Messages

1

The rest / Re: The off topic off topic thread

« on: January 15, 2021, 06:25:47 AM »

Best not begin theological discussions.

2

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: January 14, 2021, 11:05:40 PM »

A classic false equivalence.

3

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: January 14, 2021, 11:00:49 PM »

17 % of the new serious cases had their first shot of the Pfizer vaccine. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-data-shows-50-reduction-in-infections-14-days-after-first-vaccine-shot/

Most of these caught it very soon after the first shot, at a time when they were not expected to be protected, so the data doesn't prove much.

As of Jan 10th, of the 375 Israelis who had their first shot and then were infected seriously enough to be hospitalized:
* 244 were 1-7 days after the first shot.
* 124 were 8-14 days after the first shot.
* Only 7 were 15+ days after the first shot.

This doesn't prove much either, as there are many more people 1-7 days and 8-14 days from first shot compared to the number of people 15+ days from first shot. Vaccinations began very recently. So we will have to wait for more info, which will be arriving soon.

An initial study ran by the research arm of Israel's largest HMO tracking 200,000 people showed a significant drop in infection risk after 14 days from first shot, supporting the Pfizer data, but again more info will be had very soon, this is just preliminary stuff.
Actual vaccine efficacy in Israeli conditions will be known with certainty in about a month. Either it works or it doesn't (I expect it does). The country's four HMOs are all fully computerized, and every citizen is enrolled in one of them. The HMOs all provide medical services, they are not just a health insurance scheme. A huge number of Covid tests is run each day, and an intensive tracing effort is underway, so most infections are eventually known and fed into databases.
One could wish Israeli politics were at the level of the country's health system.

One more interesting piece of data: in early December the UK variant had a 2-3% share of infections in Israel. Now one month later that share has jumped to 50%. High infectivity indeed.

4

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 14, 2021, 03:45:31 PM »

And to those occasional few who want to take time off from the forum, if you do so please don't delete your account. It's a shame to lose access to all previous posts and to cut off communications by private messages, when simply lurking silently is an available alternative. And when re-registering (which happens every now and then) people need to get to know you again.

5

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 14, 2021, 03:42:18 PM »

Actually the comment by blu_ice made sense, Covid discussions have caused much dissent this year (as have politics discussions in period after Trump's election). However, at least regarding Covid I would not delete that thread, I find it to be a very useful and in-depth source of information unmatched elsewhere. I wish that those who don't care for it will simply avoid it, rather than being dragged down into the occasional harsh disagreements.

6

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: January 14, 2021, 03:33:36 PM »

According to this article, the proportion of Londoners with antibodies was around 12.8% in November, while for the whole of the UK it was 8.7%. The figures will be higher now, but the "London situation" could very well be taking place even with no significant reinfections. a 10-15% reduction in the R is not enough, especially given the higher infectivity of the new variant...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-cases-antibodies-uk-london-b1773283.html

Coronavirus: 1 in 11 Britons have developed antibodies against Covid, new estimates show
‘Substantial variation’ in antibody positivity between different regions of England, says Office for National Statistics

One in 11 people in England are estimated to have developed antibodies against Covid-19, according to the latest data.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics suggest that a total of 3,914,000 people, or 8.7 per cent of the population, would have returned a positive result if tested for antibodies in November.

This is up from October’s estimate of 3.1 million, and more than double the government’s own analysis, which says that 1.85 million people have been infected with the virus to date.

The ONS said there was “substantial variation” in antibody positivity between different regions of England.

In London, it is estimated that 12.8 per cent of the city’s population have antibodies in their blood. This figure stands at 10.1 per cent in the North East, 10.9 per cent for the North West and 11.1 per cent for Yorkshire and The Humber - three of the hardest-hit regions in the country.

The South West, in contrast, has an antibody positivity rate of 3.9 per cent, suggesting 179,000 people in the region have been exposed to and recovered from the virus.

Outside of England, the ONS estimated that 326,000 people in Scotland have antibodies (7.3 per cent), 140,000 in Wales (5.5 per cent) and 49,000 in Northern Ireland (3.3 per cent).

It takes between two and three weeks for the body to make enough antibodies to fight the infection but once a person recovers, these ‘search-and-destroy’ proteins remain in the blood at low levels.

Over time, a person’s antibody count can decline to the point that tests no longer detect them - though recent research has shown that immunity against Covid-19 lasts at least eight months, and could offer some form of natural protection for a number of years.

The ONS' estimates are based on thousands of blood tests that are carried out by a trained professional at participants’ homes. The results of this survey are then extrapolated to the nationwide population.

Sample testing is specific people over the age of 16 and excludes those in hospitals, care homes and other institutional settings in England.

The 8.7 per cent estimate is the highest since the ONS study began in May, at the height of the first wave.

Then, 3.3 million people - or one in 14 - are thought to have had coronavirus antibodies.

7

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:28:02 AM »

Excellent research, though disturbing results. 1/6 the chance of infection is way too high. Hopefully the larger dataset will be more optimistic, and/or the vaccine turn out to have higher efficacy than previous infection.

8

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2021 Sea ice area and extent data

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:23:46 AM »

Gero you attached the global charts by mistake.

9

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 14, 2021, 03:54:06 AM »

So, I am taking b.c. brutal but honest advice and getting out of here.

I wish you had taken my advice instead, but to each his own.

10

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 13, 2021, 06:14:22 PM »

John Palmer, yes, you got some not nice replies, which I was sorry to read. However, you might not be aware that your posting style contributes to this, by being somewhat antagonistic. There is a way to soften arguments and a way to enhance them. It takes two to tango, refuse to tango and the unpleasantness will normally die down.

No, do not leave, just soften the sharp edges and you are very welcome to stay.

11

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure

« on: January 13, 2021, 05:43:42 AM »

Clearly there is rampant speculation in the financial markets, it has been going on for years fueled by low interest rates and money printing, but this year it has shifted to overdrive with the Fed hell-bent on making the rich richer. I believe Tesla's current valuation and especially its speed of change put it squarely in bubble territory, despite the well-intentioned arguments often made in this thread (remember bubbles can go on for a very long time, so shorting is a recipe for financial suicide).
On the other hand, this does not matter that much. As long as Tesla is funded properly (and they have been smart enough to raise $10B in the last few months, they probably should have yet another round) the short term fluctuation of the share price will not hurt it significantly. Yes investors might be hurt (and some will grow rich) but I'd rather see bubbles in electric cars and renewable energy rather than in banks and fossil fuel companies. In any case, I think too much discussion of the share price and the bubble or lack thereof and the negative sides of speculation is veering off-topic and should not receive so much focus.
Meanwhile Tesla is growing their physical business, building new manufacturing plants in Berlin and Texas and still expanding Shanghai. In addition it is growing the product line, including the soon-to-be-megahit CyberTruck and the long-awaited Semi, and developing massive features including the famed automated driving (which hopefully will succeed though it might not to the full extent hoped for). The end result of this will be cheaper and more efficient electric cars in large quantities, requiring less resources (and consequent environmental damage) to produce per car, and eventually starting to make a dent in the demand for oil.
The only thing that can screw up Tesla's business is an evaporation of the demand, either due to saturation of the potential buyers, the rise of serious competition, or a harsh recession in the potential buyers segment. All of these scenarios don't seem to be coming to fruition anytime soon - a large percentage of car buyers are interested in EVs, and the competition is almost nil, with most automakers efforts laughable.
Of course it would be best to move the globe to electric buses and bicycles, but meanwhile people are buying cars in the tens of millions so I prefer these cars to be electric. Will this solve AGW? No. But it will make it somewhat better, which is more than many other partial solutions can claim.

12

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion

« on: January 13, 2021, 04:59:11 AM »

Superb posts in this thread, and highly disturbing. The PIG is clearly accelerating, admittedly it's what one would expect given the shortening of the ice shelf and the removal of SWT buttressing, but with this data it is confirmed.
Can anyone make a chart of the speed over time? For a selected point (or multiple points) on the PIG/PIIS, the speed shown for that point, preferably averaged to avoid the fluctuations observed in the animations.

13

Arctic sea ice / Re: The caa-greenland mega crack

« on: January 12, 2021, 01:39:44 AM »

Any idea where this black (4m) section in the Lincoln arrived from

neXtSIM models it as there all summer but I think regulars in the Nares thread would probably disagree, as does CS2SMOS, oct22-jan8 (click 5MB)

Indeed, neXtSIM is simply wrong about the Lincoln Sea (as well as along the Ellesmere crack). Compare ice movements shown to what actually took place during the summer as can be seen in various Worldview animations posted on the melting season and other threads. It appears coastal modelling is far from perfect.

14

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: January 10, 2021, 10:25:37 AM »

Posts moved here where they belong, thank you VAK.

15

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?

« on: January 10, 2021, 02:09:11 AM »

If I am not completely off, I think #628 refers to the Ninnis ice shelf.

16

Antarctica / Re: What's new in Antarctica ?

« on: January 10, 2021, 02:02:46 AM »

A map of Antarctic ice shelves.

17

The rest / Re: Masks

« on: January 08, 2021, 09:11:34 PM »

I refuse to click such sites - but taking a peek on the Internet, I think he's wrong. Murders are up because of rising social anger, thanks to the Orange Idiot on the one hand and the Covid crisis on the other hand. Masks are annoying and uncomfortable but do not lead to increased murders, or else the East Asians would have murdered themselves to death already.

18

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: January 08, 2021, 01:05:39 PM »

It is okay to discuss rebounds, though don't expect them to be anything but short term. Still, the short term of Arctic sea ice is quite interesting, as evidenced by the popularity of the seasonal threads. OTOH I strongly doubt a rebound can be predicted so early with any skill.

To all, please avoid snarky comments. If your post has a personal element, delete that element, it's not adding anything useful except annoy or insult the person on the other side of the Internet.

Freegrass - my memory is short on details about Hycom, besides knowing that inter-year comparisons are problematic, but there was a Hycom thread where I think more info can be found.

19

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 08, 2021, 10:17:51 AM »

Thank you nanning, same to him. And to you. And to all...

20

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2020-2021 Snowcover / Misc Obs

« on: January 08, 2021, 10:04:09 AM »

Thanks for these recurring updates, Comradez.

21

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: January 08, 2021, 01:15:57 AM »

As far as I know Hycom is not comparable across the years from 2016 to 2020 as the model was changed in the interim.

22

The politics / Re: The Alt Right

« on: January 07, 2021, 04:50:45 AM »

Wili, put posters on ignore as needed, but don't let their opinions drive you away from this site. Your voice is needed here.

23

The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency

« on: January 07, 2021, 03:58:05 AM »

Had Trump managed to get elected for four more years there's a good chance the USA would have never returned to the rule of democracy (such as it is anyway). Luckily, his power is not fully consolidated and many of the old guard in his own party oppose some of his crazier initiatives. Even so, the USA has tottered on the brink of anarchy in the last two months.

24

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: January 06, 2021, 10:28:59 AM »

Posts in the new thread should be barred from the recent posts display, as were other popular/controversial threads. Can that be done only by Neven?

25

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)

« on: January 06, 2021, 03:43:20 AM »

Finally, in its last gasp 2020 managed to break away from 2016, though this did not suffice to cross above 2012.
The main region to thank is the Siberian sector. Laptev and Kara have both left record low territory at last. In the Pacific sector one could have a hoped for a higher year-end result, considering the high volume throughout the summer. The CAB is still very low but not as bad as 2016.
Looking at daily record lows, 2020 had a respectable showing, but is still behind 2012, 2019, and 2017. 2010 has finally lost its only daily record and was kicked of of the chart.
Hopefully, early 2021 will see better volume growth than early 2017 had.

My next update will require the annual hell of adding a new line to all charts and fixing colors.
The usual thanks to Wipneus, without whom the regional data would not be available anywhere.

26

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 06, 2021, 02:43:50 AM »

This reminds me of the old lawyer trick when they have a guilty person and they want to get them off the crime.

First you are presented with overwhelming evidence, then the lawyer starts to throw 1001 different unlikely scenarios that could have, maybe, possibly happened to explain alternative reasons for the crime to have happened.

Sure, it is unlikely that an asteroid landed on the house and burnt it down, sure it is more likely to be matches, but you cant 100% rule the asteroid theory out.

Do that often enough from multiple sources, and eventually people will latch onto one of those theories and then they start saying "where there is smoke, there is fire" and then you have a total bullshit line of theories that amount to nothing on their own, becoming something that creates enough doubt in people's minds to think, yeah, it is possible it was a lab escape or experiment or deliberately done..... in spite of the part where the most likely one or two stories are actually correct.

And that is when we get 1001 weird stories having more value than 1 or 2 truths.

It would be nice for someone to produce something that shows us that the lab was responsible for this, rather than a series of unlikely events or blaming gaps in knowledge as the reason they think it was man made.

This.
All the proofs I've seen so far are innuendo and conjecture.

27

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 09:15:22 PM »

Said thread has been started, all feel free to post/rebut there.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,3376.0.html

28

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 09:13:48 PM »

Oren, IMHO, the claim that SARS-CoV-2 came from a bat on a wet market in Wuhan, is quite extraordinary as well.

To each his own.

29

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 09:13:24 PM »

I suggest to discuss findings of the virus in blood samples from Italy and elsewhere taken a month or two before the Wuhan outbreak. Perhaps Covid-19 was identified in Wuhan because the Chinese were better at identifying the problem?

30

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 09:09:21 PM »

I will begin with two recent peer-review studies on this subject.

For the record, I note these two sources do not claim a lab origin, just that the data is insufficient to rule out such an origin. Not a very strong claim. As I am a strong believer that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I will await further information before I spend much time on this subject

31

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 08:48:05 PM »

Censorship - of what I consider in this case to be a conspiracy theory - would be my preferred mode of operation. However you might note that I did not propose censorship, merely a separate thread where this can be discussed to your heart's content, without disrupting other more fruitful discussions.

32

Consequences / Re: Origins of COVID-19

« on: January 05, 2021, 07:36:37 PM »

Kassy I suggest relegating the virus origin discussion to a separate thread, as it is marginal science (at best) and detracts from the fruitful updates and discussions going on in this thread. All such posts especially by harpy who posts about this constantly, and relevant responses,  should be moved there.

33

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data

« on: January 02, 2021, 11:14:50 AM »

Big thanks to Juan and Gero for their important daily contributions. 2020 is finally over...

34

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: December 31, 2020, 01:47:08 PM »

I am sorry to hear about Blum's troubles.

35

Antarctica / Re: Pine Island Glacier (PIG) Calving and Discussion

« on: December 30, 2020, 08:57:26 PM »

I don't expect it will hold on much longer. When it goes, a bit more SWT resistance will be lost.

36

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling

« on: December 29, 2020, 04:35:03 PM »

For cases where the data results in interpolations and big jumps, perhaps a good solution would be to clean the data by changing the buoy number for each consecutive section.

For example
11252   93   12   155.5   72.291   -148.553
11252   93   15   155.625   72.286   -148.552
11252   93   18   155.75   72.285   -148.558
112520   94   15   299.625   74.243   -84.608
112520  94   18   299.75   74.243   -84.605

This would need to be done manually, but just once, and then the data files can be shared in one repository (or attached to a forum post). Renumbering can be triggered by big jumps in time as well as big jumps in space.
If you (uniq or Simon) upload a sample file or a link to one I can try to assess how work-intensive this process would be and if it can be partly automated.

37

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020/2021 freezing season

« on: December 29, 2020, 04:27:38 PM »

Thanks for this superb animation A-Team, it gives a lot of perspective about ice motion and development during the freezing season so far. It appears much of the ice north of Greenland was flushed down the exit, though luckily it wasn't the thickest surviving ice, which according to CS/SMOS was more to the west IIRC. It also appears most of the Beaufort Tail did not linger to strengthen the ice there for next year - some of it melted away and some was carried to the Chukchi and to quick demise in half a year.

38

Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread

« on: December 29, 2020, 04:17:22 PM »

Thanks for this update uniquorn. Turns out Big Block did not really escape the funnel, but eventually was turned around and brought back during autumn, and now it's Big Rubble.

39

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling

« on: December 29, 2020, 03:59:46 AM »

check 11252

Quite funny.

Thanks for all these animations uniquorn.

40

Consequences / Re: COVID-19

« on: December 29, 2020, 02:11:18 AM »

I want to get vaccinated as soon as possible. The risk reward situation is quite obvious.
Luckily, although Israel has managed the Covid crisis very poorly (now in its third full lockdown), on the vaccine front it is leading the world, following the arrival of the vaccine about a week ago. A prior agreement with Moderna and an over-payment to Pfizer mean that the vaccine supply is adequate. Thanks to a semi-centralized health system, and a high uptake by the population at risk (which has priority at this stage along with health system employees) Israel now has gone up to 100k vaccinations per day, or about 1% of the population, with plans to increase the rate to 150k/day soon. Immunity takes about a month to achieve after the first shot, but at this rate within a few months a large fraction of the population will be immune to the virus, unless uptake fails to follow through (which certainly could happen).
(Complete population vaccination = 200% total).

41

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: December 28, 2020, 04:06:42 PM »

P-Maker, I agree with the A68 analogy and find it interesting, but the ice cube analogy is irrelevant.

42

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?

« on: December 28, 2020, 02:47:17 PM »

The example I would use is an ice cube.

Sea ice is not a cube, it is very thin compared to its length and width, which is why the analogy and the insights derived from it are irrelevant.

43

Walking the walk / Re: Meat Consumption and Global Warming

« on: December 28, 2020, 12:17:32 PM »

Carbon (and other pollution) tax and dividend to all, best solution. Why are there no "good populists" touting thus? It could easily have popular support.

44

Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars

« on: December 25, 2020, 09:58:01 PM »

Japan to Phase Out Gasoline-Powered Cars, Bucking Toyota Chief

Nice headline, but "hybrid gas-electric models" are still gasoline-powered. IMHO Japan's decision is not very impressive.

45

Consequences / Re: Global recession, supply issues and other COVID-19 consequences

« on: December 25, 2020, 02:17:05 AM »

Letting Covid run wild in the idiotic and evil quest for natural herd immunity is the worst thing possible for the economy. When people see the disease raging around tgem they avoid going out shopping, dining and travelling whether it is formally forbidden or not. This is especially true of people who are older (more at risk) and more educated (can read the statistics and understand the disease), both groups correlated with more affluence. The economy sputters when these people lock themselves up, even if it's only half the population. In addition, the health hardship obviously becomes an economic hardship as well. There really is no tough call at all here.

46

The rest / Re: The off topic off topic thread

« on: December 24, 2020, 07:05:12 PM »

Happy Christmas / Yuletide / Midwinter fest  to all.

47

The forum / Re: Forum Decorum

« on: December 23, 2020, 02:10:59 PM »

The Covid discussion should be held in the Covid thread. Bnr, feel free never to set foot in that thread again. Problem should be solved. If you feel the ice threads are under-posted, feel free to post relevant material in them.

48

Glaciers / Re: Glaciers of New Guinea

« on: December 22, 2020, 09:59:59 PM »

Wow. The 40-year change is astounding.

49

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling

« on: December 22, 2020, 10:35:01 AM »

Nice explanation. It's weird they didn't back-change the data to match the current format.

50

Arctic sea ice / Re: MOSAiC news

« on: December 22, 2020, 03:00:04 AM »

he 28-frame gif below collects some of the silliness surrounding 'Beaufort Gyre' depictions -- it's whatever and wherever you want it to be!

As usual, very interesting discussions in this thread.
I thought that gif was brilliant. Terminology should be clearer. And though I am but an amateur, I "know" an ocean gyre is a persistent circulatory current. So the Beaufort Gyre by right should be called what it is, a sometimes-circular sometimes Beaufort-centered statistical ice motion in the Arctic ocean. As A-Team explains, no current underneath, no gyre. If a shortened name is desired, it shouldn't include gyre.
(Really out of my depth here though).