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 - Yuha

Pages: [1]
This is a major and popular misconception

1) Real goods can not be borrowed from the future only nominal assets. Borrowing can temporarily push up the nominal price of stocks, housing, etc but won't change the amount of real goods available
Very much not true. When you overfish the oceans leading to much lower fish output later, you borrow/steal from the future. When you deforest the Amazon for cattle and soy farming, leading to a much smaller carbon sink later, you borrow/steal from the future. When you overfarm leading to topsoil loss and poisoning of the ground with chemicals, leading to lower farming output later, you borrow/steal from the future. When you drain aquifers at much higher rates than their natural refill rates, leading to much lower water output later, you borrow/steal from the future. There are many other examples, too many to list unfortunately.

3) Forecasting the end of the world is always a very attractive psychological position as it proves me that I am cleverer than everybody else and when they realize their doom I will be standing there, telling everyone: "I told you so"
I am not a psychologist but it seems from reading this forum that "debunking" dire long-term forecasts using a variety of techniques is a very attractive psychological proposition for some members.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 23, 2019, 04:08:21 PM »
NSIDC Data as at 22 October 2019 (5 day trailing average)  4,604,575 km2

Some graphs

The Central Arctic Sea - defined by NSIDC basically as North of 80 degrees, has been well above average most of this year. It is difficult to find another sea where sea ice area and extent are not now well below the 2010's average

The Central Arctic Sea is now nearly 90 % full up (ice area), 98 % (ice extent). So it is no longer significant for area and extent data for the remainder of this freezing season, (though increase in thickness will obviously be critical for next year's melting season).

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but Germany ....
« on: September 22, 2019, 02:34:43 PM »
Alexander, you could have 4 children and get the same 70,000. It doesn't have to do with being Moroccan or not, "illegal" or not. And in general I resent your racist/xenophobic undertones.

However, I do think that governments worldwide should not encourage large families (regardless whether "natives" or immigrants), as these are not sustainable on a global basis and are also a strain on a local basis. Most benefits (tax breaks, allowances) should go to the first child, which is also the most difficult to have and raise, both mentally and economically. For the second child there should be less benefits, and that's it. The benefit system that grows with each child (sometimes even more than linearly) can result in certain subcultures in a country that encourage to have more children at the public/government's expense, and over a generation these subcultures grow and have more political power thus reinforcing the benefits cycle.
In my country this is very obvious with the religious orthodox, with families that can even reach 15 children, and political power that is focused on long-term growth of the sector and maximal public money transfers. A similar situation arises with the Bedouin, where the father takes the benefits and maximizes number of children at the expense of the multiple wives (though bigamy is illegal workarounds are easily found when the subculture is so inclined). All this in a country that has one of the highest population densities in the world.
But the same logic applies in all countries - large families should be discouraged and small families of 1-2 children should be encouraged, with both economic incentives and public advisories. Most times it's also good for the country to encourage childless couples to have one child, who will probably get good attention and education.
So instead of raging against immigrants, you should lobby for making the benefits system more rational.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: September 22, 2019, 12:04:31 PM »
The CAA has been a late starter this year compared to 2012, and I expect it to reach between 100 and 250 km3 by the minimum. I'd be very surprised if it manages 50 km3 like 2012 and 2011 did.
The CAB, chief of the arctic, has seen a strong decline, giving 2012 a run for its money. Eyeballing the chart and considering the accumulated high arctic AWP, I expect the minimum to be less than 2016's and 2011's 3960 km3, and more probably above 2012's 3400 km3.  But there's also good probability for breaking that record, with melting weather and a GAC. This region, as usual, is the big question mark.
And don't forget the Greenland Sea, where high export years get punished. I expect volume at minimum to be between 200 and 300 km3, though 2017 and 2018 managed to get below 50 km3.
The CAA behaved as expected not joining 2011 and 2012 at the extreme low, although at 130 km3 it was rather on the low side of my expected range.
The CAB also cooperated and bottomed at 3760 km3. Melting weather we had in July but not in August, and the GAC I expected (based on high AWP in the inner basin) did not materialize. Despite all this, a strong 2nd place. One of these years, all three months Jun-Jul-Aug will be bad, maybe a GAC will come too, and the CAB record will be easily broken.
The big surprise was in the Greenland Sea, where persistent export throughout the early season basically stopped in the late season, and volume bottomed at 100 km3.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: September 22, 2019, 11:47:25 AM »
The Laptev has crashed precipitously following the extreme June heat, and is currently tied with 2012. I expect it to head to zero, a feat only 1/3 of the years have managed.
The ESS is chugging along nicely, leading over 2012. I expect it to join the "hot years" at below 50 km3 or even 25 km3 by the date of the minimum, which could potentially arrive by day 250.
The Beaufort volume has flattened due to strong export of MYI from the CAB. Nevertheless, I expect it to get below 30 km3 by the date of the minimum, possibly even to zero.
The Laptev surprisingly managed to keep some ice throughout the season, thanks to persistent export and a very weak August. It contributes 40 km3 to the total minimum. The ESS actually managed to hit zero, a rare achievement and 2nd earliest after 2007. The Beaufort cooperated and hit 15 km3.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: September 22, 2019, 11:40:35 AM »
Time for some regional volume charts. Thanks again to Wipneus for providing the data.

The Barents and Kara are both higher than 2012. The Chukchi is lower than 2012. Each is at around 200 km3 and all are headed towards zero.
Time to review my predictions in this thread from 2.5 months ago regarding minimum volume, both total and regional. (Although it's still possible that PIOMAS could see a marginal new minimum in the few days after Sept 15th).

All three seas indeed went to zero as expected, but the Barents only did it in the last minute, thanks to persistent ice near Svalbard. While Chukchi went to zero on the earliest date on record.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 16, 2019, 03:48:53 AM »
Honestly I have been reading the last few posts and scratching my head in amazement.
UK power outage blamed on renewables. Why? I see nothing that supports this claim.
Hornsea wind farm cut its grid connection to protect itself. Why? Bad design of the interconnection? I fail to see what its being a wind farm, rather than a nuclear reactor for example, has to do with cutting the grid interconnect during a power demand surge due to the failure of a gas-fired plant.

Power failure blamed on surge in EVS. Why? What surge in EVs? Barely 2.5% of new sales.
The expert is warning of a potential problem by 2040. Is this now? Where are the warning bells exactly?

BTW, is the expert assuming a large growth in EV demand without adding commensurate power generation? 2040 is a long time away.

Nuclear is the solution for 2040. How exactly? The planning and commissioning time of a nuclear plant is extremely long, and fraught with risk of schedule overruns. Hinkley Point C plan was announced in 2008, and was supposed to go online in 2017, but is now expected between 2025 and 2027. So 16 years. Start now, get the power by 2035, with no further surprises. And if EVs surge in the meantime? Blackouts? Why take this risk AND pay 2 or 4 or 10 times the cost per MWh compared to the alternatives?

Why is the solution not added solar and wind, with some gas backup, and battery storage?
Would a grid battery not have solved the frequency issues plaguing the grid? And supplied the missing power and prevented the outage?
I simply fail to see how this outage supports nuclear rather than grid batteries.

Is the choice between "a few gas sipping cars" (37 million in the UK at last count) with E-Buses, or a chimney filled future comparable to Dickens? I fail to see why these are the choices.
Why are E-Buses paired with gas cars? What stops the future from having E-Buses along with "a few electricity-sipping EVs"?
Why the love of gas/diesel? Does the aversion for EVs has to do with dislike of Musk, as can be read between the lines? And if the EVs are all made by VW, and are not robotaxis, will that be okay? Why conflate robotaxis with grid buildout?
Of course E-Buses are better than individual private EVs/shared fleet EVs. But this is orthogonal to all else - grid buildout, nuclear vs. solar, and so on.
If the future holds gas cars, surely a better future holds EV cars with clean power generation, all other things being equal.

And why is it impossible to build out the grid in parallel to the rise in EVs? A solar farm can go online in two years. A grid battery can be installed in 3 months. An offshore wind farm can be planned and built in less than 5 years. A natural gas plant is also cheap and fast to build, cheaper than coal and faster than coal. And can be easily switched off when the wind is blowing and the sun is shining. What is stopping anybody from building enough capacity, on time and at an affordable cost?
In addition, thanks to their large batteries, EVs are a dispatchable load, and with proper control their demand can be shed away when power generation is low.

I fail to understand many things today. Very weird discussion. Maybe my chronic lack of sleep is to blame. Can anyone enlighten me with answers to the above rhetoric?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: July 07, 2019, 08:18:32 AM »
Interesting shape taken by smoke coming from North America above Chukchi sea, west of Barrow today. A new galaxy is forming :

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 03, 2019, 02:13:44 PM »
A simple technique to visualize 1-week changes in the pack was used before by others, consisting on using only two images (in this case UH AMSR2 Jun 25 and Jul 02) and smoothly transition from one to the other, ignoring the real variations.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 08, 2019, 12:54:09 PM »
A couple of points about the lack of melt ponding and dry vs humid air.

Although the ice is quite fragmented in places, the individual ice floes are still mainly hundreds of metres or even tens of kilometres across. More than big enough for melt ponds, and more than big enough for the melt ponds to be big enough to be visible on one of the products available to us. 

The latent heat of vaporisation of water is roughly 7 times higher than the latent heat of fusion (melting). This means that 1 g of water condensing releases enough energy to the surroundings to melt 7 g of ice (assuming the ice temperature was close to freezing point). When warm humid air enters the Arctic, it cools, and some of the water vapour condenses, releasing energy. This can start surface melting and melt ponding. In past years we've frequently seen this happen in practice - a warm, cloudy weather system moves through part of the CAB, and when it leaves and you can see the area on Modis again, there is lots of surface melt/melt ponding. Obviously if the weather front brings rain as well, this will also contribute to melting. This effect has also sometimes been visible on the buoys.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: June 06, 2019, 11:35:39 PM »
Here is a tentative ranking of subjective whiteness from whitest to bluest/greenest for June 5th from 2000 to 2019, based on these Worldview settings.

1st (lightest): 2004
2nd: 2000
3rd: 2003
4th: 2009
5th: 2006
6th: 2018
7th: 2002
8th: 2008
9th: 2014
10th: 2013
11th: 2001
12th: 2017
13th: 2010
14th: 2005
15th: 2015
16th: 2011
17th: 2019
18th: 2007
19th: 2016
20th (darkest): 2012

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 05, 2018, 10:55:39 PM »
Time to break out 2018's Arctic minimum running back chart (named after the way it will wiggle through a crowd of dots in a few weeks' time).

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2018 sea ice area and extent data
« on: July 28, 2018, 04:07:59 PM »
I've been noting how bizarrely closely 2018's extent has been following 2015.  Neven pointed out that while the two years' extents have been similar, volume has been lower in 2018.

Here's a "snake plot" showing extent vs volume for all years in the 2010s.  It shows how daily extent and volume have evolved during the summer melt season.  It's basically a scatterplot showing the combination of the two variables on each date.

This seems like an interesting data visualization method.  I'd appreciate any feedback on how this could be improved -- so I can do an updated version when the remainder of the July PIOMAS data are published.

The fine print:

Data cover the period from June 1 to July 14 of each year.  The "head" of each year's snake is the end-date (July 14).  Circular "heads" are odd years, squares are even years. 

Volume from PIOMAS via Arctische Pinguin, using the total of CAB+CAA only, and converting each date's volume to an anomaly relative to the 2010-2018 mean for that day of year.  Extent from JAXA, for the entire Arctic, converting each date's extent to an anomaly relative to the 2010-2018 mean for that day of year.  After July 14 of this year, the extent anomaly dropped to right around 0 (i.e., to the average extent for this date).

Pages: [1]