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 ... 16
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:00:30 AM »
Not quite the Arctic (again), but Scotland.

We are used to oceanic weather, but this winter has been absolutely dominated by Westerlies and as a result the snow-line is high and there have been very few "blue-bird" days.

I took this at the same place almost exactly one year apart.

Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: January 21, 2020, 06:17:07 PM »
I think 2030 will come just before we start seeing the worst of climate change. If temperature rises continue at a similar rate to that of 1980-2019 (0.18°C/decade), we will be around +1.3°C compared to pre-industrial levels. That's not quite breaching the apocalypse threshold of +1.5°C.

A September BOE may have already happened, but the water will not have had enough time to warm up and stop being the centre of coldness, so the jetstream and gulf stream will both still carry on (though their days will be very much numbered).

Land ice and permafrost will be melting even more rapidly than they are today, but that will only cause a few centimetres of sea level rise, as the latent heat of fusion of water combined with the sheer depth of the ice acts as a very effective heat sink, delaying the big melt.

One impact I think we will be feeling the brunt of by 2030 is increased weather disasters. With warmer oceans, a weakened jetstream, and the potential of wet bulb temperature causing areas to become uninhabitable, I think we'll start seeing a lot more "natural" disasters.

I think by 2030 we'll be screwed, but not dead.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: January 20, 2020, 10:31:31 AM »
Now tell me again, how renewables are replacing Nuclear.  Renewables sit on top of the bedrock of Nuclear to provide their variable input.  Around May and July wind becomes extremely unreliable in the UK.  Something has to be there to fill the gap.

That is fact.  Wishing and hoping for something else does not keep the lights on.  Or, more critically, the freezers running.

What you are doing is comparing todays renewables with tomorrows nuclear.  There is a few problems with this. We need to look at the environment these power stations will be entering when they come into service.

Today Wind Hydro solar combined can reach a maximum of 25GW leaving plenty of space for Nuclear and very little in the way of spare generation for storage, even at the lowest demand of 20GW.  Wind, Hydro and solar currently supply around 5GW at their worst.  Interconnectors today are 6GW. 

We currently have several new offshore windfarms being built with 12MW turbines that achieve 50% higher capacity that those installed 5-10 years ago.  By 2023 these figures are going to be 30GW and 8GW at worst.  By this time interconnectors will be 12GW

By 2028 when both HinkleyC and Sizewell C are due to be running it is reasonable to assume these figures will have pushed higher, lets be conservative and say 35GW max and 10GW min.  interconnectors could be as high as 20GW and we also need to factor in a probably new HVDC line down the east coast which will reduce curtailment and the inclusion of 4 hours storage based on the most recent T-1 auction ( 11GW is currently at planning stage ).

We get to a point when these units are only just up and running (Based on events at Flamenville and Olkiluoto I'm not optimistic) that their baseload isnt required for significant periods of time.   
This is only going to get worse.  Increasingly biogas, sustainable biomass and imports will be better placed to fill the gap than Nuclear that is either being forced offline or more likely is forcing renewables to be curtailed at a larger cost to the consumer due to their 35 year contracts.
The raw truth is we needed these new nuclear plants 20 years ago and that in 8 years time the baseload that fossil fuel gas and coal have been supporting will be in the process of being squeezed out by renewables.  If this had happened we would've been further down the path, it didn't and now the justification is much weaker.


Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 18, 2020, 12:48:50 PM »
Where is this pressure coming from? The shelf seems to move perpendicular to the cork, not towards it. And it looks to be in a position where if the shelf does push towards it, it would not hold back at all, it would just rotate away effortlessly and yield.

This is how I interpret it. The compression pressure increases until we get to the narrowest pinch point which I have tried to indicate below. Basically calving and cork are too wide to fit through the gap but we are now nearly at the pinch point.

This shows the pressure will soon start decreasing but not quite there yet. However I am not sure my perpendicular and direction of travel are perfect.

Southernmost point in direction perpendicular to travel is nearly at the narrowest point. Also just a little more rotation by cork and direction of travel for calving will be free. Or maybe a combination of these.

The southern pinch point has been slowly deforming to make the gap wider. While ahead of the northern pinchpoint there have been calvings which I think are indicative of this compression stress.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 18, 2020, 12:50:00 AM »
I'm actually optimistic about the speed and the ability to transition to renewable sources, but we need to add a sense of scale to the challenge.

Looking back to 2015 when those articles were written wind and solar could only manage 0.6% of UKs energy usage ( electricity was 6% of all energy and 10% of that was wind and solar.  It was a tiny fraction by any measure.
So far this year it's about 4% ( electricity has increased to 12% of total energy despite demand falling 10%, solar and wind now around 33%).

The task of electrifying everything and making that electric a low carbon source has only just begun.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: January 16, 2020, 06:33:50 PM »
I disagree. I live in a large city (Liverpool) but the nearest charging points are several miles away, and I would have to go out of my way to use them.

Assuming you cannot charge at home or at work and so this is relevant then using zap map and filtering for only fast and rapid chargers I cannot physically see a location where this is true in the Liverpool area.

However if it is true that you cannot charge at home or work and there is no charger close to the locations you visit then you can count yourself unfortunate and I am sorry that you are being held back from switching.

Where I am most of the houses are old terraces with only on street parking.  These roads now have a charger probably every 20-30 yards. There are 6 within 100 yards of me even though I have off Street parking with access to power.  Several houses who have off Street parking have charge points, the two supermarkets within 1/2 mile have charge points, the town centre car park has charge points, the nearby hotels have charge points and the service station at the nearest motorway has rapid charge points.  My workplace has charge points and I have no excuses so I will be switching to EV later this year

This is becoming more and more common as the number of EVs increase, so will the infrastructure.  If my local council can do it then I see no reason why others can't follow suit.  I am not in a city or even a particularly large town.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 16, 2020, 03:29:47 PM »

Is there a flaw in that thinking which makes you so pessimistic?

Not at all.

One week is just 2% of a year. Sounds like you are saying because the cup is 2% empty we should be pessimistic rather than seeing a 98% full cup as reason to be optimistic.

Perhaps as much as the last 10% is more difficult. However, we are a long way from that and don't yet need to plan exactly how we do this last 10%* as we will gain more experience along the way from solar and wind making up a couple of percent to becoming a majority. Then we will be better placed to see how to plan how to do the last few percent.

You are seeing the plans as deficient as if we need all the details you want in order to be able to start a single building project. The reality is, I think, rather different: They are more like outline considerations that show there are no major problems to increasing wind and solar from small percentages to a majority.

Including new nuclear in the plan would increase the investment amounts needed and the average cost of electricity. It doesn't make sense to include that if it isn't needed for a purpose of showing there is no roadblock to getting to 90% renewables.

I do agree with you that there should be realism and they shouldn't claim 100% wind and solar is possible if they haven't shown it is possible and cost effective to have sufficient storage for a couple of weeks of cloudy but not much wind weather. Instead they should be aiming to show 90%* is easya lot of work but doable and cheap enough that the savings are sufficiently large to give plenty of scope to tackle the last 10%* even with today's overbuild costs and storage options. It probably should admit that FF might do this 10%* cheaper at present but by the time we get there lots of improved new methods are under development that can be expected to make that last 10% without FF cheaper.

In my opinion, this call for realism needn't sound as pessimistic as you seem make it.

'A lot of work but doable' might take too much time, and we should want to speed up the transition.

Re "experiencing what our governments do over decades": Advocate a ramping up carbon tax and let market forces decide how best to minimize those taxes? Or is more intervention appropriate and useful?

* I have just plucked this 10% out of thin air. I think a report should show:
There is no problem going from 2% wind and solar to 10%.
There is no problem going from 10% wind and solar to 30%.
There is no problem going from 30% wind and solar to 50%.
There is no problem going from 50% wind and solar to 70%.
There is no problem going from 70% wind and solar to 80%.
There is no problem going from 80% wind and solar to 85%.
... until they can't

to roughly estimate what this x% figure is. This x% figure might be like 30% or more with current costs of overbuilding and storage but with further cost reductions expected as volumes increase, it is likely to fall considerably. How accurately that could be estimated, I am not sure.

Antarctica / Melt lake on Nivlisen Ice Shelf
« on: January 10, 2020, 06:34:29 PM »
Noticed this cool lake on Worldview, and thought I'd make a thread even if it may not be of any particular significance.

There is a surface meltwater lake growing on the Nivlisen Ice Shelf in Queen Maud Land. By now the main lake is almost 5km wide. It formed on around the 26th of December from rivers of meltwater originating dozens of kilometers further up the shelf.

I had a quick browse through worldview and I couldn't find any other year where the lake was this big. Most years a proper lake doesn't even form at all on this shelf. Also I think this might be the biggest meltwater body on the Antarctic right now.

Here is the coordinates on worldview:,1972163.5070182374,715984.6341037138,2225091.5070182374&p=antarctic&t=2020-01-10-T17%3A02%3A46Z

And here is a Sentinel picture from four days ago. The deep blue color is gorgeous, I think:

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 08, 2020, 08:40:50 PM »
I had already prepared the images relating to the thicknesses of the "Ice rumble" west of the SWT deduced from two icebergs :
>> The first one, originating between the Ice rumble and the SWT, created in a calving between the 14/09 and the 27/09 and which turned over revealing a thickness of about 300m.
>> The second one, which was already detached on 14/09 but still in place, moved and turned over between 27/09 and 24/10 revealing a thickness of about 250m (it remained partially grounded in the new position to move definitively between 06/11 and 16/11).
But I hadn't finalized and mailed them.  I'm taking advantage of the peace before the storm to do so.

The thicknesses found are consistent with the thicknesses already published in a previous post and with the bathymetric data (also already posted).

PS: I don't have any examples related to SWT

Click twice to zoom and animate

>> The animation with the two calvings
>> A zoom on the two icebergs

Translated with (free version)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 07, 2020, 03:11:24 PM »
If you look closely, the marginal rift you have been calling R3 is actually almost connected to a transverse rift that began between 1 and 2 years ago as one of a series of four, near the margin, but not in the margin.  So in a sense, your R3 "got lucky" but that doesn't mean it makes sense to number every marginal rift because most will amount to nothing.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 06, 2020, 10:10:56 PM »
the nothing that holds it all together

two animations, double click to zoom and animate

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 01, 2020, 10:09:25 AM »
Received this morning

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 31, 2019, 05:43:04 AM »
I will be traveling on the next 7 hours, so I will appreciate if someone else updates the ADS JAXA data.

Thank you.

JAXA 12/30 Extent 12,287,365 sq. km.
Gain of 37,861 sq. km.

I used the same years as Juan has been using in the graph ... table will have to wait for the man himself eh ...  8)

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: December 30, 2019, 07:54:35 PM »
Back on December 16 (annotated image), the leading edge of A68-A was just south of Joinville Island (functionally the 'northern' tip - actually eastern tip - of the Antarctic Peninsula).

Baking's image (just above) includes parts of Joinville Island ('above') and Dundee Island ('below' - North is towards the upper left corner of the image).  About 2/3rds of A68-A is east of Joinville Island.

Attached image (map from here) has approximate July 2018 ice island location and approximate December 2019 location.  (The shaps of the ice island are approximate, and have changed some over these 18 months.) 

Gerontocrat, your green circle on the wind map is way far from where the ice island floats.  ;)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 30, 2019, 04:45:48 PM »
More activity developing at the northeast notch.  All the recent large calvings started with a calving here.
Original file 50 Mb

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: December 27, 2019, 11:53:43 AM »
The current snow depth in Norilsk, Russia

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 26, 2019, 06:39:59 PM »
Good point Blumenkraft,

It's a little jealousy attack from the NIS who felt left out.


> a general view of the NIS with its melting lakes, usual in this season (for this reason I had not spoken about it, but seen the occasion is perhaps the case to show them) In this view I position the zoom (second image) relative to the line of calving which interests us

> Image of calving line view with existing pinning points and further zooming positions to show :
>> a micro calving between 06/12 and 23/12 (zoom 1; this micro calving created the narrow band you saw in Sentinel1 and not the calving you detected)
>> a degradation of the existing rift (zoom 2 to 5)

> An animation with the images of 06/12 and 23/12 to show this micro calving. All the pieces have turned over, which is logical given that the width of this calving: <100m, is much less than the height of the icebergs.

> An animation with the images of 03/12/2016 and 23/12/2019 to show the progressive eroding of this pinning point (noted PP1 in the second image; the pinning points are fixed, in the animation it is the line of calving which moves).

In a next post I will join the animations with the images of 06/12 and 23/12 related to the zoom from 2 to 4.

Click twice to zoom (all the images) and animate (for PJ 3 and 4)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 25, 2019, 04:45:26 PM »
By the time I write this post, maybe the iceberg has already cracked and this post is obsolete, but I wanted to visualize with three animations zooming the critical points :

A) Cork & SWT-SIS joint (Sentinel 2 images, from 07/12 and 23/12; no alignment on a component of the image to show the actual current movements and their speed over 16 days, the scale is provided in the image)

B) Cork & future iceberg junction (Sentinel 2 images, dated 07/12 and 23/12; no alignment on a component of the image to show the actual current movements and their speed over 16 days (about 6 km!), the scale is provided in the image)

C) component of the future iceberg connected to the Cork (Sentinel 1, 13/12 and 25/12 images; alignment on the future (current?) iceberg)

Points A and C are the most critical and relative to them point B seems stronger. :o

For animation and zooming click twice

Once one of these points has broken the others will react in an unpredictable way: they could break immediately in their turn, as if the tensions were to be released for a few more days.

The east side of the iceberg will remain attached, but for how long: days or weeks?
The iceberg itself is very fractured and may break very quickly into a thousand pieces.
The part between the two rifts (R1 and R2) should collapse very quickly.

It will be to be followed:
- The third rift (R3) which opened up recently upstream.
- the future iceberg SWT_SIS
- the future of "Cork": will it remain attached for a while to the SIS or will it be swept away with the iceberg?

Translated with (free version)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 24, 2019, 05:34:43 PM »
your post intrigued me: "here is a slight rotation probably due to different satellite orbits"
two different orbits can produce local motion, but not rotation, and if the iceberg is effectively turning, the PIG itself can't be turning.
I wanted to check by taking the image of the 23/11 and we can verify that what you took for a rotation is the combined effect :
- of a rotation of the iceberg.
- of a speed differential between the centre of the flow and its edges.
See also the attached animation ( twice click)

Translated with (free version)

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: December 21, 2019, 03:51:09 PM »
Latest GIF from Sentinel-1 images shows many small pieces of iceberg A68-A breaking off at the grounding point.  No question that it has hit ground, but what will happen next is anyone's guess.

Click image below to see animation.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: December 21, 2019, 09:59:03 AM »
its not stated explicitly but this seems to show snow accumulation at the grounding zone drill site.
on a slow moving ice shelf this will build up over years I guess. I read about this process on the Brunt ice shelf where time scales are very long.
hat do you get when you leave an instrument to over winter in an area that gets lots of snow🌨️🌨️🌨️….? A whole day of back breaking digging – especially when you don’t start digging in the right place😖!

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: December 19, 2019, 04:23:24 AM »
The year-end spending bill in the US extended the tax credit for wind projects by one year.  The solar tax credit is down to 10% for developer-owned systems.

Just a slight correction :)

Solar tax credit = 26% in 2020
2021 = 22%
2022+ = 10%

A little annoyed at the wind extension, since my education and first career was in the energy industry in TX. Solar is perfect for TX because of all the high demand, hot days that align perfectly with solar's generation profile, but since it's a "competitive" market, and PPAs are still the main vehicle for helping reduce risk in renewable installations (companies buy certain amounts of output, and electricity is cheap in a competitive market so developers + finance are hesitant to just play the market with solar since there really isn't a whole lot of precedent on big projects. playing the market is typically called a "merchant" project), the PTC has made wind extremely cheap in TX. $18-20/MWh, solar can't beat that yet, so all the companies who just want the cheapest electricity they can get, decide to just sign PPAs for wind offtake instead. That's why TX is going to have about 30GW next year (or soon after), and a criminal amount of solar, considering it's the fastest growing electricity demand in the US and reserves have been tight in the summer.

Was hoping with the wind credit coming to an end you'd see some of the 50-60GW of solar in the interconnection queue get financed. But, probably be a trickle in 2020 now. Oh well, silver lining, when solar does boom in TX, and it will, there will be a ton of wind (wind actually generated 22% of all TX electricity in 1st half 2019, there was about 30% of that amount of wind under construction or advanced development a couple months ago), and solar will be even cheaper. Won't even need "storage" for storage sake for a while, and the sheer amount of wind will help cover more of the 24hr load.

One reason wind got extended was undoubtedly because fossil groups much prefer it. Classic generators and interest groups in TX, who pay the pencil pushers 200k in the capital to lobby, don't want to give up those high demand daytime hours where they overwhelmingly meet demand and soak up the reserve adders (they get $7,000-$9,500/MWh when reserves are tight during TX summer days). Wind typically generates early evening through the night. Why yes, solar would be perfect for all of these days, and as much as people love to talk about "capacity factors" as some sort of detriment, even the modules currently installed are pumping out 80%+ nameplate during 100+ degree days. But, if wind is cheaper for companies to buy electricity from, it's hard to get a bunch of solar installed, currently anyway (finance + developer risk). TX is pretty unique in its market, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar factors were at play in other states, like the midwest. You get to say you're not against renewables, you get to be "pro business" with companies buying cheap offtake from wind, and you get to prolong all the classic fossil generators most profitable hours (and by extension, the fossil suppliers + pipelines).

But, 2020 solar credit at 26% won't change much. 2021 at 22%, maybe. It wouldn't if we didn't have such high tariffs disabling us from taking advantage of the ridiculous changes that happen basically quarterly in China. Hard to say, because if the orange turd is defeated, obviously it changes the game. On that note, hopefully whoever it is realizes is semi-competent and realizes rooftop is much more expensive than it should be. I actually am in the works preparing for something like that, as an energy professional turned software/web guy. I'll let you guys know if it works out  ;D . I'll give you a hint, "customer acquisition" can be 20-30% of an installation's cost to generate profits, and who really wants to plan to have 3-4 solar idiots coming to their place, not knowing if they're full of crap or not? Seems like it'd be much easier to have one person come out, and handle it like a real estate agent, using their expertise to find you the best deal. Solar companies can then pay the "agent" saving $$ on customer acquisition, at no costs to the person getting them installed. Solar companies already pay commission to their own sales teams. Design a web portal, keep tally of what companies actually do good work, in the future when battery costs come down or they want an EV charger, you can help arrange that too. On that note, if you have kids, electrical engineering/electricians in the future will probably have more work than they can handle, especially when EVs are common and solar panels are 500-600W, weigh 10 pounds, cost about $.80c/watt to install, and can get a rooftop install done before lunch with just a couple of hands, batteries become more common, smart homes, HVAC + appliance adoption/replacement.

Oh, and Ken, i do peruse this thread every so often. One thing that is drastically underrated, is petrochemicals. These are massive sources of emissions. And yes, the electricity game is changing (very quickly in the big scheme of things, but not quickly enough unfortunately, the convergence and material, computing/modeling age we're entering is going to be very interesting indeed, as well as the bi-directional grid and demand response adaptation of the grid. btw if anyone's interested in something neat, watch "perovskite" development.), however, as countries develop like SE Asia, demand for a bunch of stupid crap goes up. Look around you right now, look in your cabinets, petrochemicals used in production of material goods are all over the place. Electricity generation and transportation are two huge areas of the energy industry, and it's great that we're seeing them develop, but industry + chemicals is also a massive emitter, and "developing countries" consumption of these are going to increase.

Hydrogen as a feedstock is a no-brainer (which is why it's getting attention, you can also inventory it and fire it off in turbines for extreme weather events), but genetically engineered biofuels and recycling are absolutely 100% going to have to evolve.  You can't create matter from nothing, after all. And this is a major challenge. I only mention this because you seem genuinely interested, so maybe you feel inclined to check updates on developments in this area. If there's a "promising" outlook for this sector, it's that genetic research is advancing pretty quickly, and the nanomaterial arena like interfaces, handling, observable data, is leading to a lot of very interesting and novel catalyst research. And the computing + modeling (ML/AI), with the breadth of research data is helping things a lot. But, these are "musts", and replacing countries' established petrochemical value chain that powers cheap material goods is going to be a heavy lift.

Anywho, sorry for the long diatribe, i might post more if people want. Here's something fun, increasing silicon wafer size -> goes into solar cell manufacturing is an easy way to increase power. The biggest producer marginally increased size and wanted everyone to adopt it, so the 2nd biggest producer said, "DIS.. IS.. CHINA", and increased that size about 30%, so there's going to be a 500W utility scale panel in Q1-Q2 next year, thinking they can take it up to 600W. Wafer wars? Other producers will probably go up to that size, so no telling what the biggest producer ends up doing. 500W bifacial panel is a good chunk of power though. If you're interested in solar the trends over the next year or two are going to be wafer size, and interest in "passivated contacts". The rate of scale and iteration in China is unreal. Just for reference, in 2018 the average module from top producers was about ~340W, and a small segment of bifacial (~8-15% gain). 2019 saw 415-430W and a bigger adoption of bifacial, and 2020 will see plenty of 500W+ and bifacial will be pretty standard, all while the entire industry basically shifted to a specific type, monocrystalline PERC. Production lines are basically turnkey 5GW-10GW now. And there's still headroom from better quality wafers and passivation, like TOPcon, HJT (these are what's considered passivated contacts, because they use an "n-type" wafer, which is of better quality, but equipment hasn't evolved to be more cost effective vs the current ridiculous throughputs of the "p-type" PERC products, which managed to corner a 100GW market in 12 months).

Okay, i'm done  :D

Antarctica / Re: Antarctic Icebergs
« on: December 18, 2019, 04:51:07 PM »
Click below for a detailed GIF showing the approach of iceberg A68A over the last three days to a large number of grounded icebergs in the shallows off the end of the Antarctic Peninsula.  Two larger grounded iceberg can be seen in the upper left which were identified in the previous post, but on closer inspection there are many more smaller icebergs that are also grounded and are much closer to A68A.

Given the current speed and trajectory, A68A will hit the shallows in two days time.  Clearly, if these relatively tiny icebergs are grounded, A68A will certainly hit bottom if this motion continues.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: December 16, 2019, 01:12:10 PM »
Heres an mp4 of that temperature change.

Its limited to 10fps for those with low bandwidth

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 13, 2019, 01:23:12 PM »

new Sentinel image1 => new animations   ;)

click to move

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 12, 2019, 07:58:07 PM »
It's amazing how all years shown on the chart contract to a pinpoint on Dec. 12th. Some kind of repetitive fluke (except the crazy 2016).
I tend to believe it's an apparent effect of the geometry of the lands surrounding the Arctic and the average freezing/melting of the time of the year, that.causes this effect now and on May (when the Arctic proper is almost frozen and the landlocked peripheral seas as well). A moment of least sensitivity of sea ice extent with years.

Obviously wrong on the long tern, as the 80's average is many hundred thousand km2 above.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 08, 2019, 05:08:45 PM »
I see that we are on the same wavelength and we will talk about it again soon.

Returning to the current calving, here is a zoom of the PIG-Cork with an alignment on the future iceberg
The animation is based on the images of 17/11 and 07/12

Double click!!!

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: December 08, 2019, 05:06:45 PM »
I thought I would show a long-term GIF to demonstrate what I've been talking about.  It shows the "wedge" being driven into the ice mass and the pressure point is causes on the Tongue.  All motion is relative to the Tongue, so things you see moving left to right are moving slower than the Tongue.

There are three phases to the GIF: 1) February-August The wedge is being driven into the ice mass, 2) September The ice mass pushes "down" on the Tongue, and 3) October-November The "cork" comes free (not shown) and everything moves along with the Tongue so there is little relative motion.

It may not be a coincidence that the "cork" pops free just as the melange starts to push hard against the Tongue.  It could be that the Tongue pushing back put enough pressure on the cork.

EDIT: See my Reply #142 from October 13 for a GIF of the "cork" coming loose.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: December 08, 2019, 03:59:20 PM »
Nice catch, Darvince.  Yes, these images are overlaid to show relative motion, but I only do an X-Y move, I don't correct for any rotation.  So any rotation you are seeing is real, or at least the result of a curved trajectory.

The main explanation seems to be that the "Melange" caught between the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf (TEIS) and the Tongue is pushing against the Tounge from the East (top) and causing the Tongue to turn slightly to the West.

Specifically, the Tongue is driving a wedge into a large mass of ice caught behind a 10 km long "cork" and part of that ice is being forced against the Eastern side of the Tongue.  See the image below.

This has been going on for at least a year, but a few months ago the cork started moving and the rotation was lessened.  However in the last two weeks the cork has become hung up again on some different pieces of ice and the rotation has returned.  One caveat is that there seems to some visual effect (artifact) in the radar images of the "shadows" between the icebergs in the latest image that may be misleading about small motions.

But yes, there is a rotation and it has been there for a while.  It may continue if the cork becomes stuck again.  It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the underwater peaks, except that the rotation may be forcing the Tongue on to the peaks and causing the premature break-up.  The Tongue is fragile enough that it will break before it bends.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 07, 2019, 06:00:04 PM »
Edited quotes
I see that you have all been having a lot of fun debunking my claims. And perhaps they needed debunking, who knows.
So global warming. Yes, it's a disaster. No, we are not going to stop it. So how much of a disaster is it going to be?
The only true threat to global civlisation would be a large and consistent disruption in food production. And I'm not seeing anybody predicting such an outcome (although it does seem to me to be at least a possibility).
Another of the papers he links to makes some properly dystopian claims, e.g. that CO2 "... is rapidly heading towards levels last seen some 50 million years ago — in the Eocene — when temperatures were up to 14 °C higher than they were in pre-industrial times."
Yes I know that end-of-world prophecies are exciting and lot's of people seem to wish for some sort of apocalypse. I don't
binntho - Disagreement is not opprobrium or personal attack.  You are well known in this forum for providing thoughtful opinion and insight.  If some nut job jumped onto the forum and wrote that disrupting the planetary climate would have minor effect on well being, people would just dismiss it and not bother to respond with forceful argument.  It is exactly because you do seem intelligent, informed, and curious that folks weigh in to redirect what I (and I presume others too) see as a colleague who is engaging in delusional thinking.  We argue with you because we care and trust that you have the ability to change your mind.  That requires the same of us.  I submit that the facts do not support your position. 

RE: "No, we are not going to stop it." 
     It is not a yes/no situation.  Significant damage has already been done.  Dorian/Great Barrier Reef/2003 Eur. heat wave, etc etc ad nauseum.  I personally don't see how there is ANY chance of not breeching 1.5 C, so I wish IPCC would stop paying it lip service.  But we still have the ability to halt the destruction, pain, and loss caused at 2C or 3C vs. 4C.  By numerous analyses by people who dedicate their professional lives to understand this stuff, getting to 4C could result in a runaway situation where human action is overwhelmed by natural reinforcing feedback mechanisms.

RE My #3 citation quoting Lenton et al. Nov. 2019 article in Nature --
     The list of authors for that piece includes many widely recognized top-tier experts (published in the 1st or 2nd most respected peer-reviewed journal).  "Trust the experts" has fallen out of favor now that with the internet anybody can "publish" any thought that bubbles up through their brain (self included). 

     But facts and expertise still matter.  I still trust the experts when I have a toothache or when the relevant experts tell me that the global ecosystem on which I and my children are utterly and entirely dependent is being irrevocably altered.  You misunderstand and misrepresent their statement about potential for a runaway temperature increase.  They did not say that human emissions alone would drive CO2 to 2500ppm.  But there are powerful feedbacks that can and have done exactly that.  That scenario is not merely hypothetical, it has happened before and can happen again.  It is an engineering analysis of physical properties, not a prophecy based on philosophy.  To ignore factual warnings by experts is self-destructive.

     Heeding warnings of impending destruction and attempting to avert it by spreading the alarm is not wishing for it.  The scale of response needed to reinvent and replace our energy system on a global scale is daunting and difficult.  To succeed will require unprecedented concerted action across political, ethnic, economic and other boundaries.  Humanity faces a sink or swim crisis. 

RE:  Not finding scientific evidence for climate change impact on agriculture
     All I can say is look again. It's there.  Lots of it.  Reduced crop yields as cropping areas exceed tolerances for plants already near their thermal maximum.  A CO2 fertilization effect that only allows crop plants more vegetative growth if water, temperature stability and other needs that are threatened by climate change are controlled.  And even if that vegetative growth does occur, it largely acts to dilute food nutrient density instead of increasing it.  As for, "we'll just move cropping areas north with the shifting isotherm", it isn't that simple.  The solar radiation supply required for photosynthesis is not moving north, nor are the soil resources farther north the same as current ag production zones.  Add in altered, and more likely more erratic, precipitation patterns and the prospects for simply shifting north become even more challenging.  As for that CO2 fertilization effect, here is some more bad news -- weeds are better adapted to benefit from it than crops.  Weeds already outpace insect and disease pests for crop production losses.

     There may be localized benefits for a few cool ag production areas where water supply is not reduced.  I happen to live and work in one such area.  But even here the cost-benefit ratio is not necessarily positive.  For the planet overall, the studies show net negative impacts that increase with additional warming.  The result  is stalled or reversed productivity when we need the opposite to feed a larger population.  = Supply-Demand Train wreck.

     Any "ism" taken to an extreme becomes destructive.  Capitalism run amok becomes Nazi fascism.  Socialism run amok becomes Animal Farm Big Brother 1984 totalitarian communism.   Religious isms run amok become the Crusades,the Jonestown massacre, or ISIS.  Maybe Humanism run amok becomes a sterile, isolated, solopsistic, empty narcissism, where the feelings and dignity of other creatures has zero value.  Utlimately that could include other people.  I wonder if the shrinking circle of that logic ends up as Meism.  That seems like the definition of hell.  I prefer a world of other beings that can delight, surprise, and teach me expressly because they are different from me, yet we share a common existence.

     Enough of my self-published internet philosophizing.  To bring it all all back to GDP, we could have a glorious world and a massive economic boon by taking the actions needed to prevent climate catastrophe.   I wish the big business interests would pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see that opportunity.   The money we spend on military budgets would probably be enough to pull it off.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 07, 2019, 12:29:07 AM »
     No, "life on Earth" is not at risk.
The cockroaches love this stuff.  They've seen it before.  Millions of years before the first human walked on two legs. Cockroaches just need some warmth, some organic matter to feed on, and a rock to hide under.  So they will be fine.

     It is this complicated set of brittle, tinker toy supply-chain connections that we call "society" that is vulnerable to catastrophic failure.
     It is the "organized (human) global community" that is at stake, i.e. "civilization".  Things like "cities" (esp. the many large coastal ones), "grocery stores", "phones", & "hospitals".

     My guess is that not all humans would die from hunger, increased health risks with broken sanitation and medical services, or war violence by other humans competing for reduced resources. I think there will be survivors.  Some. 
     How many, living how and where, I am less sure about.
     I wouldn't count on one-day Amazon delivery, an internet connection, or an electricity grid.
     "Do it yourself" would evolve from an interesting hobby to a survival skill.

     At least the obesity epidemic is likely to be reduced, if only because there are several billion fewer people to count.

     And if you think this view is pessimistic, ask yourself if you too have considered some dire projection for 2050, 2070, or 2100; did the math in your head; and concluded "Well, i'll be dead by then anyway".  Is "Better dead than alive" not the ultimate pessimism?  What does that view of the future say about our honor, our legacy, and our responsibility to people younger than ourselves?

     Remember/imagine a time when you looked FORWARD to the future with anticipation for all the cool stuff that was/is being invented by truly awesome human ingenuity.  I want to get back to that.  I think/hope (depends on the day) we can get back to that.  We better. 

    Sorry for preaching, but there is nothing more important than this topic.  Nothing.  Because it affects everything.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 05, 2019, 10:03:59 PM »
Indeed, as shows the master of all us: Wipneus  :), we must use both: Sentinel 1 and Sentinel 2 and sometimes you have to use Sentinel 2 by zooming in as much as possible.

As an example, a little anecdotal, a fact that intrigues me: I thought that the rift R1 (the northern) would have quickly joined the rift R2 rift (the southern).
The image of 03/12, with the zoom that I usually use, did not give much, but, intrigued by the image Sentinel 2, I looked more carefully and currently, in place of an extension of R1, we are witnessing the opening of several parallel cracks shifted to northwest.
In other words, the tensions are still there, but the structure of the glacier being weaker downstream we see the opening of parallel crevasses in this area, crevasses that will finish to connect between them and R1.
And for now, R1 and R2 do not seem to have to meet.

Another anecdotal fact: there is a small current in R2

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 05, 2019, 03:07:48 AM »
    With Arctic albedo already increasing radiative forcing by about 25% of the GHG influence (forget the source, could look it up if somebody really needs it), consider how much MORE albedo impact would arise from July being "largely ice free".  Remember, if July (a high solar gain month in it's own right) has hugely reduced Extent by 2048, then June must also have much lower Extent than at present. Wide expanses of open Arctic Ocean in June and July = Albedo nightmare.

    That makes 2050 look like end of the line for a planet any of us would recognize.  If Jennifer Francis et al. are even half-right about weather impacts of Arctic warming and ASI decline at 2010-2019 levels, the effects by 2040-50 would be off the charts.

    I believe that with collective human ingenuity just about anything is possible.  But the performance to date for human wisdom with regard to climate management does not make for an optimistic outlook.  By the ASI situation alone (ignoring the many other vectors), it looks like human civilization could be in dire straits by, or well before, 2050 unless things start changing radically and soon.  So let's stop using 2100 as the benchmark and focus on how humans can get past 2050.

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: December 03, 2019, 08:02:31 PM »
Has the life of the humans digging up important electric car resources improved? Do you empathize with them?

The worlds major suppler of lithium is Australia.
Oct 17, 2019 - A mid-career Miner with 5-9 years of experience earns an average total compensation of AU$122,607
I don't think $122.607 a year is in need of much improvement.

Cobalt is usually the target when they talk of child labor and horrific conditions.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo supply's around 50% of the worlds cobalt
Only about 15% of the cobalt mined in the Congo comes from the Artisanal mining  responsible for the human rights abuses.
Tesla the worlds biggest manufacture of electric cars is making an effort to insure its cobalt is  ethically sourced.
Tesla have also reduced the amount of cobalt used in their battery's and are working to do away with it entirely .

The oil industry uses much of the worlds cobalt in the process to refine petrol.
We never hear about their ethics.

You have been mislead by the campaign to discredit electric cars by the oil industry.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:18:25 PM »
On top of Baking's remarks, we can note on the eastern side many small cracks (inside the "square"
Besides, the main (putative) iceberg has fractured a lot, its lifetime after the calving might be quite reduced as a consequence
On the crack on the SW tributary is far more apparent than on previous images : is it an effect of the post treatment on an aggravation ?

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 02, 2019, 06:39:02 PM »
If you correct for ENSO, 2019 could finish above 2016 but actual anomalies that's not going to happen.

Here's the running 10-month for BEST which includes October 2019.  Look how much lower this year is compared to the peak in 2016.  Even if November & December 2019 beat 2016 it still wouldn't be enough.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 30, 2019, 05:18:43 PM »
Excellent reminder Lennart.

It is all too easy to forget that in focusing solely or excessively on CO2 alone that we neglect a couple of fundamental truths, 1) that all global warming gases count, 2) that man is producing a lot of global warming gases that nature either never did produce, or that it did not emit as much as man has.

This then leads to false equivalencies in paleohistorical comparisons. The argument that 3-5 million years ago CO2 levels were as high as now is just one such fallacy, and the implied or sometimes stated argument that things aren’t so bad, that nature has done this before and hence that we shouldn’t worry about it. Just keep on keeping on.

When all warming gases are included we get a much better comparison and a more shocking answer. 

We are already at warming gas levels likely not seen since the Oligocene over 24 million years ago at just about the time the Hominoids branch developed and 7-10 million years before the great apes (including man) developed. That is about 20 million years before the first bipedal upright apes walked the Earth.

In our brief few thousand years of technological evolution, and our flash-in-the-pan brief period of fossil fuel use, we have altered Earth’s climate system in ways not seen since tens of millions of years before the first hominid stood upright.

The climate will need just a moment to respond to this massive and shockingly sudden insult before it stabilizes. Before that can fully happen we must first stop emitting warming gases.

We are at the beginning of a highly unstable ultra-rapid human caused climatic shift.

We will soon be at warming gas levels not seen at any time in all of primate history. Our whole group of species is not guaranteed to be adapted to the climate we are creating. We certainly have had no similar pressures during primate development to push whatever adaptations might be required. Now, it may well be that we don’t need any such adaptations. That would seem to be a rather dicey gamble.

The new or even transient conditions may well involve pH homeostasis conditions that we are not adapted for and not suited to. Or, it may take us to oxygen concentrations (low and/or high) that we are not easily suited for. Or ....  an “interesting” gamble indeed.

Given sufficient time, our and other species would likely easily adapt. However, the rate of change we are triggering may be far faster than most species can adapt to, especially considering the complex web of dependencies between species, and the dependence on fairly uniform seasons from year to year that most rely upon.


Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: November 30, 2019, 01:22:43 PM »
Indeed, sidd.
I also wonder how much land area is needed to spread all those crushed rocks on, where such land is to be found, and what other uses can still go on for such land after said spreading.

Magnesium and silicates are non-toxic (don't inhale fine silicate dust, though).  In fact, magnesium is a nutrient that many are deficient in.  Silicic acid is a limiting nutrient for ocean diatoms.

Thousands of recreational beaches are paying to obtain sand.  If people could get used to greenish-tinged sand, there's some gigatons right there.  Just subsidize this use via a carbon tax.  Pay recreational beaches to use it. Create a ton of CO2 and pay the cost of crushing a ton of olivine to re-absorb it.  At 10 euros per ton of crushed olivine, that's not a deal-breaker for the economy.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: November 26, 2019, 08:42:12 AM »
Here is one series of Sentinel-1 radar images of Iceberg B22-A.  This one has huge gaps, and I can probably find a longer series, but I think it makes a good representation.

There is a lot of back-and-forth motion from East to West.  It's almost like the iceberg is caught between the two shallow areas and is just drifting back and forth between them, with currents or the tide.  That movement is minor, roughly a kilometer, but it does seem to imply that B22-A is no longer firmly grounded.

Over time there is also a gradual counter-clockwise rotation to the North.  One could imagine that as B22-A bounces back and forth in a tight space it is also slowly working its way lose, although I still think it was a long way to go if it is going to work free without breaking up.

If it does break in two, the smaller halves might be less constrained and will have more freedom of motion to drift off.

This GIF has one image from March 8, 5 images from September 16 through October 10, and 5 more images from October 28 to November 21.  There is a pause before each gap and at the end.  The things to note are the gradual movement to the North (right to left) and small back-and-forth motions East and West (up and down.)  Also, it tends to pivot counter-clockwise around the Western (bottom) end.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: November 26, 2019, 01:16:44 AM »
I have overlaid a recent bathymetric chart over a Sentinel-1 radar image of B22-A from November 21, that shows the iceberg is probably grounded in two locations.  In the West and a large shallows area and in the East on a smaller peak.  Both are higher than 300 meters below the surface.

When looking at movements of B22-A it should be useful to have these reference points in mind.  I will make another post detailing the recent movements of B22-A, but as a first pass the iceberg seems to be pivoting on the Western shallows and the Eastern end is rotating counter-clockwise to the North.  This means that it is moving over the Eastern Peak, but it far from moving off the peak.

I note that the trough under the middle of B22-A means that is the most likely place for basal melting and the possibility of the iceberg splitting into two pieces has to be considered.

Millan 2017: "Bathymetry of the Amundsen Sea Embayment sector of West Antarctica from Operation IceBridge gravity and other data"

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 25, 2019, 04:40:10 PM »
To look a little SWT side, I wanted to have a unique and consistent document giving information on speeds, elevations (and thus thicknesses for the floating part) and bathymetry.

The sources were very varied: pdf, word, image, the images each had its scale and direction and areas represented were always different ...

So, I built a gif from this motley set.

Minimal information on these images

First image: MacGregor et al. 2013 (figure 9b) Surface velocity (Rignot and others, 2011a) and recent coastline history (MacGregor and others, 2012a)
Second image: Shean et al. 2017 (figure 1) 2006–2016 median surface velocity (Christianson et al., 2016; Joughin et al.,2010) over a shaded relief map from October–December 2012 DEM mosaic
Third image: Shean et al. 2019 (figure 3) October–December 2012 WorldView/GeoEye DEM mosaic of the PIG ice shelf. White outline shows∼2011 grounding line. Elevation values are the corrected surface height (Eq. 1) above the EGM2008 geoid.
Fourth image: Millan et al. 2017 (Supporting Information, figure S2g) Bed elevation from BEDMAP-2 [Fretwell et al., 2013]

(click to move) delay between images 3s

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 25, 2019, 03:50:19 PM »
Before its next end I wanted to retrace the history of the "Cork", its childhood and its old age (its maturity being hidden by the Antarctic night), it seemed to me an honor that belonged to him.

It's not nice, but I'd point out that he got fatter with age and he shrink.

Images of 18/11/2018, 28/12/2018, 06/02/2019, 14/09/2019, 24/10/2019 and 23/11/2019

In the first picture a round signals the point of view (alignment point)

(click to move)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 25, 2019, 05:56:28 AM »
Also what shape is the crevice? Is it a very clear U shape with very steep sides and almost flat floating bottom or can the sides collapse leading to sloping sides at the bottom of the cliffs? Could that stay for a while or would it quickly float away to level out the bottom?

Pine Island Glacier is made of very old ice.  By the time it reaches this close to the front it has spread out and melted to about 400 meters thick.  Only about 40 meters are above water.  The space inside the crack is filled with a mixture of sea ice, which is water that has frozen recently on the surface, and smaller chunks of icebergs that have fallen off of the walls.

As the crack widens, the sea ice does not form quickly enough which leaves gaps where the the water can be seen through the ice.  There are some shadows visible on the right side of the crack, but shadows are fairly easy to distinguish because some details can be seen in the shadows while the water is almost pure black.  Also, there cannot be shadows on both sides of the crack.

The walls of icebergs 40 meters high are fairly stable.  Most of the large chunks that have broken off were probably weakened in the process of the original crack formation.  Before it split there may have been forks in the crack from the stress that led up to the break.

There has been some discussion about the stability of very high ice cliffs, over 100 meters above the water surface, but it most icebergs breakoff in thicknesses of 300-400 meters of 30-40 meters high and survive until they get out into the open ocean.  They often break into smaller pieces before then, but the larger pieces still maintain the tabular or flat-topped shape.

Edit:  Perhaps what you are looking for is that the chunks of ice will spread out and not pile up.  Basically, they are floating and will eventually find a point of lowest energy which is where every chunk of ice is floating at its own level.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: November 20, 2019, 10:23:05 AM »
While it is a good sign that leadership at Easyjet is acknowledging the issue of climate change, their method of addressing the situation is already dated.

There is best practice corporate guidance currently in development that will exclude the use of carbon offsets as a means to claim 'carbon neutrality' or 'net-zero' emissions. The working group is currently getting feedback (although they've indicated the question of carbon offsets counting isn't on the table) and is planning on having the document finalized for use by corporations by COP25.

I believe many within and outside the industry will be thankful that someone is making this clear as carbon offsets have always been messy with studies indicated that their impact is often not what they are certified to in the long-term. Offsets for those not fully familiar consider what is the reduction impact of this activity from the baseline, where the baseline is usually the legal minimum. Even then, the long-term impacts of the superior activity can be short-term in nature (i.e. read about the issues around cook-stoves in developing countries or REDD forest protection projects in Brazil and elsewhere)

What will be allowed under this new schema is activities that directly remove GHG (mostly carbon) from the atmosphere including direct air carbon capture and to be determined forms of reforestation and soil sequestration (i.e. regenerative agriculture). In these cases, there will be a 1 for 1 balance of carbon emitted and pulled from the atmosphere. Whether companies can buy these 'credits' from others or have to do it within their value chain is up for debate.

Easyjet and many other companies (see Microsoft, Google, etc) will all have to walk back their carbon neutral claims starting in 2020 or be deemed greenwashing. Carbon Neutral / Net-Zero under this definition will likely be near impossible for some industries - but I think this is the reality we expected - carbon neutral and net-zero aren't easy - they take fundamental restructuring of how the economy works. You can't simply buy your way out of this one.

Easyjet's advisors on this really should have known better. They've put the company in a tough spot PR-wise and financially with a big capital outlay that would have had more impact going to R&D into bio-fuels and electrification.

(I advise a company that is now having to develop a strategy about how to best walk back their long-term carbon neutral commitment if you are wondering the source of this information).

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 18, 2019, 03:21:47 PM »
Not simply “an electric pickup truck.”
Vincent (@vincent13031925) 11/14/19, 4:16 PM
Tesla Registers Cybertruck And CYBRTRK before the unveiling event next week.

Tesla has already purchased the domain, which currently redirects to

So, when can we expect to see that 'affordable car' for the masses?

Patience, Neven, patience.  Cheaper EVs are out there.  They just happen to suck, and Tesla refuses to make EVs that suck.

In the U.S., the Model 3 can be purchased for about the same as the median car price.  That arguably makes it “affordable for the masses.” 

Also in the U.S., pickup trucks are top-sellers, so an electric pickup like Tesla’s, starting below $50k, means more people can afford to not buy a gas pickup.  The Tesla cybertruck is “a new kind of pickup truck” — expect it to be polarizing.  Many will love it, many will hate it.  What else is new?  ;)  But an e-truck regarded by hard-core truckers as “manly,” whatever that means, that helps dispel the “EVs are for sissies and anyway they don’t work” attitude, and turns people away from gas guzzlers, would be awesome.

As the Master Plan states, profits from more expensive cars will be used to develop less expensive ones.  We are seeing Tesla learnings lead to cheaper batteries and more efficient production.  Model Y, the Tesla Semi and Roadster 2.0 will continue to prove electrification can displace more and more market segments, while providing for Tesla’s growth into a carmaker of a size that can afford to make smaller — but not sucky! — cars at a profit. 8)

To more directly answer your question:  from what last I heard, three or four years.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but, China....
« on: November 15, 2019, 11:44:53 PM »
As per my post in the coal thread, China has a strategic reason to keep its coal-fired generating fleet at relatively low levels of utilization of about 50% - to act as a reserve to replace seaborne natural gas imports and to power greater use of electrical transport (trams, trains, buses, taxis and the couple of a million and increasing number of personal EV's) to replace seaborne oil imports.

This is strategic energy security planning so that they can withstand an energy blockade (as was done with Japan in the months before Pearl Harbour) during any hostilities with the US. By showing that they can, they greatly reduce the possibility of such hostilities. They have also been building up their strategic oil reserve in the past few years and oil and gas imports from Russia and Central Asia through pipelines.

Renewables and nuclear are still at a pretty small amount of Chinese energy use (and capacity), even after the rapid growth of the past few years. So coal will be the bedrock of Chinese energy security. Geopolitics is getting in the way of climate change actions.

If things with the US escalate further, probably after the next Presidential election, I would not be surprised to see China announce a quite radical date for the end of ICE sales in China. EVs move energy supply from oil to electricity (and even with the current Chinese electricity mix reduce lifetime vehicle CO2 emissions). This would also reduce local air pollution a lot (the coal pollution issue having been fixed through very tough particulate matter regulations), especially in the cities, adding to the political legitimacy of the CCP.

So, could be coal use up and CO2 emissions down before 2030 (the Chinese Paris commitment).

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 14, 2019, 04:41:20 PM »
Well if this report is correct

Then Tesla are going to Ace production this year and deliveries.

Aiming for is not necessarily same as achieving.

Summary of previous quarters for comparison:

Qtr_____Model 3__S/X___Total
Q2 2018 28,578 24,761 53,339
Q3 2018 53,239 26,903 80,142
Q4 2018 61,394 25,161 86,555
Q1 2019 62,950 14,150 77,100
Q2 2019 72,531 14,517 87,048
Q3 2019 79,837 16,318 96,155

Qtr_____Model 3__S/X___Total
Q2 2018 18,440 22,300 40,740
Q3 2018 55,840 27,660 83,500
Q4 2018 63,150 27,550 90,700
Q1 2019 50,900 12,100 63,000
Q2 2019 77,550 17,650 95,200 95,356
Q3 2019 79,600 17,400 97,000

77100 + 87048 + 95155 = 259303
+ 100k US production +17k China production = 376k

is well over 360k but short of 400k. Have been doubtful of 400k for some time and this 400k was dropped in last update. So no surprise there. Feels like there has been some delay from expecting 'ready for production 24 October' to getting production permit 12 Nov, yet the planned production of 17k is apparently "pretty close to a previous estimate".

Either a) the 17k is now optimistic given delay getting permit or b) the time to get permit was expected but despite expecting this Tesla was pushing the optimistic view of ready for production 24 October.

Under a) we should expect less than 17K production. Under b) if Tesla are pushing the positive view then we should be a little skeptical and expect less than 17k.

In addition to the potential difference between 'aiming for' and a realistic expectation, I don't see any reason to change my expectation of 360k-370k.

Antarctica / Re: Thwaites Glacier Discussion
« on: November 13, 2019, 09:49:40 PM »
Another 6-day Sentinal-1 radar update on the rift in the Western side of Thwaites Tongue.  This GIF shows the last 3 months.  Motion is relative to the Tongue.  This rifting is being caused by an underwater peak just to the left of the red latitude line

Other countries haven't settled for lower care levels, or longer wait times, they simply supply better care at lower cost. American voters aren't particularly stupid, they just grew up in a propaganda bubble that is making a few of them obscenely wealthy even as it reduces everyone else to penury.

I was told by Nevada's best doctors that I had <6 months to live. I promptly sold everything and came back to Canada for a final look at the country of my birth. That was in 2004!

In my first week back my cancer had been confirmed and the operation completed. It was a few months before my neurological problems came out of remission and could be treated - a treatment that was simply far to expensive for my HMO to offer. Within a few months I left my cane behind and could actually run - not too far or to fast, but running, not hobbling on a cane!

At the moment it's been 10 years since the cancer has last reappeared, and my CIDP hasn't raised it's head for even longer. I'm still a very long way from being healthy, but I've outlived the majority of my peers in Las Vegas & I'm sure that when my time does come I will have had the best care available anywhere, and my family won't be out a nickel.

I've been very ill in both countries. I've experience with both plans. Anyone voting for the status quo in the US is simply the victim of a very evil propaganda campaign & the successful lobbying efforts of Big Pharma and the AMA.

Keeping people healthy is much less expensive than trying to keep them alive for a few weeks or months after years of neglect have taken their toll. Don't fall for any of the BS that's being fed to you.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 12, 2019, 06:11:30 AM »
Well if binntho agrees with me, he must be right! 

    But here is another perspective about a possible Extent pause.  I am (almost) sure that if Tamino bit into the Extent numbers he would, as he did with global average surface temperature faux pause, show that there is no statistical justification for the relatively small number of yearly data points in the presumed Extent hiatus period to be called a significant violation of the long term linear trend that is derived from a much larger set of of data points with considerable year to year variability.  (BTW Tamino's wife announced on his blog that he had surgery recently.  Sending him wishes for healing and good health.) 

    But I submit to the jury that even if Extent did have a statistically valid hiatus, it would not matter.  There could be a scenario where Volume losses continue their inexorable decline, yet a prolonged series of years with conditions favorable for greater ice dispersion resulted in Extent value flat-lining for enough years in sequence to pass a statistical test for truly being a hiatus.   

     But so what?  In terms of progressive ice decline, that would not change the underlying fact that Volume losses were still proceeding toward zero.  A hiatus in Exent would only temporarily increase the discordance between the Extent and Volume trends.  The increased difference would have to be compensated for at the end.  The only consequence of an Extent hiatus would be that the Extent trend would have to fall that much farther faster when the zero Volume-Thickness-Extent day of no ice reckoning finally arrived. 

    The 10-30 year lag for the majority of global warming impact from elevated greenhouse gas levels to be expressed means that the warming and ice melt trends for the next 10-30 years have already largely been set by our previous emissions.  The fact that the trend-projected date for the first zero ASI Volume event is now within the next 20 years means that it is probably unavoidable at this point even if we sharply reduced further GHG additions.  Then again, Notz and Stroeve point to an 800 Gt CO2 of additional emissions needed after 2018 for the total GHG load to be enough to result in Volume reaching zero.  So in theory at least, keeping total emissions below that amount could presumably prevent the Volume losses from reaching the zero point. 

     (On the other other hand, --- running out of hands ---, I suspect that even if emissions ceased immediately, with enough time and the slow depletion of existing CO2 from the atmosphere, even the GHG emissions already made thus far, bolstered by some permafrost thaw and other feedbacks, would eventually result in ASI Volume-Thickness-Extent reaching zero.)

     That is a moot point for the real world situation.  It does not seem at all likely that humans will cut emissions sharply enough and soon enough to prevent exceeding the 800 additional Gt CO2 after late 2018 threshold.  And therefore, assuming the Notz and Stroeve relationship between total CO2 emissions and ASI Volume is correct, the Extent trend will meet up with the Volume trend at the zero point.  Which year that happens depends on how fast we move towards that 800 Gt CO2 post 2018 threshold.  This being the end of 2019, we have probably reduced the remaining budget to 760 already. 

     Extent can go where it will prior to the zero day of reckoning, but when the Volume trend reaches the point where there is no ice to spread around, Extent will also be at zero.

   Edited quote
And we already know that volume is falling faster than extent, which means that thickness is falling faster than extent.
    I don't agree with the second part, "... which means that thickness is falling faster than extent. " 
    Yes, we know that Volume is falling faster than Extent.  Because Volume is the product of Extent x Thickness, Volume has to fall faster than Extent unless there is either Thickness gain or zero loss.  But Thickness does not have to fall faster than Extent for Volume loss to be less than Extent loss.  It does not matter which of two (Extent or Thickness loss) is greater, or if they are exactly equal, all that matters is the product of Extent x Thickness, because that is what defines Volume.


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16