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 - oren

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33
Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 27, 2020, 11:32:30 PM »
You will find in this post:
> a history of the front for the southern half: an image containing the positions of the front between 17/02 and 20/09 by 12 days interval, but the positions of the front of 29/02 and 03/08 are missing (no PolarView image). The image is very busy, hence the use of a white background.
> an image containing only the lines related to major calvings, as well as the front line as of 20/09.
> an image containing only the positions of the front on 17/02 and 20/09 to highlight the totality of the losses
> an image containing only the positions of the front on 08/09 and 20/09 to highlight the changes that occurred during this last period Added: you can notice the speed of P2 as well as the mini calving on the SIS side.

click to zoom in

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 27, 2020, 12:51:28 PM »
Ron Conte Jr. gives a thorough summary of his views on why C-19 is such a bad disease.

Yes, The Coronavirus Really Is That Bad!

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 26, 2020, 10:03:57 PM »

(Channeling my inner Buddy).    He is dragging the S/N down into the depths.   

In the good old days this thread would have never existed and hoax science being repeated alongside political blathering would have been deleted entirely. And that's 95% of the posts here.

Well, if 95% is incorrect why can he not just abandon posting to it.  Trust me, I have seen some messiah complexes in the non-violent civil dis crowd.  Does he really think that he can change the posting habits or base beliefs of the posters.  It is ridiculous.  People post hard science from reputable sources and and he goes off  on his whirling dervishes of counterclaim, dismissal and changing goal posts  for the most part with no outside sources.   

An absolute total rant about a Lancet article and a huge quibble about the date, pre print versus   official posting.   It went on and on.   And then he sandags back down.   

No, not a short time out.   At least another year again.  The last time around with Canadian glaciers, it appeared clear to me that that particular monomania could not be abated or lessened.   Here we go again for another monomania with even less posts from reputable sources. 

And YES, I had his posts blanked out in his other incarnation, and I have it here also.  But the sheer volume of his screeds and the low quality of the quotes I see posted by others - please.   

Locally we have high school football and volleyball teams that are suddenly at risk of fielding a team.  My work place with the mentallly challenged and every other licensed facility in Northen Iowa is battening down the hatches.  We are going to N-95s and people are starting face shields also.   We had been using cloth masks since April.  Please, I could use a little more sane posting in the COVID section because I want to read fact based scientific posts about what is going on.   We have 3 workers in one house over 60. a fair number in other houses and then a fair number of women with small children.   50 plus hour weeks all too often. Please,   "Yush gvul".   

Yes, years ago I was told I had done wrong about posting a new thread to Other.   I did not post for a year after that.   BBR does not even know how to blush.   

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 26, 2020, 05:09:38 PM »
Another piece of Iceberg B22-A broke off from the older (Western) end earlier this month and floated off this week.  Click on the GIF below.  You can also see the amount of movement of B22-A.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 26, 2020, 03:58:26 PM »

If not used to make another panel the energy displaces that produced from FFs, known as a reduction of the intensity in kg CO2 / kWh

Indeed.  Seeking to use only  renewable-sourced energy to produce renewables isn't rational.  We face a global problem of using fossil fuels to produce energy.  Transitioning to renewable sourcing for *everything* is the ultimate goal, which requires a transition period.   What source gets used for which demand during the transition period makes no difference at all. 

What does make a difference is how fast we go through the transition.  Using fossil fuels to produce the renewables during the transition period is perfectly fine.  Renewable sources then displace carbon-intensive sources, regardless of the end use of that energy,

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 26, 2020, 10:42:54 AM »
I cannot fathom why DMI 80N was set up so biased
Me either. Terrible idea. Ever look at their own description?

"Since the data are gridded, it is straightforward to deduce the average temperature North of 80 degree North. However, since the model is gridded in a regular 0.5 degree grid, the mean
temperature values are strongly biased towards the temperature in the most northern part of the Arctic! Therefore, do NOT use this measure as an actual physical mean temperature of the arctic."

In other words, the lat lon grid is a completely inappropriate choice of coordinate system here unfit for purpose but the global data came that way so they foolishly used it rather than take a moment to re-grid. A biased average, dependent on coordinate system choice, is scientifically unacceptable, perhaps explaining why DMI 80N analysis has never appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

Denmark has 5.8m people, a quarter of Los Angeles. What can be expected?

It is merely a ECMWF reanalysis product called ERA40 that you can get anywhere for any place on earth (eg the whole Arctic Ocean basin) as a colored time series map (2D+T data) for the same time span of years. If what you want is ice surface temperature variation or ice temperature profile with thickness, we have satellites and buoy thermistor chains for that.

In the bigger picture, it is a poor idea to believe the state of the Arctic Ocean can be reduced to single numbers. This made some sense in the pre-computer age when journals had minimal ability to dot print even b/w graphics and simple pre-spreadsheet tasks like averaging were tedious. However today analysis of 2D+T displays is preferable as all information is retained, unlike with the single number approach 0D+T.

There's another issue here called pipeline immortality. Once a product algorithm is set up to run unattended, no matter how flawed, that's what it does. The project automator may have moved on or even died but, as long as the institutional electric bill is paid, the daily product continues to be served indefinitely from some nook or cranny in storage. Someone has to actively intervene to take it down. However inaction is a whole lot easier. Innocents come along later on the internet and are duped.

The 2m amsl level is by far the least accurate atmospheric choice because of topographic effects of rough ice on wind and boundary layer. Ask yourself how many instruments exist offshore actually measuring it for assimilation, typically none. How many 80º+ weather stations on land: 4-5 and diminishing. The Polarstern does not measure it; their mast is at 36m. It is model-driven assumption, not observation.

The case cannot be made that north pole is somehow the "heart" of the Arctic Ocean. It's representative of it in any way becing such an asymmetric basin, both at current sea level and for continental shelf bathymetry. The ice is not centered there at any time of year, the cold pole is not centered there, the geographic center of the the ocean is not there, the last remnant ice will not be located anywhere near it. (In 2016 it was already open water; see Jim H's photo.)

DMI 80 is an inappropriate product for detecting climactic impacts of incipient BOE (this forum) because it leaves out so much of the open water of the excluded ESS, Chukchi, Beaufort and Laptev where the insolation of large area, low albedo early open water counts the most. The low area NP region is where it matters least because of the lower angle longer path through the atmosphere and poor match to peak insolation even when it is melt pond (this year) or open water.

Thus the Bering Strait is at 65.9º which is 1,234 ignored km below 80º, causing a whole lot of Arctic Ocean to be left out. Meanwhile 80º north is tainted by its inclusion of the anomalous localized area impacted by incoming Atlantic Waters.

The slides below show the highly variable 80th parallel enclosure on Sept 15 for the years 2012-20. The bottom image shows how poorly this enclosure characterizes actual basin percentages of land, water, ice on that date.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 26, 2020, 02:47:31 AM »
Maybe some will like this.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 26, 2020, 01:29:54 AM »
Preamble: I must admit that the use of the term "Destruction Zone", which I had accepted, was a bit disturbing to me. After a first reading, diagonally (for the moment), of Stef Lhermitte et al. 2020, I found the term "Damage Zone", which seems to me better (and whose acronym is the same).
The other thing that disturbed me was the use only of the direction from the center of the Ice Shelf relative to the PIG, for example north side: NEDZ and NWDZ.
I propose to distinguish them by using the indications "upstream" and "downstream" (which really characterizes it), which gives: NuDZ, NdDZ, SuDZ and SdDZ.

About Stef Lhermitte et al. 2020, there are two sentences that leave me rather perplexed:
> “In the northern shear zone of PIG, on the other hand, the observed damage evolution is absent or lim-ited due negative maximum strain rates (Fig. 1A) that result in closing of crevasses and rifts.”
> "whereas the north-ern shear zone remained largely intact after the unprecedented retreat and disconnection from the northern PIG ice shelf in2015 (6)"
But it is true that this article was written in 2018 that for the PIG already seems so far away...
Indeed, as many have commented here, there is in fact a NuDZ and, as we have seen since the big calving in February, there is actually a NdDZ!

A few months ago we thought (we hope) that the very narrow NE-IS, supported by the Ice Rise Evan's Knoll, could provide, at least temporarily, a pinning point to the PIG. It seems that this will not be the case.

Analysis :
> the speed of the PIG is very high
> the NE-IS is fed by ice from the PIG basin which, to the right of the main flow, overflows an Ice Rumple and by a small tributary to the north.
> the ice of this ice shelf, in the strip near the NSM, moves parallel to the PIG with a very high velocity gradient
> downstream the NE-IS becomes very narrow

Currently this gives very high stresses with the PIG on the one hand and with the stationary ice of the Ice Rumble Evan's Knoll on the other hand.  And the remaining part of the NE-IS downstream of the separation with the PIG cannot provide support to the NE-IS upstream: the shock cannot be absorbed by deformation and it tends to break and calve.

And the NE-IS is a funnel and further upstream will widen which should make things worse.
I don't see what could prevent the NdDZ from gradually expanding upstream until it reconnects to the NuDZ. One can hope that this process will be slow (slower than at present), but it is only a matter of a few years.

And the speed of the PIG is likely to increase with the reduction of lateral stress, which is not conducive to stability.

Things are not better in the south, but this will be for another post.

click to zoom in

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 25, 2020, 04:58:07 PM »
Latest Five Day Forecast
Wind + Temp @ Surface
Large GiF!

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 25, 2020, 12:09:51 PM »
Last try

The EROI “problem” is non-existent for renewables, there is ample surplus energy available from Solar, Wind and other renewables.

There are no diminishing returns, there is expansion in RE. It’s self-replicating, as a new source of energy, one RE device pays back and then produces enough to build another in 1 year, so energy production capacity can double every year without the need for FFs.
7 years 1 to 100 times original.

Scotland got to net 100% electricity mostly with wind in just over a decade without trying too hard. Still more planned to cover transport, heating etc.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 25, 2020, 09:26:00 AM »
Well. With Mosaic basically proving that the best piece of ice in the best position on the Atlantic side of the Lomonosov ridge LOST thickness on its entire transit from October to may, from 7m to 5m, through constant bottom melt, and never froze it's soggy core. And now that they can cruise at open water efficiency, from laptev to Fram north of 86 latitude, and never register any fresh freezable layer...
 There appears to be no such thing as a Arctic sea ice freezing season anymore in this half of the Arctic basin.
Therefore I suggest a poll to rename this forum the SiAlCa sea ice forum. Hopefully there will be a few years while those elements hydrated minerals can still stay cold enough to remain solid on those sectors polar seas. Unlike Venus.
Wry and somewhat twisted that this bad half joke may sound.

On the Atlantic side, it is looking like that the halocline has taken a serious hit. And the weather is totaly nuts on the russian islands. As of the 24th, the record of the most crazy anomaly is probably for Ostrov Golomnjannyj. The current mean temperature, 4.7°C, is 4° (!) above the old record of 2012, and even 2°C above the warmest month ever recorded, August 1932. Every day have broken their daily record, 15 days had a Tx above the old monthly record, and even one Tn was above the monthly record of Tx... And all of this with 71 mm of rain (and I mean, really rain, liquid water at 5°C), wich is more than three time the normal monthly precipitation amount. From Ostrov Heiss to Ostrov Kotel'Nyj, crossing Khatanga and Ostrov Vize, mean monthly temperature are going to be 2 to 4°C above previous record, and going to be more than 3 sigma above normal. Seing such and anomaly over such an area (we are speaking of something like more than 2 millions of km² or 0.5% of Earth surface) for a monthly mean is unprecedent.

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: September 25, 2020, 05:59:47 AM »
One thing that would shrink my killfile is if there were a rule against repetetition.

I see the same posters say the same thing in exactly the same language again and again and again and again and ... sorta like groundhog day ... and my killfile grows.

Repetition is not argument. As I have stated before, one of the biggest reason i killfile people is not that i disagree, it is that they are so, so predictable. Often, i feel i could have assembled their latest posts, entirely cobbled together from previous ones. Reminds me of Louis L'Amour westerns, said to be a favorite of Ronald Reagan's.


Before it all gets dark, here is good view of the situation at Zachariae Isstrøm from September 23 2020:

Click on image to enlarge!

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 24, 2020, 06:49:08 PM »
To come back to the EROEI of tool production, two important points have to be considered. The first one is that tools and machines used to require much less metal than they do now. A train built in 1900 was mainly made of wood, a car or a pickup truck built before WWII was not only much lighter, but also contained much less embedded energy. So the energy used to build a modern tool might have nothing to do with the energy required to produce such a tool.

The second point I want to say is that when steel was produced for a scythe in 1700, the energy came mainly from wood, and it was so until humanity learned to produce coke in order to feed the steel production system. So the question was not if the scythe could produce enough food kWh to cover its production kWh, but if it was a useful way to use steel which was in very limited supply. EROEI only makes sense when we talk about energy production in the context of an industrialized world were food is not energy, but a commodity, and were energy is in oversupply. We talk about it now because we feel that we should limit our energy consumption, not because we have to. If we think back at a traditional farming context, energy was limited and the question was not yet if some uses made sense, but if they were possible. Maybe the scythe didn't produce as much energy as it was required to produce it, but the ax did it and it kept in balance the energy system.

added :
So, I find Bruce's question very good, but wouldn't use the EROEI to try to find an answer, but rather check how much energy is required to produce food and check if, in a renewable world, we can get as much energy for our food production. The question could also be how much energy we need to save in order to be fully renewable and able to produce the food we need.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 23, 2020, 11:18:37 PM »
You will find in this post :
> a history of the front for the northern half: an image containing the positions of the front between 17/02 and 20/09 by 12 days interval, but the positions of the front of 29/02 and 03/08 are missing (no PolarView image). The image is very busy, hence the use of a white background.
> an image containing only the front positions on 17/02 and 12/03 to highlight the important calving that occurred shortly after the big calving in February.
> an image containing only the positions of the front on 17/02 and 20/09 to highlight the totality of the losses
> an image containing only the positions of the forehead on 08/09 and 20/09 to highlight the calvings that occurred during this last period. I have added the calving information for 21/09

More posts will follow

Click to zoom in

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 23, 2020, 05:55:38 PM »
My apologies to Oren , Etienne, and  Steve if I just sound hardheaded. I should be able to get my head around why EROEI doesn’t work but my brain fails me. Sometimes though hardheadedness and a solitary pursuit of something as simple as a renewable food system is all one man can juggle and not go nuts.

No need to apologize.  It seems to me that you're struggling with one special case of a general problem.  That is, while living in a fossil-fuel dominated society, how can one bring one's carbon footprint to zero or negative?

Generally speaking, doing so is either flatly impossible or requiring of herculean efforts.  The challenge before us is a  *collective* challenge, of the sort that cannot truly be met by us as individuals.  Individual efforts help a bit at the margins.

With the right public policies, you'd be able to use diesel equipment, fueled by bio diesel, available at the filling station.  It would likely be more expensive to produce, but society could subsidize its use for agriculture and other industries where alternatives are not practical.  Price for uses where electrification is feasible would remain cost-prohibitive.  Industrial-scale production should be sufficiently economical that the subsidies would not break any national banks.

Judicious application of specific taxes and subsidies could vastly accelerate the transition to renewable energy.  We just need the collective political will.  Political will around the world is increasing, but so is the undermining of that will by corporate interests.  The struggle is on! 

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 22, 2020, 04:55:23 PM »
From Peter Neff @icy_pete
Today is the first day of the #WAIS2020 West #Antarctic glaciology workshop! 🇦🇶❄️

If you registered, you can attend any session over the next two weeks. Zoom links in your inbox. 📬

Today: Grounding zones & ice shelves, Session 7
3-5pm Eastern

All sessions are recorded and available on YouTube  from @MinesGlaciology

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 22, 2020, 10:49:40 AM »
Overview of the whole Thwaites glacier back in March before the sun set, and now.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:31:31 PM »

Table 2 lists 72 places, where we have temperature and/or precipitation estimates for the Pliocene warm period, when temperatures were cca 3-5 C higher and there was no Arctic Ice cap. Generally, Europe and North America saw more precipitation, eg. Arizona had savannas , Nevada ponds, marshes, Utah at least 600 mm rain, Europe had more rain than now, etc.

While I certainly don't have the knowledge to disagree on this point, I would guess there might be a difference between rainfall within the stable warm period and rainfall during a rapid transition into a warm period.

Its the potential year-to-year unpredictability I'm worried about.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 21, 2020, 10:20:53 PM »
BBC seems to have some inside info.  I have looked back on this Forum but have found no mention of this in particular. 
You need to read further down the article to see the quotes from Julienne Stroeve on her Mosaic mission:

Sorry if I have attached this incorrectly, not a techie ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 20, 2020, 10:13:07 PM »
Solar will be a long term benefit to Tesla but solar city was a waste of money. Musk unwound the company almost completely and rebuilt it from the ground up. It would have been easier and cheaper to just start from scratch. Solar city was unprofitable, their liabilities exceeded there assets. They were competing on price and/or service. Their reputation was crap. There was no business reason to buy them.

Policy and solutions / Re: If not Capitalism... then What? And, How?
« on: September 20, 2020, 06:45:23 PM »
Thread: The Sin of Wealth 

Contrarily, money that's invested is not doing harm - just the opposite. It's not consuming goods and services, but rather, it's helping create more capacity for goods and services. Let me reiterate: *money that's invested is a good thing*.

It's good, thoughtful writing.  But the paragraph here is incomplete.  Wealth inequality has led to an unproductive amount of wealth going into investable assets.  Bonds have been bid up to prices that produce a negligible yield.  Stocks are bid up to absurd prices.  Real estate has been bid up to prices that produce unaffordable housing, contributing to homelessness world-wide.

Meanwhile, there isn't enough economic growth attainable to productively use the multiple trillions of dollars put into investments.  It's mostly just making investment assets expensive and unrewarding.

In macroeconomic terms, all this "investment" may be producing more harm than good.  Much of it should be taxed and thus put to better use.  But good luck getting that kind of policy enacted.

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 20, 2020, 11:40:26 AM »
Animation with the images of 08/09 and 20/09, no alignment (so the movements are not relative, but absolute).
P2's calving should be soon  ::)
with other debacles from the SSM iceberg melange

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 19, 2020, 08:02:38 PM »
Animation of the annual max and min, from 1979 to present (click to play).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 18, 2020, 04:51:53 PM »
NSIDC Daily Area: September 17th

Arctic Sea ice area: 2,656,684 million km^2, 

Change from yesterday: gain of 73,252 km^2

It looks like the NSIDC daily Area low was set on the 15th September at 2.583,432 million km^2, which would be the third lowest on record behind 2012 and 2016.

(2020) NSIDC: Area daily: 2.656               NSIDC: Extent daily:

NSIDC: September daily area minimum     NSIDC: September daily extent minimum

(2012) 2.241                                             : 3.340  <<  Sep  16
(2016) 2.477                                             : 4.145         Sep   7               
(2011) 2.940                                             : 4.333         Sep   8
(2019) 2.960                                             : 4.166         Sep 17
(2017) 3.020                                             : 4.635         Sep 13
(2007) 3.050                                             : 4.155         Sep 18
(2008) 3.120                                             : 4.586         Sep 19
(2015) 3.160                                             : 4.387         Sep   8
(2018) 3.270                                             : 4.630         Sep 21

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: September 18, 2020, 04:24:24 PM »
Here's a quick summation of the 2020 melt season, at 2 week intervals. Max extent was around the March 4th, while min seems like Sept 13th (so the final period is not quite 2 weeks!).

I should probably mention the top one is an animation. Click to play!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 18, 2020, 12:22:02 AM »
      Agreed, 2007 really was the starting gun. The more I've learned the more I've wondered "What the heck happened in 2007?"  ASI watchers must have been freaking out at the time because there were no precedents or early warning as far as I can tell.  It was a killer melt year from which the Arctic has never really recovered.  Discussion of the weather patterns or other factors that made 2007 such a drastic melt year would be appreciated by this reader, and I suspect many other ASIF denizens.

I cant locate where, Glen but I remember Friv posting numerous times earlier this year about the remarkable dipole summer of 2007.

I suppose everyone here has their own perspective on the Arctic. Their own moment/year which really stands out.

I'll throw in my list:

1975 - Wasnt old enough in '75 but about 20 years ago I remember first reading from the Canadian Ice Service that the shipping channels to Prudhoe Alaska were blocked all through that summer.

2007 - Was a huge wake up. I used to get my Arctic data from the NSIDC and remember seeing the images that September  and being so amazed how far the ice had eroded especially on the Pacific side. It was an unusual profile as ice was still connected to Russia near the north Cape.

2012 - The GAC and my first becoming aware of Neven's blog.

2016 - The state of the ice all around the pole that August/Sept was so bad. Looked even worse (in that area) than this year.

2020 - The large melt this year was not a surprise to me, given the starting conditions last April. However the thinning north of Greenland was an eye opener. Yet another big Arctic surprise.

What strange/surprises await us next year ?

Best place to watch it all unfold is the ASIF. Thanks to all !

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 17, 2020, 09:42:02 AM »
The low concentration areas inside the CAB of yesterday’s AWI concentration map are well observable in the corresponding World View due to clear sky.

This is the second of two posts.

Fig 5 Shows Annual Average Ice Cover (AAIC) for Lake Superior from 1973-2020 (Yellow) and several back projections of AAIC.

The first back projection (Green: 1962-1972) was made using the actual data from all three weather stations, since all three went back to at least 1962. R2 for model = 0.8927.

The second back projection (Red: 1949-1961) was made using the actual data from Duluth and SSM, Michigan. R2 = 0.8676

The third back projection (Orange: 1949-1961) was made using the same model used for the first (green) projection, by combining the data from Duluth and SSM, Michigan, with a projected count of extreme days in SSM, Canada (using the relationship shown in Fig 4, above; R2 = 0.8842).

Finally, a back projection (Blue) was made fro the period 1932-1972 using the actual count from SSM, Michigan, combined with the projected count for SSM, Canada. This was done through 1972, so that the period of 1962-1972 could be compared between the strongest model (Green) and the one with the most extrapolation (Blue).

Fig. 6 Shows a the maximum extent of ice cover on Lake Superior (Yellow: 1973-2020), and several back projections of maximum extent from 1932-1972 based on the projections of AAIC outlined above. The relationship between AAIC and max extent is given in Fig. 3, above.

The colours are the same as those on Fig 5.

The data suggests that while Lake Superior experienced somewhat lower ice levels from the late 30s until the late 50s, compared to the period from 1959-1980 (a pattern reflective of the global mean surface temperature anomaly; Fig 7), the general trend has been of a decline in both area covered, and maximum extent. With the exception of 1932 (known as the year without a winter), a notable decline in minima for both AAIC and max extent can be observed beginning in the 1980s, and particularly after the 1998 "super" el nino. Also of note is the increased inter annual variability, especially notable in the maximum extent data over this same period.

Whether these models have any value, or could be improved upon is an open question, but I found them to be interesting enough to be worth sharing. I hope that some of the readers of this forum agree.

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: September 16, 2020, 05:01:58 PM »
The problem with anecdotal weather is is anecdotal. And most people have a very very short and faulty memory. When (many years ago)  I crosschecked my grandparents stories about weather during their childhood with actual weather data it turned out that their memories were less than exact to put it mildly. So here are some actual data from Central Europe (Budapest).

Monthly average temperature, monthly minimum temperature, monthly maximum temperature 1960-1990 avg vs 2010-2019 avg

1. -0,6 vs 1,3  ;  -9,3 vs -7 ; 9,5 vs 11,5
2. 1,9 vs 3,1   ;  -7,3 vs -5,3;  11,5 vs 15,1
3. 6,3 vs 8,2   ;  -4,1 vs -1,9; 19,8 vs 21
4. 11.8 vs 13,8 ; 1,1 vs 2,4;  24,4 vs 27,8
5. 16,6 vs 17,4;  5,4 vs 6,6; 28,6 vs 30,2
6. 19,8 vs 22 ;  9,5 vs 11,7; 31,6 vs 34,8
7. 21,5 vs 23,8 ; 11,8 vs 12,6; 33,5 vs 36,4
8. 20,8 vs 23,5  ; 10,9 vs 12,6; 33,1 vs 36,1
9. 17 vs 18,2     ; 6,6 vs 7,7; 29,5 vs 31,1
10. 11,5 vs 12,5 ; 0,8 vs 1,8; 23,8 vs 24,7
11. 5,7 vs 7,9 ; -3,4 vs -0,9; 16,5 vs 19,1
12. 1,6 vs 2,8 ; -7,3 vs -6,4; 11,5 vs 13,7

As you can see average temperatures rose cca 2 C but monthly minimum and maximum temperatures also rose similarly.

I also checked the standard deviation of temps and other distribution measures, eg skewness, the length of the growing season, last and first frost date, etc. The point is that all temperatures rose and volatility is not statistically higher than before. The weather is not at all more weird than it used to be (although it seems like that to us), it is not that the highs are higher and the lows are lower, and it is not more extreme. It is simply warmer. Shorter, warmer winters, longer, warmer summers,early spring, late autumn. It is not more chaotic than before. Simply, my country is slowly transitioning into the subtropical zone.

Warming does not cause more volatility in temperatures, it just causes warming. And coincidentally more rain globally but a changing distribution of rain which could be more dangerous than the effect of temperatures as adaptation to (much) less or much more precipitation can be very hard.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Poll: Where will the last Arctic Sea Ice be located?
« on: September 16, 2020, 01:30:20 AM »
 I choosed 2 options:
North Greenland/ellesmere or CAA
I think that Greenland with its low T will be the last capable of promoting the formation of sea ice on its northern edge, if they are weak, the presence of GAAC could push them back to the north of the CAA
They would then be difficult to dislodge by the wind in these channels of the north CAA, for me the north CAA would be the last support for the drifting ice
Sory my English is bad, but my fascination for ASI is big

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 15, 2020, 07:50:55 PM »
As a long time lurker and persistent reader of this forum, I think it appropriate at this time to especially thank Oren, Juan C. Garcia, Frivolousz21, Jim Hunt, Born From The Void, Aluminum, A-Team, ArcticMelt2, Gerontocrat, and other participants on the ASIF for their continued outstanding analyses of the Arctic environment.  I also want to thank Neven for making this all possible as well. For people like me publishing these analyses in the concise and straightforward manner is a godsend for us.  The lack of garbage and political interference is indeed refreshing. So, "Thank You" to everyone.....


Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: September 15, 2020, 04:27:24 PM »
Two large icebergs that have been grounded in front of Thwaites have floated off in the past couple of days.  I fear this early sign does not portend well for the upcoming season.

The first iceberg (B-46) was part of the October 2018 PIG calving event and it grounded in front of Thwaites in October 2019.  The second iceberg was from the February 2020 PIG calving and it grounded in March.

The GIF below has images from July 10, 2019, Oct. 26, March 12 and 24, 2020, May 23, June 10, and Sept. 8 and 14.

Last Antarctic Summer, Thwaites Tongue was protected from breaking up by landfast sea ice that was in part protected by these two icebergs.

Of course PIG may be calving again shortly and could be sending more icebergs this way.  Also the old gigantic B22-A iceberg is still in place and helping to shelter Thwaites from the West but it is moving around quite a bit between its grounding points.

Note:  Thwaites Tongue is the fast moving collection of icebergs in the lower right.

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news
« on: September 15, 2020, 03:57:16 PM »
The worst ice movement of the whole year-long expedition is happening. It is probably not a risk to the ship itself (though the rudder got rammed by a floe earlier) but puts experimental equipment out on the ice in jeopardy.

'Follow Mosaic' has not said if they can keep field work going safely under these conditions; in the past, great effort went into just keeping power lines out and sensors upright and running. Today's post is all about chlorophyll, fading light and zooplankton. The photo could be a week old for all we know.

It's hard to see the scientific value of sampling a hole or two over winter in an immense ocean; how long will biological data stay relevant in the fast-changing Arctic. Does AWI believe the coming BOE will bring a fisheries and fossil fuel bonanza? #53  diatom Melosira arctica

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 15, 2020, 08:39:22 AM »
As a testimony of the disruption ongoing on the Atlantic front, the extraordinary heatwave is still ongoing for the Russian islands of the Barents and Kara. For weather stations with such a long record, this is crazy. Up to the 15th of Septembrer, the mean of temperature (the mean...) is above the old monthly record of September. And it is raining, raining, raining.
For Ostrov Vize, with the exception of the 10th, every day since the 14th of August is a record, and the old monthly record of 2015 has been broken twelve days as of now... The month of September is for the moment the warmest month ever recorded, ahead of August 2020
For Ostrov Golomjanjy, every day of September has been a record, and the old monthly record of 2016 has been broken eleven times.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 15, 2020, 06:04:08 AM »
September 10-14.


Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion
« on: September 14, 2020, 01:58:22 PM »
Today's high-resolution image of the Southern Shear Margin shows a calving of the Southern Ice Shelf at the prominence where the "almond" was previously attached.  The remains of the "cork" pushing on the ice shelf just upstream probably contributed to the calving.  First image of the GIF is from 18 days ago, second is 6 days ago, and last is today.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 14, 2020, 12:24:42 AM »
It wouldn't be much of a rebound anyways when you consider how thin all of the ice is.

What good is 4 year old ice that's under a meter thick
It’s more resilient than FYI under a meter.
<mass snippage>

Weather will be the determinant of the pack's survival, not the existing ice.

jdallen pretty convincing. I agree with almost everything you explain. Still that does not negate that, if we have that 7% of ice that has become older in the Western CAB post-2016, let’s count with its existence for future years. My belief is that it does matter, it is one of few negative feedbacks that the Arctic ice has to avoid imminent oblivion, that is: some regeneration of old ice if several years seasons do not push it away one direction or another.

I just happen to believe we are in for a gradual decline, which I know is not a popular opinion here. Yet some folks are noting that “this year would be creating big news if it wasn’t because of 2012”, yes, and that’s because of the current gradual decline of which 2012 was the exception.

I Used to believe 2030 was a good BOE prediction, but I am not so sure when one counts some negative feedbacks: extended falls after bad seasons lead to enormous late heat release, increased snowing, later springs, rebound years; years in a row with low or moderate CAB ice export lead to MYI rebound; warm ocean currents not easily reaching the western CAB ice...
mind you, I agree that a very bad year before 2030 might come and ice extent can go down even 1 m km2 but that would probably be exceptional, followed by rebounds, back to the gradual downhill track as it has happened post 2012, clearly.
Anyway, this is all speculation, reason why I post it here.
Thanks for shifting the discussion here.

I still think 2030-ish is the way to bet as far as a BoE is concerned, and agree that we'll get years if not decades of "dead cat bounces" while the Arctic as a system languishes in a marginal condition between the previous and next "stable" state.

I think my primary criticism about the value of MYI is more nuanced than may have come across in my OP.

There is no question that MYI was key to buffering and balancing the Arctic as a system, especially pre-2007.  The key function it served really didn't have to do with the implied latent energy uptake it represented.  MYI doesn't absorb more energy that FYI when melting.  The heat budget for phase change remains the same.  Rather, it was it's mechanical strength, across vast stretches of the pack which helped stabilize the system as a whole.

Part of that strength depended seriously the temperature of the ice as much as it did on its salt content - ice at -20c is almost as hard as bedrock - and has nearly the same mechanical strength.  So, pre-"modern" era conditions with millions of KM2 MYI and sub -10c temperatures meant that wind and other kinetic forces could be spread across very large areas with relatively little damage, and, that there would be little movement or disintegration of the ice outside of the pack margins.  This has made the system  more or less stable since the last of the Laurentide ice sheet vanished over 4500 years bce. (Prior to this, it was probably stronger.)

It's thickness ->at scale<- was important as well, as it meant year over year, it could lose 2+m of thickness, still remain in place, and provide a similarly broad-scale platform for re-deposition of new ice from below and new fresher ice refrozen from melt above.  It tended to stay in place.  It tended to keep albedo high, and by nature of strength and coverage, limit seasonal uptake of heat.  These last were as if not more important than the thermal inertia the ice itself provides.

Scroll forward now to the modern era, particularly at key junctures like 2007, 2010 (an underrated melt year), 2011 and 2012.  I'm adding a link to one of my favorite graphics by Jim Pettit here to help illustrate:

Those years mentioned are key in they are points in which the melt season destroyed large areas of MYI.  2010 in particular is notable for that, as even though extent and area did not drop to record levels, it was the first year we observed volume drop below 5,000 km3.  2007 was the first below - WAY below - approximately 9000km3 (2006 was 8993km3).  2011 and 2012 were years that continued the trend, dropping volume under 5000km3 and progressively chipping away at what some of used to call "matrix pack"; called such because of the very regular way it would fracture, essentially creating what could be considered fault lines in the ice while mostly retaining strength and coherence.

Those losses of volume and by extension MYI are critical to set the stage for what we see starting most dramatically in 2016.  The winter pack now fractures and recombines at much lower scales, eliminating the resistance it used to have to mechanical forces, and making the entire pack as a whole far more mobile.  Combine this with increasing advection of heat from southerly seas, and you have the new seasonal regime we now see. 

The result is, we have nothing like the larger expanses of MYI we used to see, which unbroken might cover 10's of thousands of km2. We are lucky if we see blocks of more than about 2500.  And because of warmer temperatures overall, for longer periods of both the melt and refreeze seasons, that relict ice has nothing like the mechanical strength of the old pack.

So, to finish my thought for the moment and conclude, MYI was far more important for the structure and mechanical characteristics it provided than it was for any sort of thermal component.  So while it exists now, it has nothing like the structure it had in the past, and because of that is only marginally less vulnerable than FYI when exposed to the conditions we now see during the melt season.  Without that structure, it doesn't really provide a buffer against loss as it used to.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 12, 2020, 08:09:14 AM »
Reminder that if 2012 wasn't a thing we'd all be blown away by this melting year. We are so far ahead of #3 in terms of extent.

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: September 11, 2020, 09:38:41 PM »
The sun still does not shine at the South Pole, but Amundsen Sea is north and bright enough to allow EOSDIS to make new pictures.

So the first look I took was on my pet iceberg that has lost parts of its SW tip some months ago (details in the Thwaites Gl. thread).

I took the opportunity and evaluated the movement of B-22A between 15. Nov 2019 and 11. Sept 2020.
It moved slowly in NW direction (around 5 km). I checked different places and spots on this iceberg, measured the distance between the two dates and added them into the attached picture. As far as I evaluated there seems to be no turning around of the iceberg.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 11, 2020, 05:25:02 AM »
I ask that you indulge my bathymetry-and-ice-distribution fixation one more time.  This gif is from images on the oden site.  I was not able to get images for the same date each year, so the images are from a day from each year during the first two weeks of September, showing the approximate ice extent minimum.  The thing that jumps out here for me is how different this year is from all the others in terms of the Atlantic front, as others have noted.  2020 melt has advanced into the deep basin of the Arctic Ocean in a manner that seems qualitatively different...   Retreating halocline?  Source:    Maps only go back to 2014, so no 2012.

Large gif.  Click to animate.  3 secs+ per image, a bit slow so features can be observed.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy Transition and Consumption
« on: September 11, 2020, 04:29:27 AM »
In electricity, wind is already multiples of natural gas in EROI. Nowadays, I would be shocked if solar wasn't ahead of every FF. The fun part is, we're not even close to their potential.

I understand it's difficult to really grasp what's going on in energy, but you have to realize public resources are terrible. You can spend much less time, and get a much better understanding, by just figuring out *what's actually going on* yourself. What's involved in a wind project, how it generally works, how we're iterating, industry expectations, etc. In solar, how are we manufacturing, how that's changed, general understanding of equipment, industry expectations, industry trends, iterative improvements, etc. Understand the processes, and how we're actually doing it. You'll be ahead of every resource you'll find on the internet if you just do that. Even studies are extremely myopic because they use precedent data by definition in a quickly changing industry. I first realized this a few years ago at an energy conference, with MIT talking about future of US grid and renewables, not once mentioning offshore wind when UK and Europe auctions were public knowledge, precisely because the only precedent in the US was some astronomical cost project. You can't really take anything from any study, unless it's general overviews of industry R&D, or just aggregated historical price trends as a reference. I don't even read them anymore. Definitely do not take financebros / bloggers' word, unless it's just a spreadsheet of data of precedent price trends or something, vast majority of them couldn't find their asses with both hands and a map.

An "EROI" estimate from 2012-2013 is definitely outdated, a lot has changed in regards to energy inputs relative to energy outputs. In energy projects, where most of the concentration is on the first 15-years of production, LCOE is really a direct piece of the reflection of the energy input:output ratio. Especially when it's a fixed asset with no variable fuel costs. I mean, that's it, the structures themselves and their output relative to cost is the LCOE, direct energy input definitely figures into that. A lot can change in manufacturing and production. Economies of scale, optimizing production processes, industry shifts, iteration, better output. With almost all PERC modules nowadays, the dominant form of solar PV today, they'll still be 85-88% efficient in 30 years, with energy investment payback in 1-4 years (depending on location). The industry shift in solar over the next 3-5 years, those modules will still be 90% efficient after 35 years, and energy investment payback will reduce even further. New wind projects can last 25-30 years, and their energy investment payback is 3-6 months, and their capabilities have improved a lot, with much, much more to come.

Let's take a look at industry roadmaps and general industry expectations which further boost EROI. I have never seen another human being on the internet mention these in aggregate.
1) Wind - do you know we actually don't really know anything about wind interactions in a wind farm or amidst the environment across a windfarm? Wind analytics on turbines is still in the Stone Age, and there's no farm-level optimization?
- DoE Exawind project - Atmosphere to Electron Initiative = porting physics and fluid dynamics of wind to run on exascale class machines. Will be influential in maximizing siting, wind interactions, optimization, controls, things like wake steering and windfarm/turbine designs. Europe will be doing similar things when they can and/or the modeling is simplified a bit. This is going to be a gift that keeps on giving for a long time, and probably at least a couple fascinating insights. All these capabilities + data from LiDAR, etc, are great resources for our general environmental understanding, as well.
- Imaging/Sensing like LiDAR - big auto is driving this, it'll be pretty standard with nacelles in 4-5 years, probably see some sooner. Dynamic wind analytics, adjustments/corrections, also can significantly lower load/fatigue on structure and components, ie less degradation, and more generation
- Better sensors and integration for components - "preventative maintenance", use less energy in O&M (operations and maintenance), less "big" breaking changes that usually arise from a smaller problem unnoticed that exacerbated, less degradation, more energy return over life with less energy invested, also cost reduction
- Further out - 3-D printed concrete foundations = GE + LaFargeHolcim + Cobold project, but everyone interested in this for obvious reasons. Wind resource at taller heights is better, more generation, biggest obstacle to taller towers is logistics (transportation). Also saves energy on both the concrete foundation construction, but also the energy used to transport foundations, foundations are huge. Cheaper 140m-160m towers (really the game changing height with rotor iteration across the world, especially with data + optimization adoption above), but also future 180m-200m towers. We'll see this get going before 2030, likely industry standard by then, and many forward thinkers believe in 15 years, we're going to be 3-D printing both the foundation and the blades (rotors) on-site. Likely the future of floating wind structures, as well. Maybe even fixed-bottom monopiles for offshore in shallower depths, could potentially do it on-ship, saving trips to shore. "Additive manufacturing" (3D printing) also opens up the doors to use... additives in the future for less material/energy input and/or access to more output.

This is without mentioning rotor re-designs, companies keep those pretty close to the vest, but are inevitable even by 2030. There's even more efficient methods in producing things like generator components, and implementation/construction like "self lift" reducing use of heavy cranes. It's a complete transformation in capabilities, sounds like something out of a science fiction novel, big reason you can't extrapolate wind capacity to the future, or even "storage" needs for that matter. EROI over 25 years is going to be enormous, but I have little doubt that better controls, data, sensors, less degradation, projects in the near future could hit 35 years. Probably replace them before then, just out of sheer marginal utility, just enforcing the point.

2) Solar - solar has changed quite a bit over the last 10 years, energy output, longevity, economies of scale lowering energy inputs per capita, in furnaces, processing and handling equipment throughput, transportation energy + costs per capita from higher power. It'll get another leg up on EROI over the next 5 years, and industry expectations + what we know and things on the roadmap could see another big leg up over the next 7-8 years. with the widely regarded future of solar low-temp, solution processed, massive efficiency increases, which would send EROI into the stratosphere.
- Current = most manufacturing is PERC, "p-type" silicon, type just refers to doping and some electron mechanics, whole industry shifted about 2 years ago to this because of high efficiencies and input efficient scaling + equipment
- 2023 industry roadmap - n-type HJT = more focus and transition on "n-type" as "p-type" PERC is running out of headroom, n-type is just generally considered "better quality for solar" than p-type, and is the base cell for HJT (heterojunction). Higher efficiencies, less degradation, generates more over 15 years given same power ratings. Also naturally bifacial properties, and this is around the time we expect bifacial modules to become more standard (more output). This actually uses less steps than PERC, and some processes can even be lower temperature. Less input, more output. Additionally, we know we can use about 30% less silicon, and even up to about 60% less, it's all in the handling equipment, which will start iterating more quickly as production starts to ramp up.
- Midterm potential = Tandems, silicon/perovskite. Theoretical efficiency 35-44%, i've seen a couple numbers here, I just generally say about 40%, point is a lot higher. The perovskite layer is also processed in solution at low temperatures, very little additional energy input. Oxford PV is aiming for a 100MW line up at end of this year or by mid next year or so with ~27% efficiency, most expectations are that we'll have about a GW of tandem manufacturing in 3-4 years, no one knows how quickly this will develop, but we do know one thing, the solar industry can transition very quickly. Especially when you realize the base silicon for tandems? HJT, the roadmap anyway.
- Future = i doubt there's anyone who doesn't think the future is low-temperature, solution processed perovskite. Perovskites are an extraordinary class of materials, they're actually considered one of the most promising classes of materials across a large swathe of industries, lasers, lighting, optoelectronics/optocommnication/optics in general, photonics, x-ray detectors (like low power, low radiation, high resolution), spectrometers, promising in photocatalysts for feedstocks, solar, etc. Potential lies in not only cheap production, but very lightweight and even flexible modules, very thin wraps, and layering (multi-junction) for very high efficiencies. Also, indoor ambient lighting generation for low-energy things. Energy input can be very low, like an order of magnitude lower, and sky is the limit really on future efficiency. Lighterweight and higher power also saves on transport, and material input+transport in things like trackers + rooftop racking. Much lower weight and high efficiencies, at lower production costs, will drop rooftop costs by multiples. It also allows you to make dual-axis trackers with cheaper/more efficient inputs, no one really uses dual-axis now it's all single-axis mostly, but dual-axis (as we get better data and more people actually using it) is thought to be a 10-15% boost in generation over trackers now. Perovskite modules can also be much easier to recycle, as well.

Organic solar is also a darkhorse, I wouldn't be surprised if that ended up being a viable candidate in some things. Anywho, perovskites, and/or quantum dots (another booming material class), are also going to be the basis for commercial solar glass, which we'll see pick up traction in 8-10 years (ROI $$). And if you kinda have a grasp on how economies handle energy industries, you see how relatively easy and cheap perovskite production can be, everyone is going to start building and sourcing domestically. Marginal utility of domestic economic benefits will far outweigh a fractional cost reduction. So, good chance total transportation energy usage in shipping declines in the long-term.

3) EVs = I'm on a roll so I might as well continue. We all know by now EVs are much more efficient than combustion engine vehicles. But, EVs still have a ton of headroom on efficiency. Not only in motor, drivetrain, inverter/converter, but also software. And here's one I don't see mentioned enough... weight. If you double the energy density of a Tesla Model 3 battery, you cut about 500-600lbs (225-270kg) off the weight of the vehicle. Also, point applicable to buses. That's more range per kWh. Not only that, but "lighterweight" materials is pretty well understood to see a sonic boom in the next 10 years, and in perpetuity. Aluminum, steel alloys, carbon fiber reinforced plastic, even magnesium is getting attention (cool research which would be transformational = carbon fiber from lignin). Who knows how this develops, point is it's expected to get a significant amount of attention and a lot of expenditures/research. In 15 years, an average of 300kg weight reduction, in a more efficient system overall (for instance I highly doubt we're still using silicon carbide inverters/converters), wouldn't be surprising at all.

You can also see this inflection point down the road, especially with better charging and energy densities, losing weight, better efficiency, especially all the charging at homes and various places, how much capacity will they actually need? Batteries will keep getting denser while capacity needs lower, leading to additional weight savings, but also battery material costs/inputs. And what exactly is going to stop us from putting 1-2kW of solar on an EV, 10kW+ on buses, in say 15 years with all the other very likely developments enhancing efficiency? It's only going to take one manufacturer getting great feedback on a model, before others start doing it. That's inevitable, imo. I think we could see that on some models even in 10 years. Would be a great way to couple domestic upstart next-generation solar to domestic EV and ride the benefits across the entire economy, the headroom for coupled iterating solar efficiency and iterating EV efficiency is astronomical. Can you imagine what that is going to do in some place like India? I would take a bet for any sum of money they are doing precisely that in 15 years. Name an amount, and loser donates that money to hooking up Nanning.

4) Anywho, there's also other things like just better energy management + controls for commercial buildings using more capable sensors we expect to iterate over the next 10 years, actuators, data analytics, rough figure is we can likely cut 10-15% off total commercial building energy consumption, some even up to 40-50% with expected replacement practices, just with those levers. Rooftop and commercial solar glass also will cut down transmission & distribution losses, which are not insignificant. Ditto for more efficient EVs, especially when (not if) solar is placed on a lot of them. More proximal siting for generation, in general, and grid batteries, should also help overall electricity system efficiency, that's really one of the most promising things energy people are excited about, batteries are incredible grid assets and will be used as transmission assets too.

5) Recycling and bio-feedstocks are absolutely 100% essential pillars of any sustainable world. Here's my pillars: renewable generation, EVs, green hydrogen, bio-feedstocks, recycling. And real planning like non-idiots, like real large-scale insulation and energy efficiency measures with teeth. I might be forgetting one off the top of my head, but everything kinda branches off those. Hydrogen or derivative for maritime + aviation, bio-feedstocks including chemistry, materials, and also things like meat replacement, etc. My personal opinion, we're going to find out electricity is actually the relatively easy part, can bridge with green hydrogen fired turbines if necessary, it'll be cheap enough. I like to summarize the hard part like this:

Imagine a world of carbon based lifeforms, in an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, that is about 3/4 water. Now imagine they have seemingly plentiful materials called "hydrocarbons", and think how that could be influential in their growing civilization and development.

This is basically where catalyst innovation, processes, material science, recycling, and even genetic engineering agriculture bio-feedstocks comes into play. Catalysts might be the most important, yet unmentioned and probably least understood, part of the transition equation. Much like batteries, our actual capabilities in observing/engineering weren't good/fast enough, that's starting to change though. If you're interested in science & research, material science (and chemistry) is critical and advancing, will undoubtedly see numerous breakthroughs over the next 10-15 years, batteries, industry catalysts, electrolyzers, photocatalysts, 2-D materials, power electronics, and things like recycling catalysts/processes, hopefully lignin, cellulose etc. The revolution starting to take shape in research computation, not just AI/ML, but expected deviation from decades of established computing architecture, new memories/hierarchies, interconnects, stacking, integrated silicon photonics, and synergy with AI/ML, will be a big boon if we focus.

6) Last one. The advantage we do have, is that developing economies, if given a choice, would much rather keep their industry value chains domestic, piggybacking off cheap domestic renewable generation, even if it's more expensive at the beginning. FFs require enormous value chains, most developing countries enter JVs (joint ventures), and they have to deal with multinational vulture energy companies who leverage not only $$, but political influence and capture. For example, think of a developing country who wanted to domestically produce fertilizer, those jobs in the value chain, also boosting agriculture industry, as we get on with it the domestic benefits from renewable electricity -> green ammonia -> fertilizer are enormous and much less a pain in the ass than having to go through all the trouble of either producing natural gas or spending a load of $$ on terminals, processing, and seeing all the supply money leave the country.

In future bio-feedstocks for chemicals and materials, they can grow and process it themselves or easily trade with neighboring countries who could be doing similar things. Recycling as well, theoretically they could import things, recycle or upcycle them, and just reproduce goods domestically.

Oh, one more thing. People really overrate where we were, which is about 5 hops out of the Stone Age. Our entire civilization has been built on laughably inefficient processes. We're seeing this shift finally. It wouldn't be hyperbole to say the human race is on the verge of a new era of human civilization, with 2020-2029 serving as the precipitous decline and trough, and ~2030 as the ramp to a new cycle. We see this all over the place in every major industry, and society through networking, communication, technological accessibility. As we're on ASIF, I'm sure the irony is not lost on ya'll. Do we actually reach a sustainable world without burning everything down? Don't ask me, that's above my pay grade.

Keep banging the table for hemp research, processing, catalysts, materials, computation/genetics work. It's a damn wunder material for things we can use between the crop and seeds, agriculture genetic engineering has done some pretty amazing things in the last year and that's just getting started. It's also relatively rugged, and sequesters something like 15 tons of CO2 per hectare (we can probably increase that), future butt-wipe, plastics, textiles, bunch of things, even has a high insulation rating while being easy to handle. Supposedly a good crop for regenerative agriculture. And given all the offshore wind farms/structures, algae-seaweed-kelp-etc farms and artificial reefs, I think a European group is doing a study/trial with this, I thought about that a few years ago, seems like a no-brainer to me and there's still likely a whole lot we can learn on actually using it.

(Yes, the US will cut significantly more than 50% off total energy consumption, if that timeline is 30 years anyway. That number will have a different meaning with so much proximal located generation like rooftop, as well. US energy consumption also likely peaked in 2018. PS. - Texas in 2020 is 36% 0-carbon electricity thus far with electricity demand higher than the UK, no real rooftop market, and solar just ramping up this year. - California's old turbines were running at about 40% capacity factors during one of those blackout times, they just don't build any, barely any since 2012, their grid management is mind boggling. - Yes, vehicle2grid will be huge, second life batteries have potential too.)

- Hope ya'll learned something
- Fin

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 10, 2020, 04:42:16 PM »
JAXA is back up!  Data is updated through 09/09.


I will let Juan post the specifics.

Sorry I thought they will post a day later. My mistake.
Thanks JNap, RikW & Gerontocrat.  :)

[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

September 9th, 2020:
     3,586,426 km2, a drop of -3,383 km2.
     2020 is 2nd lowest on record on this date.
     Highlighted 2020 & the 4 years with a daily lowest min in Sept. (2012, 2019, 2016 & 2007).
     In the graph are today's 10 lowest years.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 10, 2020, 01:53:49 PM »
Weekly sea ice losses from July 1st

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 10, 2020, 10:52:43 AM »
Tesla's  success  is not  binary .
Have they proven?

That electric cars can be as good as or better than ICE ?
I could post many videos of professional car reviews who benchmark the Model 3 against the premium ICE offerings from Europe   and find it either the outright winner or a real contender.

That you can travel long distance in an electric car?
The supercharger network makes it easy even here on  my remote pacific islands.

Made other car manufactures  take electric cars seriously rather than just building odd looking limited market compliance cars?
Google BMW i3 or Chevy bolt  if you want  examples.

If you answer yes to any of these Tesla is already a success.

Tesla have already proven beyond doubt it is possible to build electric cars that stand up on their own merits as  cars not just as a compromised virtual signal for  rich liberals or a limited market niche product to get around legal restrictions on ICE sales.
Tesla has already won they have accelerated the transition to  electric transport  by a measurable amount .

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: September 09, 2020, 03:00:39 PM »
Looked at the locations of two big "grounded" icebergs - they "wriggle" occasionally but have not moved far over many years, unlikely to have floated free yet?

Brunt ice shelf accumulates significant snow on the surface each winter, I don't know whether the "nearby" A23A does too as that could reduce its chances of floating free? Many other icebergs to the south have drifted west and then north over the years but A23A may be towards the centre of the circulation in the Weddell Sea?

There has been more icebergs break off the edges of B22A over the years and it looks more likely to move out and break up than A23A.

The other big 'berg is the grounded D15A which hasn't moved location in this time frame.

Locations @ 29/11/2019:-     ->14/09/2020             
A23A    75°47'S    41°04'W    ->75°36'S    40°12'W   
B22A    73°59'S  109°13'W    -> 73°58'S 109°20'W
D15A                     66°39'S 81°55'E


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 09, 2020, 09:45:44 AM »
Hello everyone!
I have been lurking this forum since December 2018 (I discovered this website through a Paul Beckwith video) and I want to thank you all for the high quality content posted here everyday by the ASIF community.

I wanted to share my findings regarding some questions that were asked about the Bremen sea ice extent numbers:
-In their website, it is stated that
Since July 3, 2012, AMSR2 data is displayed which is adapted with the same parameters as its predecessor AMSR-E. The fit parameters are not deduced by comparing it during an overlap period to another time series. Hence, the data ought to be treated with caution until confirmation by independent sources.
therefore if I've understood this well there's no reason we couldn't compare the (future) September 2020 sea ice extent minimum with 2012's.
-Moreover, I've found Bremen's 2012 September daily minimum here :, It was reached September 15th with a value of 3,274,138.00 km², today's daily value is 3,318,268.00 km²,, so for 2020 to beat 2012, by that measure, it would need an extent loss of at least 44,131 km². If it happens, it will surely be by the end of the week.

I hope you found my post informative and useful. I have nothing else to add for all I know about sea ice I have learnt from here. I shall now return lurking in the shadows.  8)

Antarctica / Re: Rift in Larsen C
« on: September 09, 2020, 09:11:22 AM »
When did these icebergs -larsen d form?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: September 09, 2020, 03:58:31 AM »
Cripes, Chartic is down again:

"Error establishing a database connection"

Can anyone else access it? If so please post a snip

Almost uncharcticked waters...              (sorry about that, couldn't resist)

Even if you have a connection now perhaps it may be worth posting this just to show that diving blue line...  I know that expert opinion has it that there will probably be no record minimum, and I respect that, but there may be a lot of heat left in them there seas. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 08, 2020, 04:41:21 PM »
NSIDC Daily Area: September 7th

Arctic Sea ice area: 2,650,235 million km^2, low for the year to date.

Previous low was 30th August, 2,656,970 million km^2.

Change from yesterday: Area loss of 22,442 km^2

(2020) NSIDC: Area daily: 2.650               NSIDC: Extent daily: 3.777

NSIDC: September daily area minimum     NSIDC: September daily extent minimum

(2012) 2.241                                             : 3.340  <<  Sep  16
(2016) 2.477                                             : 4.145         Sep   7               
(2011) 2.940                                             : 4.333         Sep   8
(2019) 2.960                                             : 4.166         Sep 17
(2017) 3.020                                             : 4.635         Sep 13
(2007) 3.050                                             : 4.155         Sep 18
(2008) 3.120                                             : 4.586         Sep 19
(2015) 3.160                                             : 4.387         Sep   8
(2018) 3.270                                             : 4.630         Sep 21

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 33