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 - Paddy

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Please give your best guess in answer to the poll title.  The poll closes at the end of January; you may change your answer at any time up to then.  Narrow overlapping bins have been used.

Figures from previous years (with thanks to Darvince for his post last year with most of these):

2017: 2.15 (lowest on record)
2016: 2.66
2015: 3.59 (2nd highest)
2014: 3.54
2013: 3.69 (highest on record)
2012: 3.22
2011: 2.32 (3rd lowest)

2006: 2.41

1997: 2.25 (2nd lowest)

1993: 2.37 (4th lowest)

1986: 3.01
1985: 2.58
1984: 2.53
1983: 2.91
1982: 3.01
1981: 2.74
1980: 2.53
1979: 2.87

Last month's poll results can be found here: https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2212.0.html

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 15, 2018, 04:28:07 PM »
So a spread of results between all four, with reducing emissions a clear favourite. No big surprise there.

3
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: Poll: Nares Strait closure in 2018
« on: January 15, 2018, 04:25:40 PM »
Gone for Feb, as Oren says that it's typical, but tbh I really have no idea.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: January Poll: IJIS Maximum
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:11:04 AM »
Personally I've gone down half a step to 13.75 - 14m. A new record by a smallish margin now seems slightly more likely, although my expectation is something similar to the last three years.

5
Arctic sea ice / January Poll: JAXA Maximum
« on: January 15, 2018, 09:09:05 AM »
Poll closes end of January. Give us your best bets on the outcome for maximum sea ice extent this freezing season. You can adjust your vote any time before the poll closes.

Bins and format are the same as for the December poll, ie narrow overlapping bins.

Previous years:
2017: 13.88
2016: 13.96
2015: 13.94
2014: 14.45
2013: 14.52
2012: 14.71
2011: 14.13
2010: 14.69
2009: 14.66
2008: 14.77
2007: 14.21
2006: 14.13
2005: 14.4

<modified the title, as IJIS doesn't put out data anymore; Neven>

6
Policy and solutions / Re: Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 09, 2018, 08:59:11 AM »
Withdrew my earlier vote. No4 depends on what Paddy meant with "other solutions", but he never responded to that. That could include unwanted solutions and countermeasures as well.
I probably read too much into that one.

Why not include the only option we have right now; hope.

Sorry about that. I wasn't very specific, but I was thinking other engineered solutions that might not count as full on geoengineering, particularly direct temperature reduction by eg increasing heat reflected in building design (white rooftops, white roads etc).

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 06, 2018, 01:17:55 PM »
I'm not at all convinced by iron fertilisation, or by grand geoengineering schemes.

I'm also not at all convinced of the forecast of population collapse through famine etc. Any event so drastic as to kill tens of millions of people will also lead to more births surely after, as people have more kids when and after times are unstable.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 04, 2018, 09:51:10 PM »
I need an "All of the Above" button.

Me too.

Sorry, it seemed too much of a clear winner.

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 04, 2018, 11:58:55 AM »
Personally, I'm opting for net greenhouse gas emissions per capita, because this seems more malleable than population (as evidence, see the rate of change in many countries in recent years, and consider the reducing costs of renewables today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions_per_capita), and if we do slow down climate change, we then make adaptation to whatever change we have a lot more feasible, whereas the reverse seems less definite.  And like Avalonian, I also don't trust geoengineering solutions.

10
Policy and solutions / Poll: Relative importance of countermeasures
« on: January 04, 2018, 10:57:55 AM »
Another poll, 1 week to click as you choose. Personally, I believe that we should be addressing all of the above, but I also have my own opinion on which is most important.

Feel free to also respond by ranking them in order of importance if you so wish.

EDIT: You may change your vote if you so choose.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: January 04, 2018, 10:12:45 AM »
NH snow cover is also interesting right now:

Interesting as in the old curse "may you live in interesting times" :-S

At least, on the positive side, there shouldn't be any direct link between E Europe snow in the region where it's less than normal and arctic sea ice.

12
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: January 02, 2018, 04:37:19 PM »
There are much cheaper ways to cool buildings than traditional A.C., such as a Bangladeshi invention called the Eco-cooler: https://inhabitat.com/this-amazing-bangladeshi-air-cooler-is-made-from-plastic-bottles-and-uses-no-electricity/

But yes, solar a.c. units cost at least a couple thousand us $

13
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 01, 2018, 09:00:32 AM »
RE the 5% drop in vehicle registrations in Britain:  One of the things I will be looking for...is a "transition period" where potential car buyers hold off on purchasing a new car....because they want to buy an EV because they see where the market is going...but they also see the cost of EV's dropping...so they may try to stretch the length of time they hold onto their current car for two or three more years before they pull the trigger.

That's not far off my position. I'm currently holding onto a little old car and waiting on anticipated further improvements in electric with a view to maybe going that way next. Also waiting on closing my purchase of a house.

In other news, in the USA, transport has recently overtaken power
generation as the leading source of CO2 emissions, while sales of highly fuel efficient cars or electric cars aren't going too well:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jan/01/vehicles-climate-change-emissions-trump-administration

14
Antarctica / Re: December poll: Antarctic sea ice minimum extent
« on: December 31, 2017, 10:10:12 AM »
Poll closes in two hours. I suspect the last 2m square km may be very resilient, as there are always sheltered areas plus the negative feedback of increased amounts of shelf and glacier ice breaking off, but what do I know?

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 31, 2017, 10:04:17 AM »
Poll closed, just as I was considering going down another half bin

16
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 30, 2017, 03:00:26 PM »
It's possible that despite all the other problems with Brexit, it may be marginally helpful for the planet. Overall new car registrations in the UK in Jan to Nov 2017 are down 5% on the year before, from 2.51m to 2.39m, even though alternative fuel vehicle sales are up 34%, from 83k to 111k: https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 30, 2017, 12:05:55 PM »
Last chance to change your vote if you want to. Currently extent is lowest on record, but the question is whether this is likely to continue or not.

EDIT: Personally, I'm sticking to 13.875 - 14.125

18
Antarctica / Re: December poll: Antarctic sea ice minimum extent
« on: December 30, 2017, 11:59:03 AM »
Time's running out if you want to vote or adjust your vote. EDIT: currently, Antarctic sea ice extent is the second lowest on record for the date, but there's still quite a lot more than there was in 2016 at the same date. I've moved down half a bin to 2.125 - 2.375 myself to embrace the possibility of staying in 2nd place.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 27, 2017, 10:00:24 AM »
If anyone wants to adjust your vote, you have until the 31st to do it.

Currently we're still tracking at 2nd lowest volume, 2nd lowest extent, and 2nd warmest conditions for the time of year, so imho you might want to consider a bin that includes 2nd lowest peak extent, or something not far off it.

20
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 26, 2017, 02:56:05 AM »
Thomas Fire is now 281,620 acres in size, but 86% contained.  http://m.fire.ca.gov/IncidentsCurrent.aspx

1500 fire fighters are still working on bringing this completely under control: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-thomas-fire-christmas-20171225-story.html

21
The rest / Re: Arctic Café
« on: December 25, 2017, 02:00:30 AM »
Merry Christmas, everyone!

22
Arctic sea ice / Re: JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent Ranking - end of 2017
« on: December 24, 2017, 11:39:10 PM »
Feeling fairly confident that it'll be either 2nd or 3rd. I can see why a lot of people prefer overlapping bins.

23
Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: December 24, 2017, 12:30:28 AM »
Phillippines:

“Many people were swept to the sea as flood waters quickly rose due to the high tide,” Manuel Luis Ochotorena, a disaster agency official, said. “They never heeded the warnings. They thought it was a weak storm but it dumped more rains.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-storm-philippines/more-than-100-dead-in-philippine-mudslides-flooding-officials-idUSKBN1EH05A

The death toll is now over 180, with 160 more people missing https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/23/dozens-killed-in-philippine-mudslides-and-floods-as-storm-hits

24
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 22, 2017, 06:04:36 AM »
Agreed re the deaths of despair, slthough the opioid deaths slso represent a failure in both pain control practice and public health.

A curious statistical note about this data is that age-adjusted death rates actually reduced in spite of the drop in life expectancy. This happened because life expectancy is a median figure, and the distribution of deaths changed, with older adults slightly less likely to die than previously and younger adults slightly more likely:

The age-adjusted death rate for the total population decreased 0.6% from 733.1 per 100,000 standard population in 2015 to 728.8 in 2016

...

Death rates increased significantly between 2015 and 2016 for age groups 15–24 (7.8%), 25–34 (10.5%), 35–44 (6.7%), and 55–64 (1.0%) (Figure 3).

Death rates decreased significantly for age groups 65–74 (0.5%), 75–84 (2.3%), and 85 and over (2.1%).

Total deaths in the USA, meanwhile, increased by 30000 to 2.74 million in spite of this drop in the age-adjusted death rate, an apparent discrepancy that can be explained by population aging plus 0.7% per annum population growth.

25
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 21, 2017, 01:41:44 PM »
Life expectancy has dropped for a second year running in the USA between 2015 and 2016. Only by 0.1 years, but this might represent a break in the previous consistent rise in life expectancy in the West, especially considered the parallel drop in the EU between 2014 and 2015. What's interesting, and a little tragic, however, is that the drop comes primarily due to rising mortality among young adults, with a particular rise in drug overdose deaths.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db293.htm

This may suggest a lower peak for life expectancy among both western countries and other countries adopting western lifestyles than had been forecast, potentially. In turn, this would lead to smaller populations

However, the drop in life expectancy may well be reversible if, for starters, the opioid epidemic in the USA is addressed,  and it's worth noting that the USA is well off any hard limit on modern life expectancy, as Japan etc are so far ahead, so life expectancy may very well rise again.

26
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 20, 2017, 04:41:10 PM »
The winds that have been driving the Thomas fire are due to return today: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fire-ledeall-20171220-story.html

27
Antarctica / Re: December poll: Antarctic sea ice minimum extent
« on: December 19, 2017, 08:26:39 PM »
Votes are kind of all over the place so far...

28
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 19, 2017, 03:24:27 PM »
Thomas fire now at 271,750 acres in size, which is less than 2000 acres below the Califirnuan record, but also 50% contained now, thankfully http://m.fire.ca.gov/IncidentsCurrent.aspx

29
The rest / Climate friendly politicians
« on: December 19, 2017, 08:23:05 AM »
On a more positive note than the Trump thread, how about a thread to flag up politicians and parties worth supporting? Green parties everywhere are obvious, but we could also pick out individuals, such as this person in California who claims to be running to be the only earth scientist in the house: https://www.facebook.com/jessphx/

Anyone have any further endorsements to make?

30
Policy and solutions / Re: Media (Lack of) CC Coverage
« on: December 19, 2017, 06:54:33 AM »
Foil Arms and Hog did a fairly nice little sketch on media "balance on such issues:

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent Ranking - end of 2017
« on: December 17, 2017, 10:34:23 PM »
Guessed at 3rd, so 3-4.

32
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 16, 2017, 02:38:06 AM »
Thank you!

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 14, 2017, 09:03:34 PM »
Going on the high end 14.50-75
Barely missed my high low prediction in Sept. So...why not?

Indeed. And the good thing about going for an outlying value is the bragging rights if you guess right, of course.

Because bins overlap, I postulate that half of each bin can be added to its neighbors (and then 'removed' from consideration)  This gives 14 +/-0.125 the equivalent of 21.5 votes at this time, a hair over half of all votes.  Have we ever converged on a single value so much?  (The determination of our accuracy will come later.)

Maybe in last year's Antarctic poll, but the two aren't immediately comparable. Nope, not even there, although it possibly might have done if it had had a 2.0 +/- 0.125 https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1836.0.html

34
Antarctica / December poll: Antarctic sea ice minimum extent
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:02:39 AM »
Question as in the poll title.  Poll closes at the end of December; ]you may change your answer at any time up to then.  Narrow overlapping bins have been used.

Figures from previous years (with thanks to Darvince for his post last year with most of these):

2017: 2.15 (lowest on record)
2016: 2.66
2015: 3.59 (2nd highest)
2014: 3.54
2013: 3.69 (highest on record)
2012: 3.22
2011: 2.32 (3rd lowest)

2006: 2.41

1997: 2.25 (2nd lowest)

1993: 2.37 (4th lowest)

1986: 3.01
1985: 2.58
1984: 2.53
1983: 2.91
1982: 3.01
1981: 2.74
1980: 2.53
1979: 2.87

EDIT: Drat; no button has appeared to allow people to remove their vote and change it.  Mods, if you see this are you able to fix it?  Sorry to have to ask! EDIT 2: Fixed! Thank you Neven

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: Updating the ASIG
« on: December 13, 2017, 10:45:22 AM »
Most of the long-term graphs go up to 2015 only.  There's also no graph for the arctic annual maximum extent or area among the long term graphs, although of course this is slightly less of a concern than the minimum.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 12, 2017, 08:20:13 PM »
A few figures for reference:

3 year median: 13.94
5 year median: 13.96
7 year median: 14.13
9 year median: 14.45
11 year median: 14.45
13 year median: 14.4

3 year mean: 13.93
5 year mean: 14.15
7 year mean: 14.23
9 year mean: 14.33
11 year mean: 14.36
13 year mean: 14.34

I think a big question regarding how large extent will be this year would be the chances of it bouncing back to previous levels vs staying in a similar area to the last three years vs going even lower. Based on the most recent data I saw, with 2017 second lowest for both extent and dmi freezing days, and 3rd lowest on PIOMAS, I think something similar to the last 3 years is most likely, even though no year prior to the last three went that low, but I'm willing to change my mind.

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 12, 2017, 06:55:22 AM »
Looks like the forum's guesses are pretty closely clustered around the 14m mark.

38
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 11, 2017, 02:36:28 PM »
@Wili, the WP's top 10 were as follows (options 11 to 15 can likely be ignored):

10. Sen. Sherrod Brown (Ohio)

9. New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo

8. Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.)

7. Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.)

6. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.)

5. California Gov. Jerry Brown

4. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)

3. Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.)

2. Former vice president Joe Biden

1. Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.)

@Oren,

Fair point, and I hold myself partly responsible since I wrote the poll that turned into a monster thread on the Trump presidency. I generally stay off these threads most of the time myself.

39
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 11, 2017, 09:20:26 AM »
This article may be of relevance here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/09/08/the-top-15-possible-2020-democratic-nominees-ranked/

I'm a bit concerned regarding the age of some of the potential candidates. Jerry Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden in particular.  The campaign trail is hard work, and the job itself still more so; it doesn't seem suitable for octogenarians. Plus all the made up stuff about Hillary's health in the last election could be only too easily recycled.

That said, I don't really know enough about most of the other candidates out there to really push for an alternative.

40
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: December 11, 2017, 08:49:21 AM »
What was the JAXA 2017 minimum? I'm looking at doing another poll.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: December poll: IJIS maximum
« on: December 11, 2017, 08:43:30 AM »
13.875 to 14.125 million for me. Not expecting a significant departure from the last three years, nor a new record based on the figures so far this freezing season.

42
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 11, 2017, 08:27:00 AM »
It's also not that far off the largest fire in modern Cal history :-S

43
Arctic sea ice / December poll: JAXA maximum
« on: December 11, 2017, 08:25:24 AM »
Poll closes end of December. Give us your best bets on the outcome for maximum sea ice extent. EDIT: You can adjust your vote any time before the poll closes.

I've gone for narrow overlapping bins to allow people to be fairly precise in their guesses.

Previous years:
2017: 13.88
2016: 13.96
2015: 13.94
2014: 14.45
2013: 14.52
2012: 14.71
2011: 14.13
2010: 14.69
2009: 14.66
2008: 14.77
2007: 14.21
2006: 14.13
2005: 14.4

44
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: December 07, 2017, 07:59:49 PM »
I feel that Puerto could make a fair statement along the lines of "no taxation without representation", but I don't know how it would go down in DC...

45
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 07, 2017, 01:01:30 AM »
I happen to be in Ventura County this week.  At my location the primary issue yesterday was poor air quality from smoke.  The winds have been stiffening since daybreak and the Santa Ana’s will pick up again tonight.  My first experience with CA wildfires, and it’s not something I prefer to repeat.

On that note, the mortality figures given for wildfires are certainly an underestimate, since they'll only cover the deaths immediately and directly attributable, and not the deaths among the general population attributable to the worsening air quality.

46
Consequences / Re: Volcanoes
« on: December 07, 2017, 12:58:56 AM »
If this eruption is significant enough to cause such a dip in global temperatures, it'll also be lethal for quite a few people in the local area because of the worsening air pollution.  Plus it will also emit a lot of CO2, which will stick around a lot longer than the cooling sulfates.

47
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 06, 2017, 06:31:55 PM »
Worth noting that even before this week's latest wildfires, 2017 was the third worst year on record for the USA for total hectares burned, after 2015 in first place and then 2006 in second place. A total of 9.19 million hectares had burned by the end of November https://www.nifc.gov/fireInfo/nfn.htm.

48
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: November 22, 2017, 10:38:55 PM »
I want to add, I don't think there is a conspiracy from the government to hide the number of deaths. I wish. If that was the case at least decision makers in the know would have taken better decisions.It was nothing but negligence, amplified by naive decision makers. Fake governance.

Hanson's razor comes to mind. (Iirc it goes: "Never attribute to malice that which can more easily be attributed to stupidity")

49
Policy and solutions / Re: But, but, but India...
« on: November 07, 2017, 09:25:02 AM »
A good summary of the state of play in India, where on the one hand CO2 emissions are rising with a high potential to increase further, and on the other hand renewables and a backlash against the air pollution caused by coal power and road traffic are on the rise:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/06/how-indias-battle-with-climate-change-could-determine-all-of-our-fates

50
Consequences / Re: Health Effects of Climate Change
« on: November 02, 2017, 09:19:01 AM »
Addressing these issues doesn't tend to be in conflict with addressing climate change, however. For instance, if you cut down on fossil fuel use, or work on reforestation, you help to address all three. About the only notable exception was when diesel was touted as climate-friendly, and that's in the past now. Sustainability covers many issues, but climate change is clearly one of the big ones.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8