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 - James Lovejoy

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: November 02, 2018, 06:34:35 AM »
Posted by: Rodius
« on: Today at 04:17:41 AM » Insert Quote
My concern over solar to resolve our energy needs is the raw materials required to make enough solar panels.

Here is an article about it.

“Silicon-based PVs look promising from a material point of view: The growth-rate of silicon production required to meet high deployment goals does not exceed historical norms,” says Jaffe, the Morningstar Professor of Physics and MacVicar Faculty Fellow at MIT.

I'm not seeing the problem.  The article goes on to say that some of the other PV may be constrained.  That would simply limit us to relying primarily on Silcon PV.

Though most RE advocates think that any carbon neutral future would include wind turbines, PV and hydro.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: October 31, 2018, 05:39:45 AM »
Nuclear energy is unfortunately doomed... Waiting for fusion power..hopefully before societal collapse...

We have fusion.  It's 93 million miles from us and capturing it is a solved problem.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 25, 2018, 07:19:04 AM »
Perhaps it will take till the end of Q4 for the bears to finally shut up and go long?

There are still about $8 Billion on Amazon and on Apple.

Some people don't know to quit when they are behind.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: August 11, 2018, 10:21:03 PM »
$74 per mWh isn't considered cheap for wind/solar, but is very cheap for offshore wind.

So why build offshore wind if it's much more expensive than onshore?  Because it can be built close to where the demand is.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: July 15, 2018, 05:09:08 AM »
Two points.

1) In the rare case of several days of inadequate solar and wind, it's not peakers we'll need, Combined Cycle Gas is much more efficient in sustained operation.  It will be sustained operation that we will need because we will not only need to fill the shortfall, but also to recharge the batteries.

2)  Even if we did need peaker plants, that doesn't mean that we will need plants beyond those already built.

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: July 15, 2018, 05:04:02 AM »
As long as these 'French went nuclear' posts continue, one should remember that France went nuclear at a cost of about 6 months GDP.  If the US were to spend 6 months of GDP on wind and solar, even at current prices they would be overbuilding the renewables by several times.

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

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

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

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

Policy and solutions / Re: Nuclear Power
« on: April 11, 2018, 03:32:37 AM »
"With enough battery storage, nuclear plants might become economical again."

You need to show your work here.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 25, 2017, 12:28:35 AM »
Karsten Haustein has a combination of data a forecasts through March.

The evidence points to a most likely case of March's anomaly falling just short of  February's.  If so, it would put March 2017 solidly in second place, behind 2016.   

It's so early in the year that only a fool would try to guess year end averages, so here goes.  ;)

I will be surprised if 2017 isn't at least 2nd hottest on record.  I would be very surprised if it were to end up below the top 3, and hottest on record is well within reach.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 15, 2017, 05:06:37 PM »
Noaa GISS is out.  February 1.10 anomaly, 2nd highest with 3rd highest 1998 at 0.89C.

If a denier tries to take comfort from that, mention that Feb 2017 is 0.44C higher than the year after the 1998 super el nino.

Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but India...
« on: March 13, 2017, 05:29:08 PM »
Modi may have some characteristics of the alt-right, but he isn't a captive of ff like some.

His development goals include installing 175 GW of renewables by 2022, and past policies included providing LEDs to the people.

Some of his views may be problematic, and I hope that those aren't implemented.  But though he may not be a green warrior, he is agressively pushing clean energy.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 02, 2017, 11:14:48 PM »
Nick Stokes has published his data for February 2017.  The anomaly is running just under 0.1C higher than January, and about 0.25C cooler than Febrary 2016.
I'm guesstimating around 1.05+/- 0.05 (GISS) which would put it solidly in second place for February.

If February's temperature is in the range I'm guesstimating, that would also put the drop from '16 just about the same as the drop from the peak of the '98 monster el nino to the next year.  Where I am expecting a difference is in the rest of the year.  For 1999 the temperatures continued to decrease with the average for the year ending almost 1/4C lower than the February anomaly.  I don't see that happening in 2017.  I think it's a better than even bet that 2017 will be the 2nd hottest year on record, with hottest on record unlikely but possible.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 22, 2017, 01:31:33 AM »
Karsten Haustein has a combination of data and forecasts through the end of February.  If the results hold up, February's anomaly will be almost 0.10C higher than January's.

Though projections can diverge widely from the actual data from GISS et al, I'd say February is a near lock-in for 2nd Warmest in the temperature record.

After the 1998 super el Nino the 1999 temperatures plunged for the next two years.  I doubt that we will see the same reduction this time.


Arctic sea ice / Re: Year-round ice-free Arctic
« on: February 12, 2017, 04:37:56 AM »
I say the Arctic will be ice free year round the same year it is ice free in September

I really doubt that, unless the year that it is ice free in September it is also ice free in July.  Which is possible.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 17, 2017, 01:59:29 AM »
Japan's Meteorological Agency has released results for December.  The 0.33C anomaly (from 1981-2010) is 2nd warmest in the instrument record, but down sharply from the 0.66C of 2015.

2016 in JMA's record easily beats 2015. 

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: December 31, 2016, 06:30:00 AM »
It's more likely than not that December will have the smallest anomaly of 2016.  It may be that the influence of el nino has finally completely faded.  Karsten Haustein's combined month-to-date and near term forecasts give a NCEP average anomaly of 0.465 from 1981-2010 climatology the smallest previous anomaly for 2016 was June's 0.472.  Moyhu is complete thru the 28th, and it's 0.369 anomaly (from 1994-2013 base years) ties for lowest, with June's 0.369.

This is what I expected based on the last mega el nino, after 98, the next two years were about 0.20C cooler than the el nino year, but after 1999 and 2000, we never again had a year as cool as the warmest year before 1998, and I expect that after 2018, our coolest years will be warmer than 2015, the warmest year before 2016.  And the warmest years in the next 20?  I don't want to think about them.

It also looks like for the short term, temperatures are heading back up.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: December 31, 2016, 05:54:33 AM »
The other Hawaiian electric utility (Kauai Island Utility Cooperative) is already above 35% renewable electricity, and is looking at 75% by 2025.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 15, 2016, 08:57:54 PM »
We are going to have a record 2016, and for the GISS very likely at least 0.10 higher than the next warmest year.

I'm calculating that the most likely GISS result is either 0.99 or 1.00 degrees warmer than the GISS base of 1951-1980, and that it's unlikely to be more than 0.02 degrees either above or below that.

What will happen in 2017 is interesting.  2017 is likely to be either the 3rd warmest on record or close to it.  What happens beyond that is worrying.  If we look at what happened in 1998, after the el nino, we had two years that were significantly cooler than '98, but still among the warmest on records, but after that every year was warmer than any year before 1998.  It's likely that the same will happen after 2019.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 09, 2016, 03:53:38 AM »
Actuals and projections for Karsten Haustein are in through the 1st half of November.  The predicted anomaly for the 1st half of November is about 0.705 (1981-2010 reference period).  Almost 0.10 above October, and the highest since March.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 04, 2016, 06:46:13 AM »
Karsten Haustein has the largest NCEP anomaly projected through the 10th of November since April (0.771).  However, it's got the anomaly dropping, so the month may continue toward 'merely' one of the hottest Novembers on record instead of the hottest.

It's now all but certain that 2016 will be the hottest year on record, but how much can you move up from 99+% probable.  What's worrying is how hot the 'new normal' looks like it will be.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 17, 2016, 05:52:33 PM »
NOAA GISS has been published for September.

Again it's the warmest September on record at 0.91 warmer than the 1951-1980 base.

As a side-note, the August 2016 temperature has been reduced by 0.01 C to 0.97.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 17, 2016, 06:34:36 AM »
Hans:  Maybe the string of "hottest xxMonth in the record" will be broken, but it looks likely that the string of "hottest 12 consecutive month in the record" will last for one more month.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 15, 2016, 08:04:11 AM »
Japan's Meteorologic Agency has come out with September 2016 anomalies.  According to their figures this September is only the 2nd warmest in their records.  It is listed as 0.42C over the 1981-2010 base, down 0.09 from 2015.  This is also down 0.01C from the August anomaly.

It will be interesting to see how other agencies data compares.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 05, 2016, 06:02:58 AM »
What are the chances of 2016 not being the warmest year on record?

By my reckoning, almost none.  Using GISS values, if we put in a very conservative value for September anomaly of 0.85, the average anomaly for the rest of the year would have to go down to 0.39 to keep 2016 down to the (record) 2015 value.  I don't see that happening, and the longer we go with temperature anomalies in the the range we've had in the last 5 years, the more likely that 2016 will set a new record.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 03, 2016, 06:43:30 AM »
If Karsten Haustein's report of NCEP September anomaly up almost 0.10 d C from August's carries over to GISS, we will have a September GISS anomaly of 1.08 C.

It will be interesting to see what the GISS report will show.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 30, 2016, 04:16:17 AM »
A second view of September's Temperature:

Karsten Haustein's now has measurements and short-term forecasts through September 30.

These measurements and forecasts now have an anomaly of 0.05 C more than the August 2016 anomaly.

A naive extrapolation would give a GISS anomaly of 1.00 to 1.05.  However, actual results may vary.  August's jump of 0.13 was unexpected, and we could get an unexpected result on the low side.

Even so, it's very likely that the trend of record 12 month temperature will continue, better than 90% chance that September will be the warmest September on record, and extremely likely (3 standard deviations, 99.85%) that 2016 will be the warmest year on record.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: September 26, 2016, 07:34:33 AM »

The actual headline is 
Is stored heat causing Arctic sea ice to freeze later each year?

Remember Betteridge's law of headlines.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: September 24, 2016, 06:59:15 AM »
A first view of September's Temperature:

Karsten Haustein has a combination of measurements and forecast that go through September 30.

The data predict a September anomaly of 0.02 higher than August.  That is to be taken with a block of salt.  At the same time in August we were looking at a couple hundreths decrease in anomaly, and that turned into an unexpected 0.13 increase (GISS data).  Even with the uncertainty, it is very likely (more than 97.5%) that the twelve month moving average will again increase to new record territory, and likely (more than 80%) that September will again be the hottest September in temperature records.

The combination of September data and forecasts also increases the chances that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.  Since the chances were already over 99%, there's not much room to go higher.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 25, 2016, 02:09:29 AM »
With temperature forecast out through August 31st on karstenhaustein , it looks like August will have an anomaly 0.02 to 0.03 less than July's.  If this holds up, the 12 month temperature will continue to rise. 

The series of record breaking months is 50-50 likely to be broken. 

I'd say that the chance that 2016 sets a new temperature record has gone up, but only slightly.  Maybe from 99% to 99.05%.

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: August 24, 2016, 06:45:48 AM »
The weekly coal report is shocking.

"For the week ended August 13, 2016 . . . U.S. year-to-date coal production totaled 421.6 mmst, 25.2% lower than the comparable year-to-date coal production in 2015"

Unexpectedly good news.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 22, 2016, 03:46:29 AM »
Right now it looks like August is going to have about the same anomaly as July.

It is likely to extend the 12 month moving average record heat.  It is greater that 50% likely to extend the string of record anomalies for the month.

Stokes's anomaly through the 19th is substantially above August 2015's.  But karstenhaustein shows a dip from about mid August through about the 25th.

The longer we remain in ENSO neutral, the higher the chance of a record 2016 temperature.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 09, 2016, 08:33:25 PM »
While the attached Karsten Haustein plots project GMST departures out to August 15 2016 (which could change), it appears that August 2016 will be much warmer than August 2015, by a wide margin (even through the El Nino is over & we are in ENSO neutral conditions):

Agreed.  The Karsten Hausten data & projections for the 1st half of August point to an August anomaly about 0.15C higher than July's anomaly.

BTW, anyone know if Nick Stokes is OK?  His NCEP/NCAR  anomalies haven't been updated since August 1st.  I hope he's just on vacation or something, but haven't been able to find anything.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 03, 2016, 01:41:46 AM »
August '16 will very likely beat August '15.  Right now, whether it beats August '14 (0.81) is more in question (a little better than 50-50 imo).  So the 12 month moving average will continue to move up.  The unprecedented string of record temperatures for the months may end.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 02, 2016, 09:22:59 PM »
Now that Nick Stokes's data is complete through July 31, a July anomaly projection of 0.82 +/- .05 C is confirmed.  July will almost certainly continue the string of warmest mm on record.

August is starting out with a higher anomaly, but since the previous August record is higher, it may be close whether August can continue the string.

2016's chances of being the hottest year on record, already good, has just gotten a little better.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: July 25, 2016, 04:19:44 AM »
Looks like we could post a .8 to .85 on GISS for July given the rebound over the past few weeks.

Now we have, between Nick Stokes's data through July 22, and karstenhaustein's projections for the rest of the month, complete projections for July.

My analysis agrees with Csnavywx's.  I'd estimate the central number at 0.82C which would continue the string of record temperatures for the month.

I think that the chance of '16 being warmer than '15 has slightly decrease.  The deciding factor is 'will Oct-Nov-Dec be close enough to the 3 months in '15 that blew away all previous records to keep '16 in #1 position?

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: June 24, 2016, 04:43:07 AM »
Once again a combination of Nick Stokes temperature reports and karstenhaustein's projections bring us data for the month.

The central value is a reduction of the anomaly of 0.12C.  Something that might  push the temperature even lower is that the out temperature projections are higher than the near temperature projections and the reported temperature is lower still.

Taking everything into consideration, I'd give an adjusted central value anomaly of 0.79C based on GISS values.

If the actual value is exactly on, we would barely have the warmest June in our climate records.  That means that there is a significant chance that the string of warmest months could end with June.

The el nino temperature elevation is going away,  temperatures have fallen much faster than I thought they would.

2016 will still probably be the warmest year on record, but it's no longer the slam dunk I thought it was.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 24, 2016, 04:17:12 AM »
With 30 days of the 31 days of May temperature either reported by Nick Stokes or forecasted from Climate Reanalyzer by Karsten Haustein, a fairly idea of May temperatures is available.

The temperature anomaly is very likely between 0.10 to 0.15 C below April's.  That would mean another month of the highest anomaly for that month in the record, but it is a hint that 2016 is retreating from it's el Nino peak faster than 1998.

If so, a 2016 GISS anomaly will probably be less than 1.00 C, although almost certainly a new record.

Just to be clear, I'll laugh in the face of any denier who tries to start the 'no warming since Feb 2016' meme.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 30, 2016, 07:42:13 AM »
On April 24th I gave a central value for April's anomaly of 0.14C less than March's.  Data since then would move it to 0.15C less.  That would give an April anomaly of 1.13C.

That said, the poster at Skeptical Science almost certainly has access to better data then I do, so his estimate of 1.20C is probably better than my estimate.

If this were just a one of, caused by a monster el nino, it would be one thing, but the temperatures from the 1998 monster el nino were matched in around five years by those from a moderate el nino, and several years later by neutral conditions.  There's a better than even chance that the aftermath of this el nino will be worse, since so far the PDO seems stuck in positive territory.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 24, 2016, 01:47:31 AM »
Between Nick Stokes's calculated Temperatures, and Karsten Haustein's projected Temperatures, we have an estimate of April's anomaly.

Best estimate is that April's GISS anomaly is 0.14C less than March's.  That would give an anomaly of 1.14C, higher than any before 2016, but just about tied for the lowest 2016 anomaly.

Gavin Schmidt of NASA has said there's a 99% chance that 2016 will be the hottest year on record.  The big question is how much hotter than 2015.  Right now it looks like the answer is a lot hotter.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 19, 2016, 06:40:54 PM »
Some  other notable items in the report:

By NOAA's record this is the 11th consecutive month a monthly temperature record has been broken, the longest streak in its 137 year record.

The March satellite temperature was also highest in the satellite record according to both UAH 5.6 (1.53F) and RSS (1.33F).

Jan-March was 1.15C (2.07F) above the 20th century average, surpassing Jan-March 1998 by 0.45C (0.81F) and surpassing the 2nd warmest Jan-March (2015) by 0.28°C (0.50°F).

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 19, 2016, 05:39:36 PM »
NOAA state of the climate reports a March anomaly higher than February's (by 0.02F) and 2.20F above the twentieth century average.

More to follow.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 14, 2016, 05:04:08 PM »
Japan has reported for March.  Anomaly 0.62 (1981-2010 baseline).

This ties Japan's February anomaly for second highest on record (December 2015 was reported as 0.66).  However, according to their data, March's temperature anomaly was the greatest vs the 20th century average (1.07 vs 1.04 for both December 2015 and February).

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 14, 2016, 05:19:58 AM »
With either data or forecasts for 2/3 of April (Stokes and karstenhaustein) the anomaly has dropped to "only" 0.661.

If the rest of April follows this pattern then April will probably end up with an anomaly just above January's, but too close to predict whether it will be just above or just below January's anomaly.

In any case very likely another record warmth for the month.

Consequences / Re: 2015/16 El Niño, the aftermath
« on: April 07, 2016, 07:02:59 AM »
Earth System Research Laboratory's MEI is agreeing with just about every measure that the el Nino is fading.

The writer of the page says "Meanwhile, I believe that general El Niño conditions (rankings iin top 30%) are still more likely than not through May-June, in the MEI sense."


Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 07, 2016, 06:55:43 AM »
Another data point ESLR surface temperature time series shows 13.996 for March 2016, up 0.495 from March 2015.   This would make the March 2016 temperature anomaly the highest in the records.

No guarantee that this will be confirmed by the other temperature series, but alarming none-the-less.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:48:16 PM »
Earlier this year, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory released a report that said the United States’ upper ceiling on rooftop solar generation potential was around 39 percent of all U.S. electricity sales.

That was (IIRC) based on 15% efficient solar panels.  We're now installing 20% efficient panels.

The move from 15% to 20% panels would take the 39% per of all US electricity sales to 52%.  And solar panel efficiency should continue to rise.

In addition, the report also states "Actual generation from PV in urban areas could exceed these estimates by installing systems on less suitable roof area, mounting PV on canopies over open spaces such as parking lots, or integrating PV into building facades."

So the 39% is by no means a limitation on urban distributed solar.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: April 05, 2016, 07:36:38 PM »
On Nick Stokes's blog, there's  a discussion of the March temperature.  From the discussion the anomaly varies from +.02 higher than Feb to -0.085 lower, with some of the discussion revolving around the reason for the discrepancy.  Link here

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 31, 2016, 08:46:12 PM »
The attached Karsten Hautein GFS projection run on March 31 2016, makes it appear that the average GMST anom in March 2016 will be higher than that for February 2016.  If confirmed, this projection would indicate that we are in for yet another record, just one month after our last record breaking month.

I'd give more weight to Nick Stokes's figures.  With 29 days of data in, he reports March's anomaly as almost a tenth degree less than February's.  Adjusting for his 94-13 base, and the fact that base has a few hundreds greater anomaly relative to GISS's 1951-1980 base for March relative to February, and my best estimate for GISS March is 1.29 +/- 0.10.  Likely cooler than February, extremely likely to be warmer than any other month in the record.

A more difficult question is 'what will the results be for the year'?

About six months ago I was of the opinion that 2016 would not be as much warmer than 2015 as 1998 was from 1997.  My logic was that the 2015 enso had gotten a running start from the near enso in 2014, and that some of the increase had already shown up in the 2015 record.

With the string of scorchers from October to March, I've modified this opinion.  As a first estimate, if the 2016 enso follows the 1998 decay pattern, then I'd guess the average anomaly for the year will be close to 1.00 (GISS), if it takes just a little longer to get to ENSO neutral range, it could be substantially warmer.  Only time will tell.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 24, 2016, 12:47:33 AM »
AbruptSLR I believe my estimates are as accurate as possible with the information I have, and I try not to either understate or overstate where the data leads. 

BTW, the estimate through the 29th has dropped almost 0.01c to 0.746.  I'm still confident that the final value will end within the error bars.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: March 22, 2016, 04:36:47 AM »
My prediction for March, based on Nick Stokes data  through the 19th, and for the 20th through the 27th is that March GISS will almost certainly be the warmest March on the record, very likely (>95%)  have a smaller anomaly than February's, and very likely be a larger anomaly than any other previous month.  I'm guessing a central value of 1.25 +/- 0.10 (2sd).

Showing my work, Nick Stokes 1-19 avg 0.808 anomaly vs 1994-2013,
Karsten March 20-27 0.627 anomaly vs 1981-2010.  Average 0.754.  (Yes, not really valid to combine anomalies from two different eras, but results fall reasonably close to actuals, and as
the month goes on the errors become less and less important.)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4