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 - CognitiveBias

Pages: [1] 2
Once a child is conceived it already knows life. And you are forcing your values on them. Fatally.

The unconscious entity at early stages of development most definitely does not know life.  Sorry.  And I'm not forcing my value on them.  I'm saying that my values do not override those of the woman deciding to carry, or not carry that child to term.

No, every women that I value does not agree with me on this, but I value them for other reasons.

Yet you are still ok with attempting to force your values on them.  So you value them but do not respect them?  I get that many believe that this is not a topic on which rational people can disagree.  Still some decisions are just not yours to make. 

There are so many injustices in the world.  I think many of them are worse than to have never known life.  To focus so narrowly on this one injustice is to ignore the rest. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 14, 2019, 02:03:51 AM »

The synchronous grid of Continental Europe (also known as Continental Synchronous Area; formerly known as the UCTE grid) is the largest synchronous electrical grid (by connected power) in the world. It is interconnected as a single phase-locked 50 Hz mains frequency electricity grid that supplies over 400 million customers in 24 countries, including most of the European Union. In 2009, 667 GW of production capacity was connected to the grid, providing approximately 80 GW of operating reserve margin.[1] The transmission system operators operating this grid formed the Union for the Coordination of Transmission of Electricity (UCTE), now part of the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E).

 ::) ::) ::)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 11, 2019, 03:00:36 PM »
Thanks for the deep dive Neil

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 10, 2019, 06:39:41 PM »
  I'm sure you read up on it.  Why not mention that Tesla has not taken the write-down, just the non-profit 'man in the middle'.  No, that runs against your narrative.  I think you would be much more effective if you took a more nuanced bear position.  I look forward to your posts because they generally contain some food for thought.  Unfortunately that nugget is typically surrounded by some heavy bias, and unnecessary attacks.

What the write-down doesn't reflect is the economic value of the solar panel factory's operations – and state officials warned against interpreting the write-down as an indication that the RiverBend factory's value has dropped by more than would be normal for a three-year-old factory. The size of write-down also reflects that Fort Schuyler receives only $1 a year in rent from Tesla, they said.
"The value to Fort Schuyler is what we're looking at here, not the value to Tesla or to New York State," said a Fort Schuyler official, who said the valuation is "somewhat subjective" and was arrived at after considerable discussions with its auditors."

He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherent sentences during a debate.

He's a centrist who, unlike Biden, can actually put together coherent sentences lies during a debate.


Do you have something real against Buttigieg or just here for the slander?  Just wondering, bc I watched the debates, and find him to be intelligent and well spoken. 

I do recognize that this is a Bernie fan club, but there is a good chance that it will be someone else.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: July 17, 2017, 06:33:37 PM »
@Shared Humanity

while are d'accord that racism is evil, IMMEDIATE public uproars of the kind seen here are not target leading and almost every war in  human history was based at least in parts of this kind of "phariseeism" ( i know that word will cause reactions but this is what it is IMO.

it's good to be agains racism but it's not necessary to lynch someone on a first "fauxpas" which as well could have been a lapsus or language barrier and could have been handled with a friendly hint and/or asking how it was meant before shooting broadsides at someone who generally posted quite useful stuff. this harsh reactions are not fair without checking on intention and first hint friendly and are as intolerant as racism itself.

aggression has never ever lead to anything good, at least not ultimately, short term satisfaction of feeling just is not the goal but making people understand is. obeying is not based on conviction and therefore won't last.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: May 19, 2017, 01:08:10 AM »
Interesting observation Jai.  Does anyone have thoughts on the significance?

Silly Lad!  Common misconception that overpopulation is the problem.

When you take a honest rational look. The worlds richest 50 people own 50% of the resources and are responsible for over 90% of the environmental destruction. The poorest 50% of the worlds population have a net positive effect on the Biodiversity and total Biomass around them. As do any species acting as a responsible member of Gaia's community of species.

If you want to cull population. 50 individuals is plenty. The world actually needs a lot more POOR people if we gonna save it.

Hopefully Trumps wall will be built in time for it to trap the rich under a new ice sheet. We don't want them to get to mexico and ruin the interspecies ecological harmony there and further south.

With respect Hyperion, this comment is nonsense.  Even readers of the Stupid Questions topic deserve better.  Can you offer any rational support for the assertions above (bold added), all of which register as false.

Creativity and technology, driven by wealth, power, and possibly greed on one hand.  7 or 70 billion subsistence farmers on the other hand.  Which one portends a better outcome?

Here's an interesting look at how the 'poor' people of Easter Island may have managed their ecology.  No such alternate views afaik for how the Anasazi used up their critical Juniper supply, and other ecological disasters of pre-modern societies as detailed in the referenced Jared Diamond book.


Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May)
« on: May 03, 2017, 05:09:59 PM »
Wouldn't it have to be something PIOMAS could capture?

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (May)
« on: May 03, 2017, 12:48:14 PM »
Another tiny piece of detail, the growth from End-March to Apr 25th was ~0.32 km3, more or less the average of the last few years. The negative feedback of low volume leading to higher growth failed to materialize.

Yes, according to the model.  The physical reality 'feels' like it should yield a higher growth.  Any ideas on what would drive PIOMAS lower than expected?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 30, 2017, 04:02:04 PM »

The idea of porous ice increasing contact with the air is fanciful (to put it politely) and while first year ice contains more brine than multiyear ice the effects won't be as dramatic as is often speculated here.

An interesting study including effects of brine and temperature on the strength of sea ice.  While it has been plenty cold, the change in strength of briny (1st year) sea ice seems to extend well into the range of temperatures we have been witnessing.  Deeply frozen multi year ice may well be an order of magnitude stronger than what's out there now. 


Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 sea ice area and extent data
« on: April 21, 2017, 04:08:41 PM »
Is there any correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima ? (I bet someone on ASIF has done it).
Sorry to point out the obvious, but there is no need to calculate a statistical correlation between winter sea ice volume maxima and summer minima, because the two are directly related by a simple formula:
summer ice minimum = (previous) winter ice maximum - total spring/summer melt

The evolution of the three interlinked variables over time is completely summarized in the following excellent chart by Jim Pettit:

As max trends lower, min also trends lower.  Sounds like a positive correlation to me.   I'm not sure of the value of this statistic, but the 'obvious' dismissal is a bit much.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: April 17, 2017, 10:22:59 PM »
Great chart.  One more idea... fwiw:  If you went 3D and made the z axis the ytd measure.  So the 3D chart grows in depth each day of the year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What is a model?
« on: April 17, 2017, 12:59:09 PM »

  It would be interesting to see how the linear extrapolation performs during the same time frames.  While the exponential extended from about 2011 to 2022, the linear looks to have pulled in from ~2050 to about 2030.  I'm betting on more of an exponential finish than a linear one.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What is a model?
« on: April 16, 2017, 10:06:31 PM »
And indeed, the impetus behind this thread was the use of an exponential extrapolation to forecast Sept sea ice, while the use of the simpler linear function is more widely accepted for the job (and rightly so, imho).

Oren, sorry to say that, but that phrase is nonsense.

As Oren points out, using an exponential trend to forecast is nonsense.  What is the predicted value for 2050?  -3mkm^2?    That's nonsense.  It's nothing more than curve fitting and ignores the physics of the actual situation.

Obviously there is a physical limit of 0 ice.  That does (edit) NOT(/edit) invalidate the path to 0.   

Arctic sea ice / Re: What is a model?
« on: April 16, 2017, 06:10:44 PM »
The model should include an increasing increase in export (exponential?).  There is the Lebedev/Bilello exponent in the other direction as ice volume grows more quickly over thinner ice.  Does thinner more mobile ice also melt out more quickly?  Of course that trend is offset by the FDD shift, which is applied again in an exponential process.

 The question is which processes are driving?  I would say we are in transition to an exponential regime driven by export and mobility with thin dispersed ice transporting into warm water.

Time will tell...  maybe the next 4-5 months.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Piomas vs. CryoSat
« on: March 31, 2017, 04:41:30 PM »
If you compare this year to last you see that the ice pulled off the Alaskan coast last year vs the Russian coast this year.  Overall the ice still looks worse this year.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: March 22, 2017, 02:10:38 AM »
Greg,  It's all there if a little confusing.

Only 2012 and 2016 have more bottom 3's for the entire year than 2017 has already.

Science / Re: Validation of GCM Models
« on: March 18, 2017, 03:18:04 PM »
  The arguments you pose seem to be philosophical and not technical/scientific.  I counter-propose that you study chapter 9 of the latest IPCC report (Evaluation of Climate Models) and detail what you find lacking.

If you have cogent views they will surely get addressed.


The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 06, 2017, 12:19:02 AM »
   I agree it was fast...stuck to the coast.  What can you say about age/thickness, if anything?

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 05, 2017, 04:16:57 PM »
Watch these large blocks accelerate into the main Fram export stream... 

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 07:20:11 PM »
FWIW,  Here's the series where those big blocks reconnected to the coast... Feb 21 to 22.  Pretty dramatic 1 day change.  And the Hycom drift for that day...

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 07:12:09 PM »

  I think of it as a turbulent flow.  Depends on size/structure of blocks and pressure toward the coast.  Of course fast ice is reducing the size of the flow, like a buildup in a constricted artery.  Those big chunks were broken free, iirc, in February when the last big Atlantic storm swept thru.  I expected them to sweep right on out, but conditions caused them to stall and drive back toward the coast.  here's a few intermediate images from 2/18, 2/24, and 2/28.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 03:11:25 PM »
Here's an interesting pair of images...

I've been tracking for 3 week via Polar View some large blocks turning the NE corner of Greenland into the Fram, but they are kind just sitting there.  Hoping to make an animation at some point.  Images are from 2/13 and 3/4.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 04, 2017, 01:33:19 PM »
@all except 5to10
Don't you feel like I do, that this thread is a waste of time/energy?

Just a few personal questions

- How old are you?
- Do you have children?
- If not, do you intend to have some?

Just bare answers, w/o comments, please. Those answers seem important to understand where you speak from.

(I am 63, 3 children, 3 grandchildren)

 The thread is fine, much of the recent content is a waste of time and energy.   Certain posts/posters can be read or ignored, as with every thread.  Most that have been reading this thread from the beginning would probably not have done what you just did.  DFTT

Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 03, 2017, 09:56:12 PM »
+1 for the underrepresented Pastafarian

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:29:10 PM »
This thread was about ice before it was hijacked.

I'm not sure an "open thread" like this really belongs in the Cryosphere subforum - worth moving it to "The Rest" subforum with the rest of the general threads?

Ramen !!
Very little here relates to ice.

Cid  Yama
Any chance you attend RGs & Ags?


Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:28:08 PM »
Pope Francis has taken the most progressive stands on a number of issue, but I doubt he directly controls the Vatican's investments.  Having his voice behind AGW is huge.   I would not question his motives nor hold up unrealistic expectations.

Full disclosure...  not a fan of Christian mythology in any form, but still a fan of the new pope.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:44:53 PM »
Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.

Unfortunate that his statement was again easily refuted by the truth.

Still waiting on one of you 3-5 people to present some kind of rational statement in contradiction to what I'm explaining.

You'd think there would be strength in numbers here as usual, but the truth doesn't lose to the deception of the majority.

Refute it or accept it.

Yours are the ramblings of a madman.  They cannot be refuted, as they are not framed in a common belief system.  We would have to begin with the meaning of truth... who has the time. 

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:40:03 PM »

As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.

You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.


First completely meaningful statement I have read on this thread -- thank you.

Thanks Jim... I find your commentary to be always of the highest quality as well.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:27:00 PM »

As I understand your argument you're saying that if we all come together as a unity, something magical may happen, and this may save us all.

You then attack everyone with a different perspective, thereby proving not only that unity doesn't exist at present, but that anyone dividing the world into those that believe (in unity), and those that don't believe, will forever preclude a unity of thought, and that your magical moment will never occur.


I'll take that as a very eloquent seconding of my point.   8)

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 05:03:19 PM »
If this 'reality' is even real to begin with...

Just another way to rationalize your way out of doing something so you can continue being lazy in selfishness.


Just my way of saying that you have beat your point to death. 

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 03, 2017, 04:40:27 PM »
If you cannot say for certain it is impossible, then you must say there may be a chance that we aren't seeing to literally save the world and ourselves.

The world will be just fine, and I don't see why we need "saving."  This is simply another abrupt climate change, and even Homo Sapiens has survived several so far.

Can't let that go, Jiim, having been involved in cleaning up the aftermath of societal collapse here and there. Being a reluctant father-confessor to both the victims and perpetrators of atrocities teaches one not to regard the very possible future of humanity with equanimity.

It isn't "the very possible" future.  It is, by far, part of the most likely future.  However, I think the development of Computer Science is progressing even faster than Climate Change, and that Mankind will not even notice when Homo Sapiens goes extinct.  (In fact, even the last of the species might not notice.)

If this 'reality' is even real to begin with...

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 11:26:48 PM »

Your premise of imminent existential threat is not accepted as a fundamental truth.  You build a personal philosophy around it, as is your right.  You project it on others at risk of being called out as a charlatan.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 10:48:56 PM »
I saw a couple posts where he was over harsh, but his content is surely missed.  He's also not the only one ever.  I took him as coming from an angle of perceived entitlement based on his contribution level. 

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: March 02, 2017, 10:40:21 PM »
  I don't follow.  How can <10% of an unknown quantity be bounded?


So far it has been measured that > 90% of released subsea methane is converted by micro organisms and never reaches the surface. So increase of Methane is not from either natural gas or clathrates.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 02:43:53 PM »
This thread has gone off in a spiritual/metaphysical direction.  It's open so it goes wherever...  I just don't see much point.  Thanks to dnem for some grounded posts.  I am somewhat of an anti-consumerist myself.   One main issue I have here is with the presumption of catastrophic consequences.  Difficult and disruptive, sure.  But the earth will not suddenly become a barren rock because a blanket of anthropogenic ghg causes 2 or 5 or 10 degrees warming in the next 100 years.

The degree of action will match the degree of inconvenience.  It will not be 'too late'.  It will be at the time of our (the collective) choosing. 

Some side effects:

1) Humankind will learn about a lot geoengineering, both inadvertent and practical
2) Seed colonies (of humans) with that knowledge will emigrate 1st to other parts of our solar system and then beyond
3) Those that remain on the overheated earth will undertake to mitigate the damage, including perhaps some far-fetched attempts to rebuild the ice cap.  This discussion is far more practical and interesting than what's been landing on this thread lately, imo.

For those who think its a horrible idea that the 'nasty' human germ spreads to other places to wreak havoc:

1) Perhaps we have learned a good lesson here, and will do better in the future
2) What do you think the universe is good for, if not the conquest of those best suited.  Which, btw, to the best of our collective current knowledge, is us.

There is another thread where the discussion focuses on population reduction and sustainable living.  That intersection has always existed.  Turmoil and upheaval follows directly from unsustainable population density.  Self-correcting.  Technology allows for increased production and therefore population density.  Denying technology does not in any way address the underlying issue.  Only when the true costs of human all human activity is accounted for will we get back in balance.  That does not limit population density at all.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:17:22 PM »
I will have some of what 5to10 is smoking.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 07:02:42 PM »
It's the car's fault?  Or as my 13 yr-old would say 'Logic much, brah?'

ah from the mouths of snarky 13 year olds!

Yeah,  I would never say something like that, but sometimes I want to.   ;D

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 06:31:03 PM »
c: exploding population in humans directly resulting from industrialization, not vice versa.
 just as 90% of other problems we see. Warming, greenhouse gases for example is measured from a pre-industrial baseline for that reason as well of course.

My great-granddad travelled by horse. I travel further because I have a car that has 400 mile range on a tank of gas.  My problems:

1) I'm 400 miles from home and out of gas
2) I don't know my way around in this unfamiliar place
3) I'm hungry

It's the car's fault?  Or as my 13 yr-old would say 'Logic much, brah?'

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 28, 2017, 03:47:14 AM »
Maybe a plague of locusts will blot out the sun...

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 27, 2017, 11:56:17 PM »
"We" discuss problems and solutions from a limited perspective i fear.
"We" overpopulate, pollute, and warm the planet.
"We" think of techno fixes which fall short and bring new dillemas.
"We" discuss the elite etc etc.

Do we really?
No, not those of us who have remained outside of industrial society, and arguably to a lesser degree agrarian society.
And that would be some staggering percentage, like 99.9% of anything that has ever lived on Earth.
Yet "we"can't even see their fine example, we destroy them as well and choose for over complication and denial.
Like knowing you took a wrong turn in the road and are heading off course but imagine finding a hitherto unknown new path that will magically lead to your destination.

It is quit obvious we need to get rid of industrial society, go back where you took the wrong turn.
"But you would have us all be cavemen again and we would not live past 35 years old!"
That would be the usual reply, which is nonsense as is clearly visible in hunter gatherers today still.
One needs not copy their customs, clothing, attire or language, and yes they do grow old too.

What is their nature, what is it they do?
They occupy themselves looking after primary needs and culture.
They don't require exponential destruction and depletion of environment.
Industrial society however can do nothing else, that is it's nature.

The primary benefit of hunter/gatherer lifestyle is the de facto limit on density.  We broke from that limit with agriculture, some 6000 years ago.  Further density of human population comes from that industrial society you decry. 

Your touted primitive lifestyle is not in fact a fix for overuse of natural resources.  A good read perhaps is Jared Diamond's Collapse:  How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.  You will find examples of pre-industrial ecological catastrophes.

Of course we can solve all the problems by limiting humankind to a small percentage of our current population.  Implementation may be a bit tricky.

No.  The future is forward, not backwards, however frightening that may be.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 27, 2017, 12:55:46 PM »
Yeah, I started with 1000 km3 and ended with 1km3.... 3 orders of magnitude but who's counting.  If not for that the engineering challenges would be worth the hypothetical conversation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: February 27, 2017, 03:22:48 AM »
I love this chart... but keep thinking one thing.  It all depends on the weather. 

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 27, 2017, 03:20:58 AM »
I think that by controlling export through fram/garlic press/Bering stretch , enough ice could be saved to prolong the demise of the Arctic.
The problem with this idea along with that of trying to pump seawater to the top of the ice to build it up, is both fail to understand the scale of resources and energy necessary to implement them.

While they are presented as "simple" solutions they do not begin to address the work required.  Blocking the Fram and the channels in the CAA would without question take more resources and energy than every other major civil enterprise ever attempted, combined.

The pump idea would require the placement (and continuing maintenance...) of literally 10's of millions of pumps, which would themselves require the energy to pump thousands of KM3 of sea water across the ice.  To keep that incontext, the City of New York pumps only about 2.0 KM3 of waste water during an entire *year*; we're talking about pumping over five thousand times that. 

In short, I consider even the *discussion* of such a solution utterly nonsensical, and a distraction from much more effective and rational discussions about mitigating the proximate cause of the problem we are faced with.

Totally absurd, maybe...but 1.0 KM3 would add 1 meter thickness to 1/4 the area of everything North of 80N.  Properly located I imaging that volume of extra ice would help stabilize the pack, reducing mobility.  Maybe stop the garlic press or reduce Fram export, who knows.  Further, 5000hp operating 200 days can draw said 1km3 20 vertical ft.  How much distribution could be coerced from gravity, gives an idea of how many pumps would be required...  Sea ice being relatively flat, especially this top-engineered type, lets let a pump flood an area of 200 km^2.  So we need 5000 1HP pumps for this exercise.   

Or maybe the experts can agree that strategically placed 2m enhancements on 50000 km^2 can help.  You are down to 500hp and maybe 250 sites.

Its ridiculous, sure, but not more than an order of magnitude out.

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: February 25, 2017, 07:53:12 PM »
Some crazy thoughts about strengthening the ice cap...  not sure if this has been proposed before, but its quite a simple...

In order to more fully take advantage of the FDDs, we need to constantly flood the top of the cap with sea water.  The right flow should all freeze with the minimum effort.   Something on the order of 1 cm top ice per FDD with a constant flow of near freezing sea water.

In this manner 5M thick ice could be produced over large area each winter.  The pumping technology should be easy....  wind power perhaps.  Not so easy maybe, given the environment, but a good challenge for the oil majors anyway.

 Flame away...   8) 8) 8)


Developers Corner / Re: Mapping GeoCoded Data Sets
« on: February 16, 2017, 11:34:15 PM »
slow wing,
  Sorry I missed the post.  I was winging it, for the most part.  I used Sept 1 each year as a start.  FDD was never allowed to go negative.  However, FDD can you up or down in any given day.   I have not written the output netCDF format required to visualize this new data set using panoply.

I did get distracted looking at some other data and satellite images.  Given a bit of interest I can definitely get back into the project.


Arctic sea ice / Re: 2017 IJIS extent maximum prediction
« on: February 16, 2017, 10:24:02 PM »
Weather for the next several days at least favors minor expansion everywhere except perhaps Okhotsk. Let's hope the max comes late and lingers....

Why care?  All this hope or dis-hope bothers me.  We see things happening and we report our impressions.  If you do anything else you are not reporting ground truth.

Please disregard anything in my post(s) you find bothersome. 

Pages: [1] 2