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
I wonder if "quality polls" will become less relevant. Monmouth polls (which 538 rates A+) are done exclusively by phone, with the majority being landline. That will obviously under-represent younger demographics, who generally do not answer unknown callers on their cellphones. I don't know anyone under 40 with a landline.

In Monmouth's most recent New Hampshire poll, only 29% of respondents were under 50, and only 12% were under 35. Those percentages may have roughly correlated with actual voter turnout in past elections, but the under 50 vote was the majority in the 2018 midterms. The truth is probably somewhere between the "quality" approved DNC list and online polling like Change Research. If so, it's a shame that the DNC process is discounting younger generations in its rather un-democratic selection process.


2
The rest / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: October 01, 2019, 12:07:01 AM »
I got the ice polls correct this year so maybe I can take another guess and make a trifecta.

He gets impeached ! There will be enough key figures involved willing to cooperate. Their testimony is solid and deadly. The Senate can’t hide without risking a Senate turnover. We will see a Pence President because I believe the republicans can save him ,that is not impeach him, even if the dems do include him in the dragnet.

3
Walking the walk / Re: Meat Consumption and Global Warming
« on: September 19, 2019, 05:41:57 PM »
Quote from: Tom_Mazanec
... I have used up my New York Times free articles for the month. I have to take the quote from the Daily Climate listing now.
Note to Tom:

You don't 'HAVE' to do anything.

This is a voluntary forum for scientist and citizen-scientist to share data, information, knowledge, and sometimes wisdom. It's not some OCD competition.

The object is to have more signal than noise.

Flooding the forum with 40 posts (yesterday) or 30 (the day before) does not improve the S/N ratio.

Skim less; read more.

Perhaps, distill those 40 posts to 5 that haven't already been discussed or posted by someone else.

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: September 18, 2019, 09:34:29 PM »
<snipped>
It’s a scary thought. Here’s an even scarier one: Suppose the United States reached this moment without ever having taken advantage of the innovative oil and gas production technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” which enabled drillers to free up previously inaccessible hydrocarbons from shale formations in North Dakota and Texas, among other places.

Jeez
I guess Americans - and much of the Western World would have needed to conserve energy - or pay through the nose for it.
The Horror!
Terry

5
Unless something extraordinary happens it looks like more than 50% of the voters got this poll right. This applies even if extent drops another 250K.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 12, 2019, 11:55:14 PM »

This makes a big assumption - that system behavior will be consistent as we reach that limit.

Based on the surprising end of season slowdown this year, I'm not sure that's safe. I'm still mulling hypotheses for what we are seeing and why the dynamics are not falling more in line with your assumptions. 

"Blue Ocean" is a boundary condition, and the retreat of the ice to where it stands now - post 2007 - suggests to me that the dynamics for the ice north of 80 are significantly different from those of the peripheral seas, which is were most significant visible changes in the Arctic have unfolded.


This is my thought too; that there isn't enough insolation to melt the ice N of 80°N with the current FDD thickness increase, even in a sunny year. To melt the ice there has to be less FDDs. Increased oceanic heat isn't going to effect the high Arctic sea ice while vertical mixing is prohibited by the halocline. The latter isn't likely to disappear completely because of the input of fresh water from rivers and ice melt. Mixing can occur during big storms, but they seem to be rare in the summer. If that's the case, then seeing the high Arctic ice free is likely to require a warm, cloudy winter as well as a bright summer.

Did I just state the obvious?


7
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 10, 2019, 07:09:07 PM »
And just to remind you - my involvement in this discussion started when somebody tried to explain the percieved stall since 2010 (or whenever) based on a totally erroneous posting, and since I pointed out that a) there was no stall, and b) the explanation was erroneous anyway, a lot of people have used a lot of effort to convince me of the mechanisms behind this stall that they claim is there for all to see.

But - my graphs show a steady decline since 2010 or whatever. No stall. As I stated very clearly:

I suspect that the "someone" was me so I would like to clarify what I said. At no point did I suggest a stall in melt. The melt continues apace with the condition of the ice looking progressively worse every year. Peripheral seas no longer freeze over as they have in the past (Barents, Bering) while interior seas melt out earlier and freeze later. The pack overall is more fragmented and mobile with far less MYI and no prospect for the oldest MYI to return. The ice at minimum is generally more disperse due to the higher mobility.

What I have stated and will continue to maintain is that the decline in SIE at minimum has slowed over the past decade. I have previously provided some suggested reasons for this behavior. Since someone (I don't know who) has defined an ice free Arctic or BOE as less than 1 million km2 of extent at minimum, this slow down in the rate of decline at minimum is relevant to the question posed by this thread. When will the Arctic go ice free?

For the record, IMHO...

  • We will not go ice free in the coming decade.
  • Our 1st BOE will occur some time between 2030 and 2040.
  • After the 1st BOE we will see a rebound in SIE at minimum for the same reasons that SIE at minimum has slowed recently. We will not immediately see BOE's occur every fall after the 1st occurs.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 09, 2019, 06:04:04 PM »
The Union Of Concerned Scientists has done a detailed, Cradle-to-Grave study of the emissions of EVs vs. ICE cars — mining and manufacturing, to driving and disposal.  Looking only at mining/manufacturing ignores the much higher contribution of ICE vehicle emissions over their lifetime.  They are literally created to pollute.

Life Cycle Electric Vehicle Emissions (2015) | Union of Concerned Scientists
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions

Quote
When looking at the full life cycle of the vehicle, electric cars are cleaner and greener than their conventional gasoline-burning counterparts. While true that building an electric car produces more emissions than a conventional car, mostly because of battery production, these emissions are dwarfed by those saved over the driving life of the EV. In fact, they are offset in most cases in the first year of driving by emissions reductions from normal operation and use of the vehicle.
https://www.kochvsclean.com/electric-cars-are-cleaner-cradle-grave/

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 30, 2019, 07:26:34 AM »
Since Juan is out ... my humble submission of an less complete pinch hit...:

You beat out a grounder for a hit!

10
Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: August 28, 2019, 11:20:26 PM »
What would be the cost of this huge number of satellites? For a fraction of that cost, the whole world can be switched to solar and wind energy with batteries, and solve the root cause of warming.

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: August 28, 2019, 04:03:45 PM »
Maybe we should try becoming carbon neutral instead.

12
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: August 11, 2019, 01:40:53 PM »
Just interested to know if anybody is like-minded in their opinions.

So 10 years after the 1st BOE at minimum, you expect the Arctic to become perennially ice free?

Could be mistaken but others have said seawater begins to freeze at a temp of -2.0 C. Below is a chart that models the temps in the Arctic above 80 degrees. (Yes. I know this chart has serious issues and many here feel it is useless but I have nothing else to reference due to my limited knowledge.) In the long dark polar night, while temps are warmer in recent years, they still reach -20.0 C to -30.0 C degrees. Could you explain to me how seawater won't freeze in these conditions?

My very unscientific opinion? The Hudson Bay freezes every winter after melting out completely. We should expect the same with the Arctic Ocean.

13
Science / Re: Has climate sensitivity been under-estimated?
« on: August 01, 2019, 11:56:13 PM »
Interesting timeline of published ecs estimates at
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-why-results-from-the-next-generation-of-climate-models-matter

Perhaps worth noting that what the models show isn't necessarily what the final best estimate range is.

Quote
Early results suggest ECS values from some of the new CMIP6 climate models are higher than previous estimates, with early numbers being reported between 2.8C (pdf) and 5.8C. This compares with the previous coupled model intercomparison project (CMIP5), which reported values between 2.1C to 4.7C. The IPCC’s fifth assessment report (AR5) assessed ECS to be “likely” in the range 1.5C to 4.5C and “very unlikely” greater than 6C.

2.8-5.8 is certainly up from 2.1 to 4.7. More work needed before we know how much that pushes up the 1.5-4.5C likely range.

14
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: July 30, 2019, 09:47:15 PM »
We do not need nuclear power.

We know that a mixture of wind, solar, with battery & hydropower etc backup plus perhaps a bit of over-build the complete replacement of fossil fuel electricity generation is possible in a cheaper and more timely manner than nuclear.

How many times have we gone through this on this forum?

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 28, 2019, 04:22:51 PM »
For the free full text try this:
http://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Pistone-Eisenman-Ramanathan-2019.pdf

(NB: In general, use Google Scholar to search for free versions.)

16
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 25, 2019, 09:25:43 AM »
Quote
You do know that there are no "sources" of cold?

Of course there are sources of cold. If I have a glass of warm water and I need a source of cold I just go get some ice and throw it in.
<Snippage>

OK, while creative, not really A Thing.

You don't really have "sources of cold" any more than you have "sources of vaccuum".  What "cold" indicates is a difference in enthalpy - net heat content components of a system, and thanks to the laws of thermodynamics heat will attempt to equilibrate across it - thus your ice cubes melting. 

There wasn't any "cold source" here, just the heat of varying levels being redistributed.

This does bring me to a point which I feel people have been overlooking.  It unfortunately is one for which we probably have the least instrumentation for - net enthalpy of the Arctic ocean and surrounding seas.

*This* will be the key factor in the tipping point.

Insolation year over year is virtually constant.  How much heat is retained or lost is a factor of our GHG levels and import from outside the Arctic during the refreeze.  There is in fact a calculable maximum possible loss which can be determined via calculation of black body radiation per square meter.  That can go up, but only if the temperature of the atmosphere goes up.

Further, once you have ice, and then snow cover, the rate of heat flow out of the ocean goes down again. Temperature drops and decreases the flow out of the atmosphere - or the heat source changes by way of the thermal gradient driving more import of heat into the arctic via broad scale convective atmospheric circulation from lower latitudes.  When that happens - as we've been starting to see, possibly as far back as the 1990s - the imported heat replaces the losses which normally would come out of the ocean, and enthalpy increases. 

So it has been for several years also that I've started becoming a much closer student of winter refreeze and weather conditions, and to a lesser degree have been trying to better understand the changing dynamics of current and salinity.  I have a very long way to go.

These I think more than summer melt are the real players - behind the scenes, pulling the levers of the secondary stuff we focus a lot of our attention on.

So again, when a BoE occurs, a great deal else will need to have happened to make it possible.  The net sum of those changes will already be driving, have been driving climate changes which are not reversible without our finding a way to dump petajoules of heat out of the ecosystem. 

The state of the ice will be a side effect of that, and while no doubt a BoE will help dump more heat into an already overwhelmed system, it will be stacking it on top of an already monumental pile.  Absent of this any BoE is simply an anomaly which the system would swallow and then rapidly return to where it was previously. 

In a small way, that is *exactly* what we saw in 2012.  We were all convinced in 2013 that the End Was Nigh, and there were lots of scary moments which ended in... a bounce back.  The heat content of the system at the time is exactly why that happened.  If the area loss was the key to tipping the system over, that should have done it, but it didn't.  To be clear, I'm not trying to minimize the cascading effect of 2012, which was huge, but rather to put it into what I think is correct context.  In that regard, I think if we want to understand the most key drivers behind 2019, we need to go well past 2012, probably at least another decade, possibly two in order to find the build up which led us to where we are now.

So right now you are witnessing the history of previous winters playing out.  There is excitement, driven in part by weather, much as in 2012, but again, now as then I think it is the heat the system started with in May that is the hidden power behind what is playing out now.

(Edit:  Looking for papers on Arctic Ocean heat content, I found this, which helps partially illustrate where I was trying to take my point.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/8/eaat6773

)

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 24, 2019, 02:22:57 AM »
We have been through this. And we have been through this exhaustively.

The ideas are simple.

1) the models we have are largely based on the quasi steady state conditions that man evolved under, and specifically the last two centuries of data. They are not great for predicting the precise effects of transition to a new state in conditions we have never observed. Translation: Real world... the models dramatically under predict the speed and consequences of the transition. Real world... the models fail to fully incorporate key aspects of the actually quite straght forward thermodynamics. Earth's climate is a heat engine. Remove the cold pole and the heat engine dies. With that the atmospheric and oceanic driving forces either die or are greatly altered - rapidly...  Real world... no model yet has been able to adequately model the known paleoclimatic conditions of the equable climate system that results.  But we do know what that looks like. And it is radically different from the state know now. We also know that a rapid transition from one to the other is fatal for most creatures on earth. The PETM involved a different though similar transition and serves as one of our best unserstood exemplars. Real world... the IPCC has grossly under estimated the speed and severity of the transition to our great peril, and simultaneously painted roses cheeks on how hard it is to prevent this transition. It is now long since too late.

2) the prove it to me, and until you do it isn't true, argument is a loser. That's not how things work. Sadly it all too often is how humans work, with tragic consequences.

As to papers...  here is a non-representative sample of a few to highlight both some of the issues and the extent of time we've known these things. These do not form a complete argument. They are only examples. For full citations, check the papers.

Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/1/28
https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/106/1/28.full.pdf

A Numerical Study of Sea Ice and Ocean Circulation in the Arctic
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0485%281987%29017%3C1077%3AANSOSL%3E2.0.CO%3B2?download=true

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2006GL028024

Some results from a time‐dependent thermodynamic model of sea ice
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JC076i006p01550

Fast Response of the Tropics to an Abrupt Loss of Arctic Sea Ice via Ocean Dynamics
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2018GL077325

So, what can we glean from these handfull of citations?

1) the transition is chaotic and non linear with massive impacts on oceanic and atmospheric circulation
2) the transition is abrupt, though non-linearities soften that slightly. The first day, week or month of BOE isn't likely to cause the collapse. But, it won't take much more than that to cause an abrupt state transition in both the atmospheric and oceanic circulation with cataclysmic impact on the Earth's biota, fauna, and us. The transition is likely to take about 3-8 years. And with the beginning imminent in 3-8 years itself, that puts us ~11 years +/- ~6 years from that transition to a radically different system. Those are my guesstimates.
3) the consequences of that rapid transition quickly flow through the Earth's oceans, atmosphere, and biosphere with effects in the tropics in ~25 years. So ~36 years +/- ~ a decade from now. That is an absolute blink in geologic time.
4) we are in deep trouble. If you aren't terrified you aren't paying attention, or you just don't care, or you are in fear and simple blind denial. Take your pick.

Sam

I haven't fully read all of these papers only done a quick review. Also I am not an academic or expert, just interested in climate modelling and Arctic sea ice. I could easily be misinterpreting the papers. Feel free to correct me if/where I am missing or misinterpreting the papers.

Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice” is a 2008 paper on nonlinear behaviour. It’s abstract includes:
“the stabilizing thermodynamic effects of sea ice mitigate this when the Arctic Ocean is ice covered during a sufficiently large fraction of the year. These results suggest that critical threshold behavior is unlikely during the approach from current perennial sea-ice conditions to seasonally ice-free conditions. In a further warmed climate, however, we find that a critical threshold associated with the sudden loss of the remaining wintertime-only sea ice cover may be likely.”

So it is saying no non-linearity prior to a BOE but there may well be some considerable time after. There is little indicating how large a ‘sufficiently large fraction of the year’ is except perhaps for this passage:
“However, perennially ice-free Arctic Ocean conditions occur in 2 of the model simulations after CO2 quadrupling. Neither of the models exhibits an abrupt transition when the annual minimum (September) ice cover disappears, but after further warming 1 of the models abruptly loses its March ice cover when it becomes perennially ice free (26). The physical mechanism presented here may help explain this abrupt simulated loss of March ice following the gradual simulated loss of September ice.”

I think we are several decades if not 100+ years away from losing April Ice cover. Similarly CO2 quadrupling is also a long way off. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen earlier but the implications of what is included in the paper seems much more 'well after a BOE' than the timeline Sam seems to indicate.

Also note IPCC report saying

a substantial number of pre-AR5 studies have found that there is no indication of hysteresis behavior of Arctic sea ice (Holland et al., 2006; Schroeder and Connolley, 2007; Armour et al., 2011; Sedláček et al., 2011; Tietsche et al., 2011; Boucher et al., 2012; Ridley et al., 2012). In particular, the relationship between Arctic sea-ice coverage and GMST is found to be indistinguishable between a warming scenario and a cooling scenario. These results have been confirmed by post-AR5 studies (Li et al., 2013; Jahn, 2018)

That is more studies, generally later than 2008. This might be an indication that IPCC is downplaying possibility of nonlinear behaviour, or maybe the later studies are considered more reliable or maybe IPCC were aware of it but since it is so far into future, well past 1.5C or 2C of warming, it was appropriate to downplay the possibility in such a report. Different people might reach different conclusions depending how much esteem they think IPCC deserves.


A Numerical Study of Sea Ice and Ocean Circulation in the Arctic
A 1986 paper. Abstract seems to say Arctic sea ice is vulnerable to CO2 increases but not to river discharge. I don’t think anyone in this forum is saying that CO2 does not have effect on Arctic sea ice level. So I am a bit puzzled as to why this paper has been included.

Future abrupt reductions in the summer Arctic sea ice
“find that abrupt reductions are a common feature of these 21st century simulations. These events have decreasing September ice extent trends that are typically 4 times larger than comparable observed trends. One event exhibits a decrease from 6 million km2 to 2 million km2 in a decade, reaching near ice‐free September conditions by 2040.”

https://wol-prod-cdn.literatumonline.com/cms/attachment/7385a142-4b4f-447d-8efb-2d27c740df4b/grl22398-fig-0001.png

This model had about 6m km^2 extent in 2000. The extent remained constant til about 2025 then reduced to 2m km^2 in a decade. It then levels out having about 1m km^2 in 2050 and continues to have some ice in September off and on up to 2100.
Yes 4m km^2 loss in a decade is fast. 2007 to 2012 lost less than 1m km^2 in 5 years so twice as fast as that. Yes that is rapid. If it is a lot less rapid before and after, is this really hugely significant? If we jump down from 4m km^2 to 0 in the next decade and then start seeing huge consequences of the BOEs perhaps it could be, but continuing very small amounts of Sept sea ice extents for 50 years after we get down to 1m km^2 does not seem to back up what is being suggested.


Some results from a time‐dependent thermodynamic model of sea ice
A 1971 paper, one dimensional model. Early days of modelling. Umm what are you taking from this? Wouldn’t you rather results from more recent models?

Fast Response of the Tropics to an Abrupt Loss of Arctic Sea Ice via Ocean Dynamics
Compares a simple slab ocean model to a more dynamic model. Concludes “This fast response indicates that ocean dynamics needs to be represented for an accurate picture of the global impact of Arctic sea ice loss.”

So it would be nice if we could get away with a simpler model but we can’t. The more realistic dynamic model has much smaller changes in SST in Northern Hemisphere and precipitation in most places. SST increases in Southern hemisphere are more pronounced. The strong SST warming pattern in eastern equatorial pacific looks quite El Nino like so could be getting stronger or longer lasting El Ninos. Reduced precipitation over Amazon might be rather concerning even if it is hatched indicating not statistically significant.

My notes seem rather different from the conclusions Sam seems to have gleaned.

Perhaps someone can point out a few of the things I have missed from these papers and explain why our notes are so different.

Sorry the post is so long.

18
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 22, 2019, 02:24:12 PM »
What El Cid and Crandles are doing is a version of "no warming since 1998".  Their arguments are not a product of science or logic. Their arguments are a product of freezing fear that stops them from seeing evidence that confirms their fears.

If they are advocating no action against climate change and no alarm, they better have a damn good case, because the evidence is reason for great alarm.

I am not advocating no action against climate change. I think we should be doing a lot more than we are doing.

In arguing for more action, I believe the case should be sound. There is plenty of good reason for more action without unduly hyping uncertainty and threats are are likely quite mild and/or highly unlikely.

Hyping uncertainty and/or threats and/or the possible timeline for things that are not really considered very serious, just gives conservatives reason to dismiss environmentalists as wide eyed, gullible, tree hugging, alarmist fools.

19
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.”

20
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?

22
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.

23
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.

24
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.

25
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

26
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.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: May 11, 2019, 01:45:11 PM »
Guy McPherson? I'll pass.

28
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

29
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.

30
 

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.

31
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

32
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.

33
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.

34
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/


35
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/

36
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.

37
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...

38
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.


39
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.

40
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 )




41
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.  ;)

42
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.

43
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

44
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.

45
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.

46
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.


47
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.

48
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.

49
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...

50
Ice free in winter is not going to happen in the next few centuries.


Pages: [1] 2