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 - abraca

Pages: [1]
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: March 08, 2018, 10:03:11 AM »
For those who are familiar with only the SI-system of measurenment, nm means, not only the nanometer, but also nautical mile.
Not true! nm is only the nanometer. NM or nmi is nautical mile. In SI the capitalization of each letter plays crucial role, like for example mW is far from MW, like kWh is kilowatthour and kWH would be kilowatt-henry, and like Nm is newton meter, nm is nanometer and NM is nautical mile.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 12, 2017, 11:38:51 AM »
It's Li-ion, but possibly different species, e.g. BYD uses some few years old, $200/kWh LiFe batteries. Buses have 295-350kWh, so that's 35GWh for the buses alone. 2017 Li-ion production seems to be ~60GWh in China, ~100GWh worldwide.

Policy and solutions / Re: Bitcoin mining and other computing energy costs
« on: December 07, 2017, 09:50:49 PM »
Bitcoin equilibrium is 1% of whole electricity consumption per each $50k value of bitcoin. So it's 0.3% already - it is starting to be a really significant part, it seems to be growing faster than we can produce new renewable sources. This can very soon have a real influence on CO2 production and electricity prices.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: December 05, 2017, 10:11:43 PM »
The 31 TWh per year / 0.45 TWh *increase* per day doesn’t add up. At that rate of acceleration you top the claimed annual consumption in a couple weeks even starting from zero.

It doesn't have to add up - it doesn't claim it was accelerating in that pace last whole year, it just claims so about recent days. It only shows that power consumption *may* double in next 2months.

Regardless it is a fairly silly currency system. In order to process transactions you need to mine; that means there’s a fast growing transaction cost.

I don't want to judge without much insight what is silly here.
But the high power consumption is the most important part of the idea: the more it uses the more the whole network is secure. And that security is what drives the bitcoin's value. Which in turn help it make it even more secure.

Currently 31TWh means 42`500kWh per bitcoin mined. It should be possible to buy that amount with $4`000 easily, so as you can see it is very profitable with current value. Should the value go up in future, the energy usage will go up adequately.
For example the power usage currently shouldn't go anywhere past 80-90TWh per year, at which level some miners will opt out to not generate loses - it should eventually stay in some equilibrium.

Will bitcoin be valued around $1m to make power consumption high enough to drive prices of electricity up for everyone? How will equilibrium look like then? Will we turn whole earth to paperclips... err, one big bitcoin mining machine?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: August 29, 2017, 10:39:53 AM »
Educated guess: count blue and red pixels in CAA. I can see A LOT of red all over CAA. Similar with area, but here color means change of more than 7% - so it may be that bluish area is bigger by pixel count, but area increased there 8%, while other reddish areas decreased 50+% and overwhelmed increases.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 13, 2017, 01:35:10 AM »
Pavel's animation of Obuoy 14 photos,1834.msg125028.html#msg125028 seems to show the buoy has been liberated - the ice in view appears to be drifting away from the camera.
The horizon moves up also, and adequately, so this seems like it is a pitch change only - the ice around the buoy seems gone to let it have some space to move, but it doesn't seem like it's free, like on open water.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: February 10, 2017, 09:17:54 PM »
I've found on that once we have lows over pole, the fresh ice is taken from Siberia coastline and compacted into main, thicker pack, while making coastline ice-free or with very thin ice layer, which thickens quickly even on low FDD, it contribute some into volume - the ice seems to be recovering to ~0.5m very fast in these areas. And as main pack gains are not much smaller after such new ice incorporation, it shouldn't amortize the amount of ice gained on these coastlines. This can further make the influence of low FDD on thickness/volume even farther from being linear.
Are you able to estimate how big the effect is and if insignificant or not?

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: August 17, 2016, 05:14:35 PM »
Some near the camera in circle 1  - and even more in the circle number 2. To my eyes this looks like the same floe but with quite different edges 4 hours later.

Hello, this is my first post here. I'd like to present you a 27h difference between buoy 14 images. The floe which the camera is on is really stationary in the images (you can compare these two little highs on the upper left of the floe), so any changes I'd consider a result of melting. The image contains only parts that "disappeared" in 27h:

Pages: [1]