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 - RikW

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (Oktober, mid-monthly update)
« on: October 21, 2020, 09:21:46 AM »
The siberian sea graph is shocking to see; When, if ever, will it go up to more normal numbers?

Don't know what else to say about it, just shocking

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: October 12, 2020, 09:27:31 AM »
Nearly 10,000 minks dead from Covid-19 outbreak at Utah fur farms

Research indicates that persons with Covid-19 can infect animals, and some cases of the reverse have been identified in Europe. In May, the government identified two cases in which humans had been infected by sick animals. At that time, they were the only animal-to-human transmissions known since the global outbreak began in China.

Utah agriculture authorities have maintained that animal-to-human infection is unlikely, however, stating: “There is currently no evidence that animals, including mink, play a significant role in transmitting the virus to humans. As it now stands, due to limited information and research, the risk of animals spreading SARS-CoV-2 to humans is considered low.”

We've had mink-to-human transmission in the Netherlands; I think in at least a third of the mink-farms COVID has been diagnosed and all the minks on the farm destructed;

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020/21 Freezing Season Predictions
« on: October 06, 2020, 08:58:11 AM »
I guess we will finish around/ a little below the last 10 year average as maximum; thus we will have high/ above average refreeze numbers; There is more sea refreeze, because a lot has melted; The ice will probably be thin though;

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 24, 2020, 02:33:50 PM »
Eradicating the virus means short-term world wide lockdown, isolation and masks.

False. It  only means lockdown in places that have out of control number of new cases. In places with out of control new cases societal change that results in lower R must be executed. The societal change should be implemented in a maximum effectiveness-minimum harm done basis.

By societal change I mean things like maximum occupancy, mask wearing, and mandatory social distancing in commercial and public spaces.

You need to keep absolutely everyone isolated for weeks, world wide in my view.

My bold. You don't need absolutely everyone. You need enough change like the one mentioned above to pass the "herd immunity threshold.

We still have to eat and go shopping and e.g. essential work, infrastructure/maintenance, food supply and administrative tasks must go on in that situation.

Many, many, many countries have already proven that shutdowns work even if peopl ego out to buy groceries, doctor visits and emergency services. In fact, much less than that is needed( at least during summer), but the will and cooperation of the people must be there. It won't be there if they don't understand the danger and the solutions.

If people think "the virus isn't real but if it is, there is HCQ", then they will make decisions that increase harm to themselves and others simply because they do not understand the risk behind their decisions.

Most people have a low capacity in understanding and a growing group doesn't trust science and government and will not comply.

Most people understand how to keep distance and wash hands. Also most people, although a smaller majority, knows how to use masks well enough.

I don't think that extirpating the virus is feasible in our contemporary economic growth and fake news societies. Alas.

By thinking it's not feasible, you make it not feasible.

But then you don't eradicate the virus, you just keep it sort of under control; You see that happening in New Zealand; They had cases, full lock-down and nobody gets in or out, so virus gone; They reopen borders with strict measures and quarantaine and they had to go into lockdown again. At least their capital and the rest of the country also more strict rules;

So to be honest, unless we go into a world-wide quarantaine for 4-12 weeks, with only vital stuff like water, electricity, food supply, urgent health-care allowed and nothing else, it will just keep coming back I fear. Unless a vaccine is created that will give long-term projection, then something like with the small-pox can be managed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 10, 2020, 08:46:29 AM »
For those who can't wait:

3,860,699 02 sept
3,804,272 03 sept  -56k
3,732,809 04 sept  -71k
3,687,319 05 sept  -45k
3,659,270 06 sept  -28k
3,607,577 07 sept  -52k
3,589,809 08 sept  -18k
3,586,426 09 sept   -3k

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 08, 2020, 12:17:47 PM »
RikW  That is a pretty bold statement about Western Countries -  considering how things are going in Iowa and South Dakota.   etc.   Personally I am a bit dismal about FCity playing Britt Iowa in football, and there is the meat packing town of Eagle Grove to play later.   And the Indians face off against the Cowboys of Clarion later also from Wright county.  At the college level 25,000 fans will congregate Sept 12 in Ames IA for the ISU Cyclones football game, whole lot of Ag and Engineering   and Vetrinarian grads arriving from the more sparsely poplulated  counties, totally different crowd from the  U of Ia games.
Story County, nigh 3000 per 100K.  Of the 200 that tested positive 10 days ago, how good do you thing the contact tracing is?   17 Icu beds total in Story County home of  Iowa State U. 

Wright County with Eagle Grove and Clarion are at 4,000 plus per 100K.

I can see the ICU's being overwhelmed in Iowa very easily over the next 2 months.   

Yeah, maybe I should have excluded the USA specifically from that list. And maybe the UK too.

Countries with most politicians/politics (on all sides of the political spectrum) being more about personal gain and use every possible moment to take down the other parties suffer probably more.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 07, 2020, 12:17:48 PM »
Yeah, I meant in the Western countries I can't imagine that happening;

There is much more/better testing capacity in most of Europe, so a much better picture where and how big the problem is, thus enough time to take enough action to lower the R if that is neccessary;

And there is much more knowledge who are high-risk groups, how to protect them and how to treat people, so it will be much more efficient.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: September 07, 2020, 10:01:41 AM »
I think for the richer western countries with good/ great public health care the worst has been; We don't have a cure or a vaccin yet, but we have a better grip on the virus and treatments in hospitals has become much better because we have better understandings of what COVID is/does.

I can't imagine it getting out of hand and having hospitals getting overloaded. Main reason, we can act a lot faster and protect high-risk groups better.

I also think a vaccin will help us getting COVID better under control, but I fear we are stuck with it. Seeing cases emerging with reinfections I expect the same problem with a vaccin, it will help, but won't give lifelong protection.
The virus is reasonably easy to transmit and anti-vaccination is unfortunaly populair, thus I'd expect COVID to slumber and become comparable with the flu. Having a wave each year/ every other year, with the high-risk groups getting a vaccin and I fear more lethal for especially the elderly.

So hygiene becomes more important and measures will become more and more limited over time.

I fear for the underdevelopend countries/ countries with bad health care :(

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2020?
« on: August 06, 2020, 10:38:17 AM »
I'm glad to see it's partially cloud-free so we can see the state of the ice; I will be very surprised, with 9 days to go, if the first bracket won't be 'the winner'

Are openings of the NW-passage recorded somewhere? I did a quick unsuccesful google-attempt

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August 2020)
« on: August 05, 2020, 12:35:26 PM »
I've got a slightly different number in the PIOMAS data, so maybe PIOMAS recalculated it, and a day difference, probably because of the leap year?

Don't know if it's better to stick to calender date or to date number; I think with PIOMAS the latter is better, because they don't have december 31st data in leap years...

I think it will be below 2019; 2019 has a small lead, but 'forgot' to keep on melting in september and high refreeze in september according to PIOMAS, which increased their average;

I can't see that happening this year, so much heat added into the arctic this year.

On the other hand, I don't know what to expect of the rest of the melting season. The numbers don't allign with my expectation, so I'm going for 3.75 - 4.25; Though I probably change to 1 or 2 bins lower if melting numbers allign with my expectation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August 2020)
« on: August 05, 2020, 12:13:48 PM »
I think your 6.463 is not correct

Value 2020 on day 213 = 6.516
Value 2019 on day 213 = 6.371

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (August 2020)
« on: August 04, 2020, 12:03:38 PM »
So average loss from day 182 till 213 in 2010-2019 = 5.762; 2020 is 6.016
As percentage average loss is 43,9% and 2020 = 48,0%

Gap with nr. 1 position was 745 on day 182
Gap with nr. 1 position is 145 on day 213

This has been an extraordinary july based on PIOMAS data

Average (last 10 years) august losses will bring us at 4.625 on day 234, that will be 3rd position (2019: 4.561; 2012: 4.297)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: August 04, 2020, 08:54:51 AM »
I thought the CAB area was going up??


No it hasn't.  Clouds and fog have increased blocking the sensor.

Which is why NSIDC area in the cab isn't as effected uses different bandwidth.

NSIDC one day sea ice area change shows a 18,000 square kilometer increase in the CAB.

The Beaufort sea and western CAB have seen periods of below freezing temperatures over the last week. The global model weather forecasts get more favorable for sea ice retention by the day.

Areas of near average surface pressure look to dominate the arctic for the next 2 weeks. The winds appear light and variable.

These next 2 weeks are going to be amazing  ;).

I still expect a sort of extent cliff in the beaufort; I think large parts of the beaufort, the ESS and the canadian/alaskan side of the CAB are currently above the 15% threshold, but when checking on worldview it is shattered and lots of ocean visible; Depending on weather that could just go *poof* in a couple of days

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: August 03, 2020, 10:35:25 AM »
Well, even those numbers depend on how they register COVID deaths; If I have covid and die because of cardiac arrest; Is that counted as a COVID death? And did I die because of COVID? I could have had the cardiac arrest even if I didn't have COVID; Or not.

Or if I lose my job because of COVID and I can't afford health care anymore and die because of a cardiac arrest, but don't have COVID, is that a COVID death or not?

So even those statistics are multi interpretable, unfortunately;

Global Warming is much easier to prove I'd say and harder/weirder to deny I'd say...

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Northwest Passage "open" in 2020?
« on: August 03, 2020, 09:31:14 AM »
When checking worldview I think you can cross Bellot Strait safely from the east and Franklin Strait is also shattered with lots of open water parts already, Rae Strait also mostly ice-free;

Won't be surprised if route 6 will be safe to go in a couple of days; Especially since the wind appears to blow the ice away from the blocked parts. Lot's of clouds on worldview on the part between Bellot Strait and Rae Strait, so let's hope for some cloud-free worldview pictures today.

I can’t imagine it ending above 4M, but as said by others, weather will have a big influence

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 28, 2020, 11:23:43 AM »
DMI north of 80N temperature and GFS 3-day average wind. Both look unusual.
I've been wanting to post that graph for a few days now, but I was waiting to see how high it would get. It was one of my more crazy predictions for this season that hadn't happened yet, that the temp would go above the green line due to extreme eurasian heatwaves. And now it seems to be happening.

And is this graph prove of what people here have been teaching me, that clouds keep the temperatures high this late in the season, while the GAAC caused temperatures to drop as insolation dropped?

Well, it's sort terrifying to me; If there is ice/snow, it normally won't rise high above melting point; So there was always a sort of ceiling to that graph. That appears to be broken through, so or there is no ice/snow left or the amount of energy/warmth is so high it can break through the ceiling (don't know if that is even possible in such an ice-covered area?).

Seeing a graph like this showing this strenghtens my believe we are in an extraordinary melting season.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 23, 2020, 12:28:35 PM »
I fear for the Beaufort and surrounding seas;

Based on the worldview area measurement I did I think there is between 1.1M and 1.3M ice; Clouds make it more diffcult to have a good line :(

And seeing how bad the ice appears to be and how fast other parts of the arctic just disappeared/melted out, I won't be suprised if a large part of it will melt out in the next 2 weeks;

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 21, 2020, 02:00:36 PM »
I made a table of historic melt numbers according to JAXA SIE

I grouped it in blocks of 5 years and 20 days of melting; Starting day 60 until day 260; Extent melting season is mostly between those days (and it made easy grouping...)

Today is day 201.

At the bottom I compared day 60-199 with 200-259 to see how the melt from yesterday till the end compared with the first part of the season;

At the right I made a table with remaining melt for this season and how that would compare with 'early' season melt and long term average. I added the 217k melt we have had already in the calculation. So the formula for the 3M is 3M + 217k / 7.835k = 41.1%

What I thought, early season high melt (till day 200) doesn't lower late season melt numbers. I thought, less ice available to melt, thus less melting. That isn't true when I check the numbers.

Based on the long-term average day I'd expect 3M at least 3M melt since day 200; So 2.8M to go; Based on the long-term percentage (~46%) it's 3.4M to melt. That means we go below 3M SIE...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 19, 2020, 01:25:23 PM »
Don’t forget that 2020 is maybe exceptional because of COVID-effects

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 18, 2020, 07:17:26 PM »
Don’t forget that seas that always melt out and melt out earlier this year makes it harder to just do some extrapolation; you can’t have negative area numbers

Though the fact that Beaufort is lagging doesn’t bode well... That is a sea that will probably do some catching up

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: July 18, 2020, 08:03:51 AM »
Btw, I keep searching the web to see if our current Arctic extent minimum is making news. Not

When driving home yesterday i heard it in the radio during the news “arctic sea ice 2M km2 lower than normaal” same size as scandinavia/ france; so in the netherlands it had been mentioned om national radio

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 11:38:47 AM »
Regardless of what happens from here on out, 2020 has carved out a deep new low range for Arctic sea ice for part of the year and will be one for the books.  In my appraisal this means it is already a very bad year for the ice.  Keep setting new lows for different days and sooner or later one of those days will be September 16th.  We definitely will never carve out new highs for any day of the year henceforth.
Looks like, yes. Just one little detail: September 16th is not very likely for the minimum. Rather, something like September 25th...30th, more like. The reason is all the extra heat in the system likely to extend melting season a bit. The trend of it is well obvious, if one would plot a graph of 5-year running-means from 1980s all the way to 2019. It slowly extends, obviously with lots of noise outta weather effects this or that particular season. But this one, with the GAAC and remaining effect of cleaner air due to less air travel and industries much of the spring and summer due to all the quarantines around the NH - one would expect the lengthening of the season to be especially likely to be big. Which, of course, would lead to lower minimum than would "normally" be expected - more time to melt things, more things melt out in the end.

It's melting momentum, i call it. The bigger it gets, the longer it takes to exhaust its potential with everything else being "usual". And right now, it's big.

For Volume, yes. Volume melt season will probably be longer because of the extra heat.

But for area, I'm not sure.
The sun is getting low in september and after the 15th/16th the polar night will start again, thus temperatures will drop; If I remember the DMI80N graphs correctly the average air temperature will drop below freezing point near the end of august; I'm not sure if north of 80 this drop of temperature will be earlier. If the upper layer cools enough we can have the refreeze of a thin new upper layer start early. Normally, that part was always frozen, so not possible to refreeze.

I wouldn't be surprised by a early, but record-low, minimum

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 17, 2020, 06:49:59 AM »
You’d somehow expect a slowdown in the numbers because there is less and less ice available to melt. It’s start that even while more and more regional seas reach (near) zero the numbers stay this high

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 15, 2020, 08:41:10 AM »
It's shocking to see how the ice is drifting away from the canadian coast

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: July 10, 2020, 12:04:39 PM »

Just average for the five lowest extent years puts 2020 298 sq km. below 2019 two weeks from now. Hold on to your hats.

So you take the lowest value for the date (this year) and extrapolate from there the biggest losses, and you get a new record low? Who would have thought?

 :) ;)
Yep, it's not a great mathematical surprise but thinking about it, what are the odds 2020 is not among the top five loss years for the rest of the month? Or the rest of the season?

CO2e forcing is stronger every year, 3 out of last 5 years are among the top five and 2020 has certainly proven to be a strong melt season.

Well, main reason you can't just extrapolate the arctic as a whole that you can't have a negative amount of ice; Especially in the seas that almost/completely melt out every year and 'just' have a headstart in melting out. If seas melt out 2 weeks faster you will have in that melting period a lot of records and the 2 weeks following probably lower melt, because there is less left to melt

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: June 30, 2020, 11:45:48 AM »
Thank you gandul for your comment, and you do have a point. My view of it is as Viggy noted, "I kinda view it as misinformation (not as egregious as a denialist) that deserves to be noted as such."
Had bbr not been banned from the forum, I might have been more gentle. As things stand, I have a duty to keep him under a tight leash. Any and all references to ice ages are to be removed or highlighted as nonsense. Hudson Bay sea ice is somehow part of this, so I make sure not to leave such claims uncontested.

When I read his post I was already thinking "hey, another ice age incoming?" so I totally understand your edit.
Nevertheless, a reply on his post that where you say the same thing would probably get more attention.

I'd somehow also like to see a split in the season-topic; One where we discuss the current season, share interesting findings with each other and short-term predictions;

And one that covers topics/ pet-theory's that have been discussed/ are far-fetched/ long term predictions (5+ days f.e.) that are probably not true/ have been discussed again and again; But I don't think that will be easy to moderate;

F.e. the first time bbr mentioned his theory it could have been a interesting discussion/ insight, but when the general concensus was it's very unlikely to be true, you don't want it to clutter the main discussion thread.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (June 2020)
« on: June 03, 2020, 01:21:09 PM »
What a difference between 2020 and other years in the beaufort sea. Same with area and extent for beaufort sea.

Curious why that is the case, can it be the fresh water lens, thus higher melting point?

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: May 17, 2020, 06:54:37 AM »
The last 2 Monti’s felt very sunny in the Netherlands and it also entered the recordbooks as most sunny april since we started measuring it.

And at the ‘higher’ areas drought is getting a real probleem; farmers who aren’t allowed to use water for their crops

And last weeks of march and first weeks of march are the same

Just checked some statistics, we had 560 sunhours since march 15th, former record was 503, which was in 2011; and only  23mm of rain

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Melting Season Predictions
« on: May 15, 2020, 12:12:05 PM »
I'd say between 4m and 4.25m +/- 250k, following the trend we have been on for a long time; Anything else would require good or bad weather in my opinion. And with the current drop in aerosols I'd rather expect weather that's bad for the ice than good weather.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: April 16, 2020, 07:21:42 PM »
well, the last 10/20 years have been disastrous compared to what was normal and this year won't be different I guess; How disastrous it will be, depends, among other things, on the weather

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 03, 2020, 04:36:27 PM »
Does the fact the western european countries are in the 'top' with deaths/million say something about how bad we are reacting on the virus or how bad the statistics in other countries are?

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 03, 2020, 04:18:01 PM »
Re: the graph above.
In the winter of 2018 our ICU's weren't overrun.

Re: RikW
Max ICU capacity for COVID-19 patients in the Netherlands is being expanded to 2400.

True, but ~500 are needed for non-COVID patients

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 03, 2020, 02:38:43 PM »
Slightly positive news from the Netherlands, it appears we are managing to flatten te curve, in this link, unfortunately only in dutch, you see graphs of cases tested, cases hospitalized en cases who died.

RIVM = the dutch equivalent of the CDC for the USA/ Robert Koch for Germany etc.

They publish this PDF daily with updated numbers, Dark blue is 'old' data; Light blue is newly added data; So data of the last couple of days is always incomplete because of delay in reports, but you can discover a trend;

They also show some heat maps and graphs per province. Noord-Brabant was the first province and it went wrong there.

second to last page is ICU admissions; Max ICU capacity available for Corona will be around 1.900 so that will be a close call.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 12:23:05 PM »
And even this can be misleading, because these statistics are the effect of things that happened 3-6 weeks ago. That lack of information makes it so difficult to interpret.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 11:43:16 AM »

The viewing angel already starts to shift towards a more objective one.

The same media that caused the hysteria will bash polititians quite soon.

Look at Swedish and Dutch numbers, they have no lockdowns, also South Corea has no lockdown
among many others.

Read this carefully:

BTW once and for all, even with 1 Million death from 7.8 Billion inhabitants of planet earth and all numbers (died from or died with the virus is not the same) the entire thing is a storm in the water glass and overmortality rate ins most countries in europe from respiratory illnesses is
still lower this year than in many othes, i.e. 2018

I've read the article and understand a lot of points, though it is still speculation. But this part The point was made that people were dying, with the covid virus, and not necessarily because of it. Of course, the terrible health care system in Italy was not helping, is just wrong. The health care system in northern italy is one of the best in the world. It is also one of the richest regions in the world.

For the rest, I really hope he is right in his assumptions and the virus has run it's course. But it's just guessing and we have to wait and see.

And in the Netherlands we also have a sort of lockdown. All restaurants etc. are closed. We aren't allowed on the street in groups larger than 2 persons.

BTW once and for all, even with 1 Million death from 7.8 Billion inhabitants of planet earth and all numbers (died from or died with the virus is not the same) the entire thing is a storm in the water glass and overmortality rate ins most countries in europe from respiratory illnesses is
still lower this year than in many othes, i.e. 2018

Every time I read this line of thinking, I always want to tell the person that they really, really, really, need to wait until the end of the year before making that kind of comparison.

Also, Covid might focus on old people, but inundated hospitals cant treat younger people so they die without being linked to covid.

That's the problem with diseases like this, you don't know how bad it really is. You better overreact a little as government and have 2.000 deaths instead of 2.100 than the opposite, you have 100.000 deaths instead of 2.000 if you reacted quickly enough.

And this virus looks so bad because it appears to be brutal to those with existing health issues. If it is really contagious, but hard to discover in the early phase, but deadly to those who are old and have health issues, it appears to be very bad.

We just don't know, especially because symptoms are similar to flu symptons. I've got 4 relatives who maybe have had it; Or they had the flu, or the common cold. That uncertainty is really difficult.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 11:02:35 AM »
Of course I hope 1918 will prove to have been much worse but where is your evidence?

And, it's nonsense to say "western countries will probably be hit harder than developing countries. Because even though we have better health care, it won't be enough in a lot of countries. If you can't help 50% of those who need hospitalization it doesn't matter for those if your health care is brilliant or the worst of the worst"   

If the statistics do not align with expectations that does not magically indicate that up is down or some such silliness.  Better healthcare is its own reward.  Better is better!

Of course there is no evidence yet, but based on statistics about the 1918 influenza (50-200M deaths, 3-10% of the world population) and the currently known statistics about Covid I think at most 3% will die because of Corona.

When you see statistics in countries like South Korea/ Taiwan, who have a good testing capacity, mortality is around 1% of those who get the virus.
In countries like Italy it's higher, but the number of people tested is probably too low, health care overloaded and population composition also unfavorable skewed towards Covid risk groups. At this moment around 12% of those established with Covid in Italy didn't survive, but I think the true death rate will be around 5% at most. That implies 3% of the whole population won't survive (~60% infected will mean R0 will be below 1, thus Covid will die out).

So globablly the upper bound will be around 3% I guess.

RikW, there will be people losing their jobs (millions already have), many of them losing their health care as well (in the US). Small business are getting crushed as we speak, many of them will never recover. Their business will be overtaken by multinational corporations, making them even more powerful so that they can dictate even more of our legislation. Food shortages are likely, meaning the poorest will literally starve to death.

This is not a doomer scenario, it happens right now!

How can you possibly see this as a not collapsing economy?

Yeah, at this moment economy is collapsing. I'm responsible for finance at my job and it will be tense if we survive if it takes too long. The big question is, how many companies will fail/ how many people will lose their job and how fast will we have a rebound?

And that is different between countries (how do they react, how do they support businesses) and how long will this crisis be?

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 10:01:29 AM »
So, where exactly did you distance yourself from this? I can't find it!
I don't say we should just let the virus run! But I think the economic impact of this crisis will be minor, if it doesn't take too long.

I think here. But our misunderstanding is probably because, at least for me, English isn't my mother language.

What I tried to say is that the economic impact of 1-5% of the world population dying won't collapse economy/ won't have a huge long-term economic impact, because of the age and health composition of the group that is killed by this virus. And those doom-stories about the severity of this crisis are baseless in my opinion.

And trying to save as many people as possible shouldn't be done because of the economy but because of moral obligation;

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:44:43 AM »
It's creepy and insensitive to say, but the economic impact of this group dying will be relative small; Most of them would have costed society more in the rest of their live then what they pay.

This line of thinking is really beginning to piss me off.
It shows a callous way of looking at human life.

Maybe I have been skewed because I spend a few years living in a Samoan village where the elders were held in high regard, given respect and given due courtesy for the things they have done, and for the wisdom they share that holds much more value than anything a stupid economy has to offer.

Seriously, people just need to stop thinking that it isnt a problem if it only kills old people.

That's why you should read the whole post and not a single sentence.

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: April 02, 2020, 09:24:07 AM »
This is a horrible pandemic.
We must look back to the 1918 influenza to grasp its severity. 

And, our focus should be on the science rather than the blame.

We may never forget those who've failed,  but we must also move on, and right now. 

Support your local healthcare workers if you can.   If the doctors die... what have we???

I think 1918 was much worse. Especially economically. But these days we don't expect such diseases anymore. We aren't, luckily, used to it anymore because our healthcare is and vaccination programs are much better then they were a decade ago.

Spanish Flu:
50-200M deaths, and the young people (20-40 years) were hit hard. World population was around 1.8B, so 3-11% died;

Mortality on the whole population without health care collapsing around 1% at most I think. Based on Taiwan and South Korea numbers, who have the most thorough testing going on.
With health care collapsing it's around 3-5%, but mostly elderly people with a large part of those having health issues already.
In the Netherlands they tested medical staff one of the hospitals and of that group 97% had mild symptoms/ no hospitalization required. And yes, that is a younger aged group, since above 65 most people are retired

So I think the 1% if the whole population gets infected and health care won't collapse is a realistic/ maybe even too high percentage. And when it collapses it will probably 3-5 times as high, with mostly the elderly (65+) and those with health problems won't survive.

It's creepy and insensitive to say, but the economic impact of this group dying will be relative small; Most of them would have costed society more in the rest of their live then what they pay. I don't say we should just let the virus run! But I think the economic impact of this crisis will be minor, if it doesn't take too long.

And yeah, it won't surprise me if western countries will probably be hit harder than developing countries. Because even though we have better health care, it won't be enough in a lot of countries. If you can't help 50% of those who need hospitalization, it doesn't matter for those if your health care is brilliant or the worst of the worst. So then the population composition will have a huge impact. And in the west we are older, have more people having old age ailments and we live unhealthy (lot's of people to heavy f.e.).

Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: March 25, 2020, 03:18:41 PM »
North Italy is rich, lot's of travelling, tourists (Venice!), Milan a centre of culture ánd they had a CL football match that could have been a superspreader (Atalanta Bergamo vs. Valencia) for Corona.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: March 13, 2020, 02:02:58 PM »
If Corona keeps going on as it does now, i'd see a huge economic slow-down coming months, especially in production facilities (too much people sick, no work@home options) and air-travel (travel restrictions to prevent spreading). Thus much lower aerosols, much higher temperatures during melt season. A semi-sudden world-wide temperature increase of 1 degrees because of lower aerosols would surprise me, but that would probably do weird things with weather if it is for several months. And we need an extraordinary melting season for blue ocean. We have the ingredients this year that could trigger such a season. But I'd say chances are still low for that to happen.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 23, 2020, 03:55:15 PM »
and to be honest, I think Tesla is overvaluated at the moment.

If I take Q4 numbers, they can, without China, produce 80-100k model S/X a year and 350k-400k Model 3;
In total they did produce 365k in 2019
I'd say, which is probably on the positive side, 750k in 2020; They need 250-300k cars produced in China to reach that number I think.

So in 2020: 80/100k model S/X in USA, 350k/400k Model 3/Y in USA, 250/300k Model 3/Y in China

And in 2021: 80/100k model S/X in USA, 350k/400k Model 3/Y in USA, 350/400k Model 3/Y in China, 200k Model 3/Y in Germany; so around 1.1M;

And 1 more gigafactory a year means a production increase of 350k/400k a year.

So 750k this year, 1.1M next year, 1.5M in 2022, 1.9 in 2023, 2.3 in 2024, 2.8 in 2025;

That's a little more than 10M cars in the next 6 years; that feels a little high

I also tried to use the DCF (discounted cashflow method) on Tesla.

750k cars produced in 2020
1 new gigafactory every year forever, increasing production with 400k cars a year
Discount rate 10%
Inflation 3%

They need a net profit/car produced of $ 1180 with these numbers; And that is after investments/depreciation and all other costs. So doable, but with a very positive growth scenario and a focus on margin from Tesla;

Using more realistic numbers (higher discount rate? Lower inflation? lower future growth?) increases the required net profit to reach the current valuation.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: January 07, 2020, 04:07:47 PM »
not; since sea-ice will have almost no effect on the balance distribution :)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: January 06, 2020, 04:17:19 PM »
To me, it appears reasonable stable for the last 8/9 years; Curious why that is the case, is it coincidence? A trend? Mechanics we don't understand yet (okay, that one is at least true ;) )

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:19:26 PM »
The problem with the pigs isn't only the CO2, but also nitrogen which pollutes our (human-planned...) nature. Almost all pigs produced in those large farms are for the export and probably also with european subsidy. So f.e. China buys our cheaps pork meat, we have the pollution and pay for it also by subsidy's.

The heating should be done by heat pumps. I think the idea is that heat pumps are more efficient than burning fossil fuels, because you also need better isolation. And burning fossil fuels in large plants is most of the time more efficient than doing it at home.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 22, 2019, 10:34:00 AM »
well, it's somewhere funny to see that video of them breaking the glass ;)

Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: November 21, 2019, 10:44:54 AM »
Well, in the Netherlands we are going off-grid with gas.

If I remember correctly since a couple of years it isn't obligated anymore when building a new houses to connect it to the gas-grid and in 2050 the gas-grid should be gone and everything should be done electric. So the gas network will be written off in 30 years.

Though it's weird our neighbours (germany f.e.) are transition to gas - which is better than what they currently have, but still weird.

We have too much people for the area of land we have/ are too efficient in using things/ are too rich compared to other countries thus our emissions are relative high, even though we are also relative clean. And the focus is too much on nations and not on continents/globally.

When we close steel factories in IJmuiden and the coal-power-plants, our emissions drop significant, but global emissions will probably be rise, because we need to buy our energy elsewhere and there still is demand for steel.

So I want us to give the good example and take action, but it shouldn't make the global situation worse. So which is the lesser evil to choose from? Do nothing or do something, but increase global emissions...

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 20, 2019, 07:54:26 PM »
ID.3 can be a real threat, same range, lower price than model 3.
Nope less range less efficient and slower .
Tesla Model 3 Long Range Dual Motor
Battery Electric Vehicle - 75 kWh*
0 - 100 4.6 sec
Top Speed233 km/h
Range475 km
Efficiency15.6 kWh
Fastcharge990 km/h

Volkswagen ID.3 Long Range (from 2020)
Battery Electric Vehicle - 82 kWh*
0 - 100*5.5 sec
Top Speed*180 km/h
Range*450 km
Efficiency*17.1 kWh
Fastcharge*550 km/h

Note the * next to VW is because that is their claim not a tested result .
VW you know those guys who faked their emissions testing .
I don't trust them... you might

Tesla killers is a silly concept.
All competitive electric cars are ICE killers, There is plenty of room for Tesla and others in the market place.

I don't see them as Tesla killer, but I see them as a potential risk for Tesla. They have factories available to scale up production and they have knowledge how to build a car.
Currently, Tesla is far beyond the competition on important factors. I think Price, Range and charging speed are most important factors, with the latter getting less important if range increases. And I think traditional auto makers can scale up their production faster than Tesla can.

A standard Tesla 3 costs around 49k in the Netherlands, a long range 59k, without any options.
And ID.3 is said to cost 30k for the standard version and 40k for the longer range version. That is a huge difference.

Yeah, on top speed and acceleration, Tesla is much better. But how often do you really need that? Only in Germany, which is kind of funny, you have advantage of a higher top speed

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5