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 - mabarnes

Pages: [1] 2
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: March 01, 2021, 05:40:19 AM »
Barents had a large drop.
That is so weird. Looking at your Gif, it seems like the ice expanded a lot along the Novaya Zemlya coast. Where did the loss come from?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind.
The answer is blowin' in the wind ...

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 24, 2020, 05:07:37 AM »
[ADS NIPR VISHOP (JAXA)] Arctic Sea Ice Extent.

December 21st, 2020:
     The ADS-NIPR server is not responding.
     I appreciate if someone else posts the data.

Thank you.

It's back, sorry for the lack of colors ...

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: October 26, 2020, 03:05:41 PM »
JAXA differencing GIF ... for what it's worth.  Data still not up but image was ...

(click necessary to animate on some browsers)....

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 22, 2020, 07:07:20 PM »
I know nothing, but I'd say that low pressure = clouds = less heat out into space. Aint it so?

Hey thank you for the response.  I was wondering about that - but I read something about tropical storms in the Pacific and convection transferring warmer (moist) air up to where it can radiate out from there ... I would figure the Arctic may be different as it's so much colder (Scoop! LOL) and maybe the clouds formed block IR from the sea surface ... geez Louise this weather thing can get complicated....

I'm really curious about this stuff so again, thank you.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season
« on: October 22, 2020, 04:56:35 AM »
Hey question for anybody who knows more than I about this stuff:

AKA everybody LOL.

So GFS shows a low pressure spinning out over the ESS next few days - is this going to be (my attempt) rising air, convection upward, more heat out to space, maybe venting some of it off ... or the opposite?  Or something totally different?

Trying to build a framework here.  Anybody with insomnia want a detailed lesson on economic analysis using multivariate systems, I'll return the favor! 

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 05, 2020, 07:21:01 PM »
  .. or not ! .. I've got things covered .. I offered to cover Gero in circumstances like this a year or 2 ago so now i am .. however I'm delighted to see community in action .. b.c.

I echo the sentiment of others, G has been a tremendous resource - please let me (us) know what we can do - I have years of experience in data recovery, if needed.  (It sounds like the drives should be intact ... but whatever I can do to help).


Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: March 11, 2020, 02:27:47 PM »
Still down ... and nobody's thought "Maybe I should TWEET the Extent figure" ... argh.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January 2020)
« on: February 07, 2020, 06:57:24 AM »
PIOMAS Volume as at 31 January 2020  18,283 km3

First, thanks again G ... appreciate all you do.

OCD Alert (mine lol) - in the comparison table (4th graphic), the cell that reads "2019 More (+) or Less (-) than" ... should say "2020" ...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: February 01, 2020, 06:30:57 AM »

I for one am surprised that there is any correlation at all. And if this is real and not statistical noise, what could be the mechanism behind it?

A possible mechanism?  The smaller the floating ice "cap" on the Arctic Ocean, the more open water is able to radiate heat to space, especially once the sun sets for a long period - six months at the pole, less further south but still substantial (112 days at Svalbard).  Perhaps the greater amount heat that "bleeds" from the ocean during this period influences the January extent?

Just takin' a shot.  Question for grixm - my slightly baked theory (microwaved?) would suggest September extent as the independent variable (x-axis) ... is it the other way around because your postulating "more in spring -> less in September" ...?  Thanks

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 31, 2019, 05:43:04 AM »
I will be traveling on the next 7 hours, so I will appreciate if someone else updates the ADS JAXA data.

Thank you.

JAXA 12/30 Extent 12,287,365 sq. km.
Gain of 37,861 sq. km.

I used the same years as Juan has been using in the graph ... table will have to wait for the man himself eh ...  8)

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: December 28, 2019, 11:02:30 PM »

Hey, Thank You for the info, I'm "new ice" and very interested in the knowledge on this board.  The low pressure on the - what do you call it - Russia/Norway side of the Arctic ... how does that impact radiation outbound (cooling)...? 

I've been trying to get the relationships down - low pressure = rising air, etc ... but why the low?  With little or no cloud cover.  It's a mystery to me ....

In the present set-up we have the polar vortex in the upper atmosphere near the pole and it's keeping the cold air locked up in the Arctic.

Good for ice in the Arctic now but low snow cover extent would be concern come Spring time.

Thanks again ... I think I need to read more history ... it's fascinating!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: December 28, 2019, 12:13:10 AM »

To the "old hands" out there ... wondering if this is what the "old normal" used to look like...? 
A glimpse of the past, for a week at least...?

This present NH mean sea level set-up reminds me very much of December 1988. That was the month that began a very mild winter in western Europe and the time when I first started to take notice of "global warming" or whatever it was called back then.

Here is the Dec 1988 pattern and the current GFS 10 mean forecast.
Hey, Thank You for the info, Niall.  I'm "new ice" and very interested in the knowledge on this board.  The low pressure on the - what do you call it - Russia/Norway side of the Arctic ... how does that impact radiation outbound (cooling)...? 

I've been trying to get the relationships down - low pressure = rising air, etc ... but why the low?  With little or no cloud cover.  It's a mystery to me ....

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 27, 2019, 07:27:02 AM »
With low cloud cover leaving the Arctic open to radiate unimpaired to space, plus "offshore" (quotes to signify of the ice mass as well as land) winds over the peripheral seas and cold temperatures, 2019 is closing out with a bang for ice formation. 

Interesting situation ... extent is second only to 2014 for the date, for the decade, and exceeds end-of-year extent for 4 of the years.  Chart shows the current numbers vs. the rest of decade, and what would be needed to end the year "on top" - looks like top 3 or 4 is makeable, #1 for the decade of the "twenty-teens" a long shot ...

Table - red indicates year at left is LESS than 2019, or LOSS would be needed to equal on 12/31.
Color bands in gif green, blue, light blue demarcate 10 to 0, 0 to -10, and -10 to -20 C.

To the "old hands" out there ... wondering if this is what the "old normal" used to look like...? 
A glimpse of the past, for a week at least...?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 25, 2019, 05:29:07 AM »
Dec 24 & 25 JAXA Extent back up, or now up, or ... here they are:

Dec 23 - 11,985,836    - gain of 122,375
Dec 24 - 12,064,159    - gain of   78,323

A cold wind from Santa's sleigh to the ice...?  Merry Christmas!

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 24, 2019, 02:09:39 PM »
Weird.  No data yet, but the 12/23 image is up - animated from 12/18-12/23, with 22/23 flip-flop 3 times at the end ....

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Smart" and "Stupid" Questions - Feel Free To Ask
« on: December 15, 2019, 04:42:17 PM »
Do countries like Cuba and America calculate life expectancy the same way? If the US makes heroic efforts to save a “misborn” baby who lives for a few days and Cuba just lets them die and considers them miscarriages, for example, that could shift life expectancy.

Good intuition!  Yes, different countries calculate Life Expectancy in different ways, infant deaths having particularly disparate methodologies.  This makes "macro" variables like Infant Mortality and Life Expectancy "problematic" when comparing countries.  That said, there's also demographic factors that cloud the stats - Americans drive more, and die more on the road, for example.  Take out Violent Deaths (accidents, suicides, murders) and the USA has the 2nd highest Life Expectancy on Earth, just behind Japan.

When comparing Health Systems, economists (when not trying to "prove" a point) look at OUTCOMES - a slightly dated example (about a decade old) on Prostate Cancer - 5 year post-diagnosis Mortality:  If you found out on January 1, 2010, that 200 ASIF lurkers JUST found out they had Prostate Cancer, 100 in the UK, 100 in the USA, by January 1, 2015 you could expect to hear of 27 funerals due to the cancer in the UK ... versus 3 in the USA.

The cost ... ahhh the cost.  Truly out of control in the USA ... BUT ... health insurance is the culprit, primarily, and its purchase PRE-TAXATION is a big part of it.  Austrian-style analysis serves well here (just as it did during past and current Housing Bubbles):  Prices equilibrate to the "leverage" provided by income tax rates just as they do to interest rates - prices are set "on the margin." 

If one were to make, say, automobiles fully tax-deductible, one would expect prices to rise commensurately, and one would not be disappointed when they did - other than to shake one's head yet again on how government policies distort markets and create Deadweight Losses.  Most healthcare is PALLIATIVE, not critical, life-saving stuff.  Not to be "uncaring," but to an economist, a hip replacement and a new BMW are both simply purchases that improve quality of life. 

The whole thing's a mess.  Imagine "we" had health-style insurance on an even greater necessity than healthcare - FOOD.  All your groceries and meals, tax deductible.  Think it would shift the quality mix and quantity (in dollars) of food purchases?  Of course it would.  Imagine paying 20% "copay" on steak dinners - $200 at Ruth's Chris, but only $40 to me.  Hell yes I'll have the creamed spinach, and bring us another bottle of wine.

Of course, if we did this today, overnight, the line at RC would be around the block the next day.  Supply wouldn't match demand until ... prices were hiked.  And that, in a nutshell, is the story of the United States' high health spending.  Good or bad, that's normative and not in the economist's purview, strictly speaking.  Imagine yourself in need of emergency surgery, tho ... where do you want to be:  New York or Havana...?  2 cents worth, over and out....

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 12, 2019, 08:05:50 PM »
Windy weather is expected in the Chukchi Sea.

Hi - novice/lurker question here: Given the open water, high winds and high pressure, would you expect accelerated IR heat loss to space in the Chuckchi...?  Trying to prime the pump of understanding what you guys "see" ... thanks!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 11, 2019, 05:05:39 PM »
Great graphics, guys.  Amazing how the Atlantic Front receded like that so late in the season, eh.

There's a storm in the Barents ... can't help but stare at it and wonder, what the heck is coming next...!

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 07, 2019, 05:32:45 AM »
Still trying to understand how the *warmest* August on record, according to awesome +70N 925hPa temps chart produced by Zack Labe, led to such a poor loss of ice extent. No convincing explanation so far. We don’t know an iota of what’s going on apart from the inexorable warming.

Have you compared it to the satellite data?  UAH shows August with positive anomaly at the pole but not the highest anomaly for August.  I only took a quick glance but it would be interesting to compare the satellite anomalies with melt rates ... in one's spare time ... if one had any lol ....

UAH lower troposphere here -

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: September 19, 2019, 07:08:41 PM »
I am confused.  I check the NSIDC site most days, and there seems to be a disconnect between what I am seeing on the NSDIC site and what is posted here.  For Sept 18 NSIDC daily extent shows as 4.153 million km^2 edging below 20016 and 2007 to 2nd lowest after several days of steady losses.  I assume that we are somehow looking at different NSIDC data?

Yes.  Area (gerontocrat) vs. Extent (your graph). 

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: September 16, 2019, 11:22:30 PM »
Wipneus regional extent updated today.
2019 CAB extent looking likely to join 2018 (brown) in a later refreeze. Not a trend yet but perhaps 2012 (yellow) was an indication of the shape of things to come.

edit: osisaf ice drift, sep8-15. Compaction in many areas, especially on the atlantic side west of FJL.

Compaction on the Atlantic side is the main cause for extent losses and I find it quite unbelievable how much ice we have lost in the past week  due to a set up no doubt 15+ years ago would be favourable for ice as another poster alluded too, high pressure promotes clearer skies therefore heat allowing to escape into space quicker and the compaction effects would be much smaller.

Would also add the troughing around the high would most definately produce colder air temperatures than it does these days, the ECM constantly wants to go colder in the medium range whilst the GFS does not and the reality is the GFS is always on the money more in these circumstances.

You can see the cracks closing up as the wind was blowin' like crazy ....

Shout out - for the humor and civility to Blumenkraft.  After I stopped laughing, I read the entire topic stream (next time, in advance eh) ... the cracks have been a big issue since 2016.  For what it's worth, and since I didn't see it on here yet, here's the most cited paper I could find on the Petermann ice tongue, it's speed, the grounding line, all that.  Sharing is caring ... I'm told lol.

Well hallelujah ... it does look like ice.  Dirty or very thin.  Guess it's re-freezing given the temps.  Thanks man ....

(BTW - anybody know where the grounding line actually is?)

Was checking out Petermann today - the plot thickens.  For reference I put together a graphic of the last giant floe I remember (July 2012) along with yesterday's view of the glacier from the same source.  Looks like the tongue of the glacier has advanced idk, 8-10 km since 2012.

While doing this, I also looked at yesterday's high-res image and danged if my "floater" conception needs revision - there's visible (what sure looks like) rock as the floor of the cracks.  Now I'm wondering if it's "just" an uneven grounding line, maybe meltwater pulses below the glacier cause the cracking ... stumped, at least for now.

Anyway, that's all I have, curious as always....

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 30, 2019, 06:42:30 PM »
PIOMAS volume provides monthly data, soon... DMI does have a daily tracker. I searched the forum for any comments on its validity and didn't see anything concerning, feel free to correct me.
I am waiting for this, will help tell us how much of the stall is due to dispersion vs a real stall in melting.
Biases in PIOMAS are discussed here:

PIOMAS won't help a lot at this stage because it overstates the volume of thin ice. With more thin ice widely distributed the PIOMAS volume estimate may hold up despite a reality of less ice. The last few days appear to have spread the ice and lowered the concentration which will lead to an increase in the error in the PIOMAS estimate.

As the attached graph shows the over estimate of volume, on ice below 1m thick according to  submarine measurements, could be double what the submarines are seeing.

As long as the methodology of PIOMAS is consistent, it should be fine for comparison.  The operative comparison is not between model and reality, it's between model and previous years' model results. The r-squared ain't that bad. eh. 

Point is adjusting the previous years' model estimators to observed values, if done uniformly, wouldn't change any ratios.  It sure would change the estimate of latent heat of the entire ice mass, tho - so there is that.  Just my 2 cents....

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 30, 2019, 06:34:43 PM »

JAXA daily extent loss in the last 2 weeks very much below average and on this day up from a -0k extent loss to a below average 11k extent loss. Definitely not a one-off - this is an event.
Given that Arctic temperature anomalies have been consistently above average and that SSTs have been and are very high, this two week stall in extent (and now area) loss is a complete mystery to me.

Gerontocrat - I've been keeping an eye on the ENSO index all year, about every day (for a side bet, the usual amount) ... I know the local temperatures seem contra-intuitive as you mentioned, but on a simple "seems" basis, it seems like the heat just shut off as insolation dropped latter half of August, and I can't help but notice the ENSO faded almost in unison with the melt stall.

Correlation implying Causation?  Yeah I know, but as a data-driven scientist (day job), it makes me take note.  So here's my question for an experienced ice tracker - the big melt came from the Pacific side ... so could that be what's "missing" from the late melt, Pacific heat...?  Curious what you think, as I said, I'm rank novice newbie to ice analysis.  Thanks.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: August 30, 2019, 06:58:31 AM »
Since Juan is out ... my humble submission of a less complete pinch hit...:

JAXA Extent for August 29, 2019 - loss of 10,785 square km.

I believe the final end of the glacier is riding on a layer of water beneath it, as evidenced every time a giant berg breaks off and floats away ... I remember one that made the news in August 2012.  Those same cracks appeared in pretty much the same place in August 2018 (pic attached).

I'm far from fully informed on this kind of thing, but I think the end of most glaciers is actually floating on water beneath, and there's a "grounding" line upstream where it's still riding on land.  Maybe this has something to do with it...?  Perhaps somebody more knowledgeable on glaciers can help enlighten on this?  Interesting stuff....

Crazytown.  July 29-August 25 ... click to animate in new window.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 03:55:44 PM »
I'm curious why so many ppl want a BOE as soon as possible.
Equating hopes and things to want. I might want a way to travel by a vehicle that's not using any fossil fuels in all it's lifetime, but there's no hope I could afford it LOL.

Here ya go ...  8)

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 09:13:10 AM »
I wanted to be the first to follow the requested instructions and just answer, not comment ... tho I suppose I broke that rule, mildly.

I don't understand those who desire doom and destruction, some verging on "apocalypse porn" even, when it comes to the ice.  I deal in a social science, so perhaps it's because I've learned the (sometimes costly) lesson - ALWAYS check your Assumptions.

So it seems misanthropic, some comments, wishing for disaster, even if to "wake up the world" ... to the disaster ... which if it doesn't happen wouldn't need anyone "woke" to it ... <continue circular reasoning here>.  Malthus was wrong.  Erlich was wrong.  Yes, SO FAR, for both.  But ... how many societies/cultures have reached steady, or even shrinking, population ALL BY THEMSELVES...?  Are people unaware that this is relatively common in "advanced" countries...? 

I'm hoping I don't see a BOE in my lifetime because that's a rational risk-averse position, even though study of history and technology leads me to be optimistic even if it warms, BOE is an annual thing, and the sea level rises 2 meters in my lifetime ... and covers the 8000 year old coral reefs at Jupiter Beach Florida, which are 2 meters above today's sea level.  It was on a visit to those reefs that I had a mild epiphany:  Things just might work out after all ... again.

Man is a tremendously adaptable species.  Filthy, rapacious, sure ... but adaptable all the same. The Dystopic Vision is fraught with assumptions.  And has ILL EFFECTS on health and well being - that consensus has long been "in" among doctors.  So relax, gents, and have a nice day. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: Are you hoping to witness a BOE?
« on: August 23, 2019, 08:58:45 AM »
Not only NO, but HELL NO.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 15, 2019, 08:24:36 AM »
There's a good view for the first time in a long time on the ice that's left in the ESS. I'm absolutely gobsmacked to see how long that ice is lasting. I think I predicted a month ago that it would only last a few more days. Yet today, it's still there... Amazing! That was a good lesson!

Same here, FG ... only thing I can think of is the high enthalpy of fusion of water, something I think of on the chairlifts every spring skiing trip, actually.  Same thought every time:  With I knew more about the energy sources and sinks....

(nota bene - that ain't me lol)

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: August 09, 2019, 04:26:40 PM »
The isolated blues on this map near the edges of the GIS, could they be related to the glaciers slumping toward the sea? Meaning an area close to the edge of the ice sheet is suddenly slightly higher because the glacier sped up?

Why else the isolated blues? The big mass of blue down in the SE corner makes sense.

Surface Mass Balance (SMB) = gains - losses ... from the surface.  Basically precipitation gains minus sublimation/ablation losses.  It doesn't include base melt losses or glacial calving losses.

The blue is in those area due to most of the precip hitting the east coast of Greenland this season.  If you look at the Aug 8 (not cumulative) map you can see the blue addition of the latest systems' precipitation in the daily map G posted right before yours.

Attached is is the 3 hour precip from right now (8:20 EST 8/9) showing the remnants of the systems, but you get the idea.  Still, the 8/8 map is red on the SE coast as the precip may have been rain at coastal altitudes, adding to the melt, or if snow, simply was falling on top of still melting melting - didn't "stick" as we used to say as kids.

Hope this helps.  I'm a lurker/newbie mahself so any corrections please and thanks.

Here's a good glossary on the topic:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: August 02, 2019, 06:52:18 AM »
August should be a very interesting month ... insolation at the pole starts dropping like a stone.  The race is on.  Personally, I'm rooting for the ice ... but it is not looking good.

Policy and solutions / Re: Why people don't listen to experts
« on: July 29, 2019, 01:32:57 AM »
Econ has this down pat. 

Externality - an individual makes a choice that has a positive impact (benefit minus cost) to that person, because some, most, or all of the costs are borne by others.  A simple example - ordering dinner with a group when you've pre-arranged to divide the check evenly.  Worse, ordering drinks.  Louis XIV anyone?

Free Rider - the action, whoever does it, benefits everyone.  So one can simply wait for others to act and benefit without any time or effort.  This often leads to nobody acting.

Tragedy Of The Commons - individual payoff is positive to some behavior, for each individual facing the decision separately.  Collectively, the social optimum level of behavior is exceeded.  Named for observed overgrazing of village "commons" ... also applies to over-fishing, etc.

The good news is, there are well-known solutions to these incentive effects.  The bad news, politicians have a hard time understanding them ... or more so have the wrong incentives placed upon them to behave in their constituents' best interest.

OK so as an economist, I'm going to spare you the "on the other hand" part.  ;)

Perhaps this series of posts by Neven is the explanation of the term though use goes back at least a further year as linked.

Thanks! Dr. T and Crandles ... that makes a lot of sense.

Here's my stupid question, regarding "momentum."  I keep hearing that word - can someone enlighten me as to actual observations on such a thing...?  By this I mean serial correlation of extent and/or area ... any studies or data on this...?

Asking cuz at first-glance it seems to me counterintuitive - as ice melts, it cools the water, doesn't it?  As I recall it would cool 720 cubic km of water by 0.1 C to melt 1 cu km of ice, if it was only the water doing the heat transfer.  Is "momentum" something else entirely?  Weather?  Currents?

Appreciate any insight, thanks.  Been wondering ....

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 23, 2019, 05:26:32 AM »

So without any surprise, MERRA2 data backup NCEP/NCAR reanalysis and confirm that the Arctic suck up energy at an impressive pace in June. The first graph updates the scatter plot of September sea ice extent by the NSIDC, versus the June surface net downward solar flux (with a reverse scale on the left, in blue). As forecasted, Arctic (northward of 70°N) surface solar flux reached 120 W/m², a new record. The second and third graph are a quick comparison of accumulated heat in 2019, 2016, and 2012. And last, the map for June 2019, showing the strong signal in Beaufort, Chukchi and Laptev.

Wait ... this would imply (via the correlation) that sea ice is responding to insolation levels ... what about CO2...?   I would be interesting to see a multivariate regression including both.  Asking for a friend lol. 

Apparently this glacier is given to variation in its transport of ice to the coast.  Could it be just "fits and starts" of the flow?  I don't remember where I found this image but as I recall it's from a study of the height of the glacier "upstream." 

Maybe it's built up more "headwaters" and is changing its rate of flow?  I'm curious ... I have no expertise in this area.

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: July 04, 2019, 07:51:05 PM »

You shouldn't be allowed to lie about something that's scientifically proven.
Hate speech shouldn't be allowed.

What is so radical with those rules?

The point is, the issue is, WHO DECIDES...? 

Do you trust your government to decide what is true, what is false?  Whether Iraq really has WMD's?  Whether it's hate speech to call THEM liars...?

Ever read the opposing "press" on Adams and Jefferson during their first Presidential contest?  In 1800, the candidates ... well, Adams himself called Jefferson ""a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father."

Should an agency of government "stepped in" to punish him for hate speech?  What if his father was not "mulatto" ... who would decide if that was proven true, or false?

As they used to say, "Who's watching the Watchers?"

I hope this gives a bit of the argument - the consensus from American jurisprudence is that ALL speech is legal, except when DIRECTLY causing violence or destruction.  You can't say "Somebody shoot that hateful <pick a person> now!" ... but you can say "I hope <pick a person> dies soon."

The "cure" for hate speech and lies is, in American tradition, MORE SPEECH.  Proving people wrong, condemning their lies, exposing them.  That's not perfect of course, in fact sure, it's the worst system ... EXCEPT, to paraphrase a famous Brit, for all the others....

(I really do recommend reading about the 1800 Adams-Jefferson race ... it's very interesting.)

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: July 04, 2019, 05:34:26 PM »
Wow.  Rather than comment about the law and human rights - here, Free Speech - I think I'll let this do the explaining far better. 

When it comes to government force policing speech, I would recommend extreme caution ... careful what you wish for, ladies and gents....

The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: June 16, 2019, 09:59:12 PM »
This is a work document from Mobile Bay, AL.  I'm posting it because it triggered a gestalt - one of those moments when you "see the big picture" regarding this subject (Peak Oil) but more so the entire topic of Ice, AGW, Climate, and Life On Earth.

I'll admit my "insight" was very simple, stuff we all learned in junior high, not grad school.  Still, since I found it connected a few dots (in particular, something I'd only recently learned on continental drift) I thought I'd share....

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: June 08, 2019, 04:27:48 PM »
The latest round of Book Burning … not going to end well....

The rest / Re: Is Man the "Unnatural Animal?"
« on: May 15, 2019, 10:06:21 AM »
In about 5 billion years, the Sun is expected to swell up (and heat up) and "swallow" the Earth, cooking off all the water first.

Well before then, around 800 million years from now, all multicellular life WOULD BE expected to have died out ... due to carbon sequestration, which has been going on since the Hadean period (atmosphere reacting with rock), with the addition of sequestration due to life itself since carbon-fixing through photosynthesis began, about 2.5 billion years ago.

Would be.  Then along comes homo sapiens.  I'm just throwing it out there....

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Greenland 2019 Melt Season
« on: May 03, 2019, 05:42:16 PM »

The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 19, 2019, 02:33:15 AM »
The Notes:

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Table 2.14 of the Transportation Energy Data Book 36B. 2018.
BTU to GGE conversion taken from Appendix A3 of the Monthly Energy Review, September 2018.

This chart shows average per-passenger fuel economy of various modes of passenger travel. All forms of rail achieve relatively high values due to high ridership and energy efficiency of rail transport. Airlines are an increasingly efficient form of transport as more passengers are fit onto planes and ticketing software fills most planes to capacity. Motorcycles achieve a high number of passenger miles per gallon, owing to very high fuel efficiency. Transit buses are not very efficient at their current ridership rates, where, on average, a given bus is less than 25% full. Demand response vehicles are the least efficient, because they need to use fuel just to get to the passenger.

The rest / Re: Climate change activists should not fly
« on: April 19, 2019, 02:31:23 AM »
You know, this is all predicated on aviation being the least efficient means of transportation. But is it? I've always heard that, but that doesn't mean it is true.

Take NYC to LA
Scenario 1 Boeing 747-400 in a "medium" 524 passengers in a typical two-class layout,
Scenario 2 262 medium sized cars on the Interstate,
Scenario 3 A cruise ship with 524 passengers going through the Panama Canal, and
Scenario 4 A passenger train (I suspect this would be best. I also suspect it is impossible in the Real World)

Roughly what would be the carbon emissions of these four trips? has anyone done the math?

I hate to say, "As economist, I find it helpful to find data and display it visually" ... ahh, what the heck.  From the US Dept of Energy....

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: April 15, 2019, 12:19:25 AM »
As it is recorded since Sep 1 I think that there couldn't hace occurred any melting since then, at least not in higher altitudes (> 300 m). Where does this mass loss come from? Snow drift by strong winds? Sublimation? Compaction (and therefore no mass loss, but slight elevation change, interpreted as mass loss)? I have no idea...

I believe that's a map of ANOMALY - so the areas in red have less mass buildup than baseline buildup-to-date (not mass loss); likewise, those in blue show greater than baseline buildup. 

Here's the melt map for total melt this season:

The politics / Re: The problem of social media
« on: April 10, 2019, 11:23:54 AM »
It's old news of course, but at least someone in the US is talking about it this way once in a while.

The Final Battle in Big Tech’s War to Dominate Your World
Facebook, Amazon, Apple, and Google are fighting for unbroken control of American life.
By David Dayen
April 9, 2019

Bellum omnium contra omnes is Latin for “the war of all against all.” Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Hobbes used the phrase to describe the natural state of man in the absence of governmental authority. It’s also an accurate description of the U.S. economy right now, as some of its biggest corporations are left to their own devices.

Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google
are waging a war of all against all—a war for all of your time, all of your money, all of your worldly interactions and desires. They want to be your one indispensable partner for navigating life, and to get there, they must destroy one another.

If the government doesn’t step in, the American public will become collateral damage.

The public are already the collateral damage.

I wholeheartedly agree, and hope everyone will focus on a simple solution:  Recognition of PRIVACY as a Civil Right, not to be violated without consent.  Meaning you OWN your personal information - content of posts, emails, etc, your location, and so on - outright, placing it into a legal regime similar to copyright - not to be violated without PER USE permission. 

One click on an 8000 word User Agreement would then not suffice to track your one's every move, log one's every click and post, and sell that information on to advertisers.  If they want to do that, fine - cut me in on the revenue?  At the very least, ask for permission.

How radical, eh.  Defining PROPERTY RIGHTS as a solution.  Cheers.

Pages: [1] 2