather and climate, Gavin Schmidt came to the university in the city near me to give some kind of talk.  I drove an hour to get there, and during the Q&A at the end I asked him this very question.  At the time I was disappointed by his answer: "Long after we're dead."  Think about the Great Lakes.  Living in Minnesota at the time, I'm only really familiar with Lake Superior, but it freezes at least a little bit every winter and the adjacent land masses see temperatures into the 80s every year and occasionally 90s.  I know there is a difference freshwater versus salt, but even so.  It will be a long time before the Arctic is that warm.  That much polar night surrounded by large continents for cold air masses.  It will get pretty warm in the summer yet and still freeze in the winter.

30
Seems to me there have been a number of papers indicating sea level changes in the tens of meters in less than a decade.  If you think sea level can rise 30 feet and the Arctic still be ice covered.....
Please, name one paper that claims that in a respected journal!

And of course not counting events like a big asteroid hitting Antarctica which instantly melts most of it, but climatic events.

The total *possible* sea level rise (i.e. all of Greenland and Antarctica melts) holds around 65
meters of sea level. To melt "tens of meters in less than a decade", would mean that you would melt *all* of Antarctica and Greenland in just 10 years.

That is totally unplausible and just nuts...

I can only repeat myself... The claims in this forum get crazier and crazier...

31
Ice free in winter is not going to happen in the next few centuries.


32
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: August 01, 2018, 06:22:11 PM »
Good view of the ice north of Greenland today, https://tinyurl.com/ycnykh9y

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 01, 2018, 03:48:22 AM »
A scenario of year-round ice-free Arctic can only be reached (IMO) by further a northward reach of the warm ocean currents.
I keep reading this dreamy misconception everywhere. People seem to be forgetting about the fact that the quantity of heat energy required to melt 1kg of ice (of just below freezing) to 1kg of water (of just above freezing) would raise the temperature of that same 1 kg of water to 80 degrees Celsius. This means that as soon as ice is gone, and there is heat energy (i.e. Sunlight), the oceans will be very hot at the surface (provided that surface T will also keep on rising as it does) all around the Arctic circle. It already is super anomalously warm, by the way. So when the sun is gone at the polar caps, all it needs is a little flow from warmer lower ocean currents to keep it from freezing up, and/or surface winds blowing the warmer (sun-heated) waters Northwards. Considering all the additional feedbacks, I'd say year round ice free poles could be a reality around 2035 at the very latest.

Don't know when, though I suspect soon, but with the first Summer the DMI 80N isn't pinned to nearly 0c the ice will not return for at least millennia.
liefde and DR your arguments sound right, but then again all the seasonally ice-free seas undergo the same summer heating only to freeze up again during winter. Such behavior is not going to go away the first year the arctic ocean gets above the DMI chart.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: July 31, 2018, 06:32:22 PM »
Solar prices are dropping so fast it is ‘muting the impact’ of Trump tariffs, CEO says
ThinkProgress - July 31, 2018
Quote
A huge glut of global solar panels has led to sharp price drops that have muted the effect of the Trump administration’s import tariffs on solar.

Trade wars have unpredictable results, and solar power is a classic case in point.

In 2017, when Trump was considering putting tariffs on imported solar cells and panels, U.S. companies started buying and stockpiling foreign panels, which drove up prices. Then in January, the President imposed a 30 percent tariff.

Domestically, orders were canceled, and workers were let go, since the industry gets about 80 percent of its solar panel products from imports.
...
It's like predicting how much ice there will be in the Arctic two months ahead.

35
U.S.:  Younger voters are more likely than their older counterparts to say that climate change is happening and must be addressed. Polling from earlier this year released by the Alliance for Market Solutions found that more than half of young Republicans are concerned about the issue. Nearly a quarter of people under 30 who identified as Republican in 2015 have already left the party, according to the Pew Research Center.

Why Some Republicans are Rethinking Climate Change
http://amp.timeinc.net/time/5348333/republicans-climate-change-carbon-tax

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 30, 2018, 01:28:35 AM »
I agree with Wherestheice.

Based on current volume trends -
1st completely ice free September Arctic Ocean 2022-2023 +/- 2
1st completely ice free year-round Arctic Ocean 2035-2050
1st I’ve free Greenland & northern hemisphere 100-250 years after that
Maybe sooner - depending on feedbacks
<snippage>
I think 2022-2023 is still early.  I'm putting thinking a sub-1 million KM2 September extent won't arrive until 2030 +/- a couple.

I don't think we'll see a year round ice free Arctic for at least a couple of centuries.  As long as there's 3 million+ KM3 of ice sitting on Greenland, combined with "cold continents"  I think most of the CAB will refreeze annually.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 26, 2018, 07:44:47 PM »
My guess is it won't change much in the standings. Or not as we expect. DMI used to have a 30% threshold, but they have 15% now too.

Remember, the objection against extent is that everything over 15% gets counted as 100%, everything below it is counted as 0% (same with area). If you raise the bar to 30%, there's this segment between 15 and 30% that is now counted as 0% too, whereas area counts it as 15-30%. So, basically you're letting sea ice disappear to artificially lower extent.

The strength of both measures (with their weaknesses) is their combination.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 18, 2018, 04:58:28 PM »
Can anyone explain me how it is possibble that the past 3 winters were the warmest "ever" in the Arctic and yet summers are not much to talk about. Where does the extra heat from winter go? Why does it not show up in big extent losses later on?
Where the extra heat in winter goes is out of the atmosphere, replacing heat that would have come out of the Arctic Ocean.

The result is, less ice being formed.

Less ice forms in peripheral seas that normally contribute to early extent loss.  Ice doesn't thicken as much in central regions.

QED, the heat isn't melting more ice.  That energy budget annually is actually pretty much fixed by insolation.  It's gone up slightly, but that has more to do with increases in heat imported via currents, which doesn't vary as dramatically over the year as does insolation and weather.  However, you can see looking at Jim Pettit's excellent graph that average annual ice loss has only increased by about 15% or so, and any given year can vary as much as 10-15% above or below that average.

The annual maximum is where the story really rests - that's decreased by around 40%...

http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_max_loss_and_ice_remaining.png

So in that context, even with our recent very warm winters, what's happening this melt season with an apparently "anemic" melt is entirely within the kind of deviation range I'd expect.

39
Before the melt season started I was thinking 3.75 to 4.25 and a 2nd lowest- low winter maximum, global ocean heat content way up, AGW in the Arctic.

But now the season is 62 percent done, the average remaining melt gives an answer above 4.75, extent is 11th lowest, 500k above the 2010's average, and arctic +ve temperature anomalies set to be small to zero for at least the next 10 days. Against that area is much closer to the 2010's average.

My head must rule - and says 4.5 to 5.0 million

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 13, 2018, 12:38:48 PM »
Me thinks Hypernion is going to lose a precious jewel.  :-\ :-\ :-\

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: SMOS
« on: July 13, 2018, 10:59:30 AM »
It near as dammit is a blue ocean event already Neven. I bet my left nut that anything near the periphery, extending now to a Chukchi to Barents strip right across the pole where meltponding is being reported is actually open water, and satellites being fooled by wave action.
And what I cannot stand is bullying. Which is what you supported.

As said, if there's a BOE event this year (it's already practically there according to you), I will apologize. Conversely, if there's no BOE, you'll get banned from this forum.

42
Arctic sea ice / Will we see it before it happens?
« on: July 09, 2018, 08:54:30 PM »
With it I'm referring to the first melting season that results in ice-free conditions (for all practical purposes, below 1 million km2 SIA) or what has become popular as 'blue ocean event' (BOE).

The past three melting seasons all started with big expectations, because of record warm winters, PIOMAS showing low volume numbers, and March/April having very low extent numbers. But somehow, weather conditions would switch during May and/or June, effectively making record-breaking minimums highly unlikely, come September.

This has led to recurring annual discussions around this time of year, where I and others slowly start to announce that this won't be the big year, while others maintain that it's still very much possible, because there are certain things going on that aren't easy to discern (like salinity or buoy temperature profiles), or because some models show the situation is actually a lot worse than remote sensing-based observations are reporting (like the HYCOM/ACNFS or TOPAZ sea ice thickness models).

I guess the idea is that the ice is in a much worse state, more 'rotten', more porous, darker on the underside (algae), all things that wouldn't be picked up by microwave sounders or radar. In theory.

Do you guys think that it is possible that none of the more conservative/reticent members here (including myself) will notice anything before the ice suddenly goes POOF? Will we be totally surprised?

I tend to think not, because I think that collectively we have quite a good view on the real-time stuff (maximum two weeks out), and because I also think that the first BOE will still depend on extraordinary weather conditions, and for this the weather models are reliable enough (up to one week out). But I might be wrong.



Let's go down the waterfall
Have ourselves a good time
It's nothing at all
Nothing at all
Nothing at all

43
Arctic sea ice / Don't read this thread
« on: July 07, 2018, 01:53:03 AM »
Really, you don't want to read this.  OK?




I am just posting it to vent a bit, after 12+ years of watching ice melt and listening to people argue about ice melting.




Seriously, nothing below this line is worth reading.  You can click the back-arrow and go to some other thread where you'll find lots of informative, useful, or surprising information about melting ice.




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


OK.
So.

There is absolutely nothing special about 2018.  Period.  As I said in another thread just now, 2018 is just another year in a long, slow transition from an icy Arctic ocean to an intermittently and then seasonally ice-free Arctic ocean:



Year after year after year after year people will tell you that this year is special! unique! different!

It's not.

Oh, there will be minor differences in weather, currents, clouds.  But there are minor differences in weather, currents, clouds every year

And if every year is special, then no year is special.

Sure, 2018 could take a nosedive, and end up an outlier on the low side like 2012.  Or the melting process could stall out a bit, and end up as an outlier on the high side.  That's not special, it's just noise.

Some year (probably not this year, nor next year, nor the year after that) there will be a year where one day falls below the totally arbitrary threshold of 1 million km2 of ice.  That year won't be special either, and the following year will likely bounce back up, just as 2013 bounced back after 2012. 

What actually is special is the long, slow downward trend in the maximum, mean, and minimum lines from that graph.  It will take decades, but we're slowly and inexorably marching towards an ice-free Arctic ocean. 

The thing is, people don't want to hear that "this century is special".  We want to hear that "this year is special".  We need excitement and drama now now now now!

Well, tough luck.  It's not going to be exciting, it's going to be utterly boring.  As boring as watching ice melt.

44
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 07, 2018, 12:39:35 AM »
Quote from: Hyperion
2013 and 2015 were totally different worlds.

Comparing with previous years extent figures and distribution will only delude you. 😢😰

And don't expect comparison with previous years weather patterns and indices to be helpful either.

Nope, same world, with just the normal differences in winds and currents and clouds.  Each year varies a bit in these things, but not wildly so.  We continue through a long, slow transition from an icy Arctic ocean to an intermittently and then seasonally ice-free Arctic ocean.  Along the way there will be occasional outlier years on the high or low side (e.g., 2012) but most years are pretty similar to most other years close to their point in time. 

Here are 39 years of daily observations of Arctic sea ice extent.  I see no reason why the 40th year will turn out to be so utterly, radically different from the previous 39 as to negate any possibility of comparison:



[Edited to add graph]

45
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: July 06, 2018, 08:31:58 AM »
Nuclear as a short to medium term option?

Any nuclear started now will not be up and running in the short term.  It may be barely running in the medium term.

The experience of WPPSS shows the dangers of trying to build too fast.  Different projects, owned by the same owner, were bidding against themselves for the same workforce.  The result was skyrocketing costs, schedule delays, and the cancelling of 4 of the 5 plants.

Any attempt to make nuclear a major player in even the medium term would result in the same problems only exponentially worse.


46
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 06, 2018, 12:46:48 AM »
<snippage>
I strongly recommend watching the full length animations at Mercator Ocean to get an idea of what's been happening for the last 16 months at various levels. Set it to the highest speed possible and focus on the salinity and sea surface height model runs. Here's the link to the animation of salinity over time at the 30 meter level.
http://bulletin.mercator-ocean.fr/en/permalink/PSY4/animation/3/20170228/20180714/2/2
<snippage>
that 30m animation, every third frame to reduce size

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2018 melting season
« on: July 05, 2018, 11:29:10 PM »
The oceanography of the Arctic ocean is quite complicated. I have read a number of papers, studied basic oceanography on-line and looked at web sites for years, but it's no substitute for coursework on the topic. I'm not completely befuddled because I took graduate level courses in geophysics. Perhaps there is someone posting here who can explain the Arctic ocean circulation better than I can, but I know enough to see that many people here are badly confused about the dynamics of the water layers in the Arctic ocean.

I strongly recommend watching the full length animations at Mercator Ocean to get an idea of what's been happening for the last 16 months at various levels. Set it to the highest speed possible and focus on the salinity and sea surface height model runs. Here's the link to the animation of salinity over time at the 30 meter level.

http://bulletin.mercator-ocean.fr/en/permalink/PSY4/animation/3/20170228/20180714/2/2

Water near the surface generally flows a path pretty close to sea surface height contours but it is deflected to the right by the Coriolis effect as it moves towards or away from the pole. Thus the west sides of passageways to/from the Arctic ocean are cold and the east sides are warm. Thus incoming near-surface Atlantic water tends to begin to flow towards Siberia.

However it only gets so far before it cools and sinks. The incoming paths of Atlantic water are strongly affected by the weather. Storms in the Arctic and subarctic seas on the Atlantic side blow Atlantic water into the Barents sea. High pressure directs it mostly towards the Fram strait. Lately storms have increased the flow into the Barents sea.



One really confusing thing is that there's eventually a reversal of the direction of flow of the water that pushed into the Arctic from the Atlantic. And also it sinks to 300 to 600 meters depth. Thus water that flowed towards Siberia is blown out to sea and heads back in the general direction of Greenland. A strong Beaufort gyre drives salty water from north of Greenland along the continental shelf of the CAA at the 300 to 600 meter level. That's what happened last fall and winter. The previous winter the Beaufort gyre was weak and last winter it strengthened.

Therefore, the Mercator animation shows a strong increase in salinity over the past 16 months in the waters of the Canadian Archipelago and on the continental shelf of the Arctic ocean north of the CAA.

So, if we had high pressure over the Arctic this June and July, that warm salty water would have welled up along the shelf and melted out a huge volume of sea ice. However, this summer's cold stormy weather is keeping most of that warm salty Atlantic water, that might have welled up, locked up at 300 - 600m.

We're likely to see a big melt out on the Siberian side with all the warm air advection, but the Canadian cold and Arctic ocean storms will lead to a good year for ice preservation on the Canadian side of the pole.

http://bulletin.mercator-ocean.fr/en/permalink/PSY4/animation/3/20170228/20180714/2/2

48
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: June 22, 2018, 10:00:22 PM »
+1 for Bob’s and numerobis’ comments.

Musk has indeed said the world only needs about 100 gigafactories to get completely off fossil fuels.  Tesla will be building three more (China, Europe, North America, with new car factories) in the next few years.  Battery recycling will definitely become a thing; as Musk has said, you have your ingredients right there, why go to the expense of mining more?  Early batteries no longer performing well enough to power a vehicle are being used in stationary storage products by several automakers.

Battery technology — and battery management software — keeps improving, meaning less battery materials are needed to build a battery, and smaller batteries will perform as well as bigger batteries did just a few years ago.  Tesla has already reduced the amount of cobalt in its batteries from 8% to about 2%.

Degradation of newer, thermally-managed battery packs looks quite low, and we see estimates of batteries lasting 500,000 miles.  Tesloop has a Model X running daily shuttles with over 300,000 miles on the original battery.
https://twitter.com/tesloop/status/1002641861842853888

It is unwise to assume the world will need to replace ICE vehicles with EVs on a one-to-one basis.

Model 3 Battery: the most energy dense pack in the industry. We do the math to confirm.
https://insideevs.com/new-tesla-model-3-battery-details-images-released/

Tesla battery degradation at less than 10% after over 160,000 miles, according to latest data
https://electrek.co/2018/04/14/tesla-battery-degradation-data/

Tesla battery data shows path to over 500,000 miles on a single pack
https://electrek.co/2016/11/01/tesla-battery-degradation/

49
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 21, 2018, 04:02:50 PM »

What do you think Hansen should do?


A remark that John Maynard Keynes made, or did not make, is "When the Facts Change, I Change My Mind. What Do You Do, Sir ?"

True or not, he was known as a man who would change his mind on economic questions. Keynes was always ready to contradict not only his colleagues but also himself whenever circumstances make this seem appropriate.

I think Hansen just needs to do what he did best. Get the current data, analyse it, and come to a conclusion. As "an old man in the gallery" myself, I have to do that more than I would like - especially because of the content in this forum.

I know I am right on this because I said so.

50
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: June 21, 2018, 08:49:58 AM »
In the world of nuclear reactors a decade is very recent.


Pages: [1] 2