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 - crandles

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: Today at 01:04:14 PM »
Very worrisome.
You just need to look at the long term linear trend which increased by about 0.8 ppm/month in the last 12 years. Where will this end??
The conventional wisdom has it that 55% of current CO2 emissions are trapped by the ocean (30%) and land (25%) carbon sinks.

Not 55%?

Gavin Schmidt nasa has recently said the combined co2 sinks = 2GtC/year, therefore current emissions need to drop by 80% (of ~10Gtc/yr) for CO2 ppm growth to stabilse. That's not going to happen. Obviously. I doubt Gavin is out by 25%.

You are assuming that the sinks don't react to emissions. If we cut emissions by say 60% then the sinks don't take up anywhere near as much. To first order, the sinks still take up 55% of the reduced emissions. If that first order rule held completely then we would need to stop 100% of our emissions, but it is only to first order.

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: March 25, 2019, 12:32:13 PM »
Assuming 420ppm and 290 baseline CO^2 that is 130ppm extra carbon.
.0130 *  44.0095 / 28.97 * 5.148x10^18=1.017*10^17 tons of extra co2

Isn't 130ppm = 130/1000000 = 0.00013 rather than .0130 ?


I agree $100 a tonne isn't likely to become 1000 times cheaper. However with scale and familiarity a 10* cheaper effect seems reasonably likely (unless this is already built into the $100 estimate)

Should we instead of despairing, celebrate that perhaps a carbon tax of as small of $11/tonne might get the job done (albeit that is eventually) ?

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: March 22, 2019, 07:45:32 PM »
Wide range 4.66ppm in 3 days:

March 21:     410.18 ppm
March 20:     412.22 ppm
March 19:     412.97 ppm
March 18:     414.84 ppm
March 17:     411.64 ppm

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 11, 2019, 12:48:26 PM »
It will now close "about half as many" stores - making half the cost savings.

The carmaker, founded by Elon Musk, said that keeping more stores open would require a rise in vehicle prices by about 3% on average worldwide.

Does this sound full of

a) they can't make up their minds

b) realise they will never make $35000 model 3 but to just give impression of having achieved long stated goal, they cut price to that for a few days then announce price rises.

c) both of above

d) bit of a gimmick to claim $35000 was achieved, but 3% price rise (to $36000?) is not unreasonable given how long the target has been $35,000. and/or It is not like saying we can't get near it and lowest price is going to be $45,000.

e) something else

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: March 09, 2019, 10:56:32 PM »
Is there any reason for thinking that a lot of area will suddenly go below some critical threshold whether between 10 and 20cm or some other particular thickness?

Why aren't people considering the ice to be more like a wedge as the minimum is approached with the thickest parts nearest Greenland/CAA? And there are, in any year, always some bits going below that critical thickness?

Is it just because that doesn't fit with personal beliefs that when the end comes it will happen suddenly? Can you see how this sounds like, I want this fast end collapse conclusion and therefore I am going to believe in this sudden collapse once it goes under a certain threshold rather than working with what we would expect to ultimately arrive at a conclusion?

If you have worked it the other way, considered the wedge as explained above and have reasons for dismissing it, then that is fine, you will be able to explain your reasoning as to why you reached that conclusion and won't find this post annoying. If you just find this post annoying then ....

Antarctica / Re: Halley base shut down and new crack in Brunt shelf
« on: March 07, 2019, 04:38:19 PM »
Looks like crack might be complete at resolution shown.

Zooming in a little more, I am not even sure of the cracks marked with lines drawn above and or right of feature. Is interpreting more cracks justified?

In the UK, the gvt will pay for 35% of the purchase price for new electric cars, up to a maximum of £3,500.

Are there new electric cars for sale for less than £10,000?

Probably not but
Ellar sold nearly 7,000 C5s at up to £700 each, far more (and at a higher price) than Sinclair had ever managed.

so maybe it is a risk the govt shouldn't take.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: March 02, 2019, 04:10:07 PM »
Guess 8 year old is a bit new for 'ageing PV systems'. Anyway, never had to do anything if that is any use.

Occassionally check meter readings with neighbour who had system installed at about same time.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: March 01, 2019, 12:52:19 AM »
Closing physical stores will allow the firm to cut costs by about 5%, savings it is using to reduce prices across its line-up of vehicles, chief executive Elon Musk said.

He declined to say how many people will lose their jobs as a result of the move, but said making the change was necessary as Tesla works toward its bigger goal of making electric cars mainstream.
 but expects to post a loss for the first three months of this year

But Tesla's admission it would not, as it had previously said, turn a profit this quarter, has spooked investors. As has admitting it needs to lay off workers and scale back its bricks-and-mortar presence in order to make good on a long-held promise is of concern.

Tesla share price down from $319.88 at close to $310.50

3% fall rather tame for 'investors spooked'?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 28, 2019, 06:56:49 PM »

It doesn't matter now. The issue is that the announcement triggered by Musk's actions caused the market (all things being equal at the time) to fall dramatically.

The most critical fact is this: People, real people, and investor groups who sold then did lose real Money as a result.

Those who were "triggered to sell" their shares then , fearing the price would likely continue to fall further no longer own those shares. If it didn't happen in the first place they would still own those shares (all things being equal - and they can personally give evidence under Oath to the SEC / Courts about that specific decision to sell).

Why would upgraded forecasts of production cause people to sell? Surely it would cause them to buy?

Almost sounds like you are complaining about the SEC annoucement that Musk is to be pursued for contempt is causing the downward spike. I doubt you mean that and if anyone thinks that is more serious than Musk tweet, well sorry I don't agree. If they are pursuing the contempt charge then it should be announced and it is up to the market to consider how much to move.

The problem is someone seeing the tweet and thinking it is an upgrade to production data, buys the shares then finds out it isn't an upgrade to production data. Such a person has a right to be annoyed. I don't this is many people if it was in after hours trading. Nevertheless there is a process problem with the tweet not being reviewed.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 28, 2019, 01:38:19 AM »
Last Updated: Feb 25, 2019 7:59 p.m. EST Delayed quote

TSLA $288.00

Went as low as $282

Crashed from $298 to $284 is 2 minutes @ 6:09 PM EST.

Yep, Dunning-Krugar :)

Shares plunge after SECs filing becomes known - before the news hit the newspapers or the online news.

Now back up to $315 so maybe the market has decided contempt case is unimportant?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 27, 2019, 12:32:55 AM »
I think the exact settlement isn't that all his tweets need to be pre filtered, it's only those that could be seen as holding information that could reasonably be expected to move stock. 
He's clearly dancing a fine line, but his tweet was repeating something he had already said a few weeks earlier and so I think he'll get away with it.

It is easy with hindsight and knowledge of second tweet to see that there was no update to the information. However in the 4.5 hours before the correction, it would be easy for an investor to believe this wasn't the same info being repeated but was an update and an upgrade to the production forecast. This has just got to be viewed as stock price sensitive information.

The first tweet is clearly wrong and this also shows there was no review of the sensitive information tweet.

If it is something he can get away with, why did general counsel resign the following day? Looks to me like the only way general counsel could see of getting it through to Musk that it was indefensible and he had to start to showing respect to authorities was to resign because nothing else was working to achieve that effect. If resignation isn't over this, then it would be a remarkable timing co-incidence, don't you think?

Perhaps Tesla might be better off without Musk in charge. So maybe some good for Tesla will come out of it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 11:06:09 AM »
It was after regular market hours. My information is correct, opposite to what was posted above and yet uncorrected.

Give me a chance to sleep, I have crossed the hours out now. But sorry for getting time conversion wrong.

I wondered whether you would attempt to defend Musk. Pretty indefensible IMHO. Well I guess you could say it doesn't show him to be stupid ... just an intelligent person acting like a jerk.

Will be interesting to see how severe the penalties are.

>misleading advertising
Do you know difference between materially misleading and a mere puff?

I think we can now see why general council resigned. Seems it is pretty indefensible not just in IMHO.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 01:45:02 AM »
Went to check, two tweets still there at time of writing:

Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019
Posted Tues Feb 19 11:15pm ET

Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k.
Posted Tues Feb 19 3:41pm ET

So mistaken post not corrected for nearly 4.5 hours when stock market open. And of course his tweets, at least with sensitive info, are supposed to be vetted.

That does look like a big oops. He seemed to manage that same mistake in the Earnings call as well but it did get corrected by someone else fairly quickly then. You would think he might have learnt from making the identical mistake before.

Saying he didn't respect SEC doesn't look smart now (and probably didn't look smart before). Doubt SEC will be inclined to be lenient as a result of that remark.

Yes, this is clearly making Musk look stupid.

Edit sorry got time conversion wrong.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 26, 2019, 12:12:08 AM »
Raising capital, but not as much as wished is a good sign.

Elon Musk’s company has secured a $250 million high-yield loan, Bloomberg first reported.

There was enough interest in the debt for $750 million, but SpaceX opted to keep it to a third of that because the company is comfortable with its ability to generate cash on that size of loan, added The Wall Street Journal.

The seven-year loan was priced at 99 cents on the dollar with an interest rate 4.25 percent above the Libor benchmark rate — within but on the high end of original guidance on the larger loan.

So it seems they could have had the full $750 million loan if they wanted but SpaceX decided to limit what they took to $250 million. So saying "but not as much as wished" appears inaccurate according to that report of what happened.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 25, 2019, 05:15:43 PM »
So far Musk is 0 for 45, and I see no sign of a change in the winds.

How do you know it is 0 for 45? SpaceX is a private co, have they published their results or have you in some other way managed to see them?

The obvious is that SpaceX has grown to be launching on or around or probably over half of all US orbital space launches. This is hugely impressive even if you don't want to acknowledge that. Anyway, SpaceX isn't any longer in a rapidly growing phase where you might expect losses before it reaches a sustainable size. If there were losses then how are not only those losses being funded but also investments in starship which is clearly happening (regardless of you thinking what is happening is ridiculous) and superheavy booster being funded? Hence the natural assumption would be that SpaceX is profitable. Yet you express certain confidence there isn't an annual profit.

If nothing will persuade you then there isn't much point in conversing with you.

You appear to be showing that you don't believe this because you don't want to believe it and it is hard to imagine anything short of a slam dunk will change your mind.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 24, 2019, 06:17:29 PM »
Interest rates fall in such an environment.  Thus, the cost of rolling over some or all of this debt might be quite a bit lower in two months than now.  If so, it would make sense to delay the rollover of debt.  This calculation might hold even for a corporation rolling in dough.

Not sure that works, if 'rolling in dough' and recession coming so unlikely to get good investment opportunities then it is sensible to pay down debt which will minimise interest costs even if interest rates will be lower soon.

But I agree with general thrust of your post that there may be many examples but no-one here manages to come up with one.

It is more a case of there being some need for the cash: In Tesla's case this may be need to finance all those model 3s on ships to Europe and China as well as the much talked about bond repayment.

There must be examples though. E.g. Iridium nearly went bust but recovered and launched 75 new satellites recently. No idea if they did roll over a bond when they had 20* the cash available before starting to pay for the satellites and launches. Seems such situation is plausible enough it must happen frequently enough. However, I am not going to bother going looking as even if I successfully found one, I imagine GoSouthYoungins would easily manage to wriggle to a dismissive 'well they nearly went bust anyway' sort of attitude so I see no point bothering to look. Hence likelihood of no-one actually coming up with an example.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla Future
« on: February 24, 2019, 01:20:43 PM »

Well, the price of a stock always also reflects a bet on future profits (or losses).

I was asking whether $1trillion referred to turnover or market capitalisation or something else. You seem to be assuming you know the answer then reflecting on the meaning of that one answer.

Voting before you know what the options mean or when the natural expectation seems to be a missing option does not seem sensible.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla Future
« on: February 24, 2019, 01:15:43 PM »
I was hesitating between "trillion dollar company" and "just another EV company".
I haven't voted for any option due to lack of necessary option between these two.

The thing is that stock markets don't make much sense to me.

Apple is now worth $1 trillion, by providing a product that costs the typical consumer $30/month.
A car costs 10x that at some $300/month for the typical consumer, so maybe Tesla can become a $10 trillion company ?

If so, why is GM only valued at $50 billion while producing many more cars than Tesla does ?

Is it just because their sales are in decline ?
If so, what will happen when Apple sales start to level off ? Or Amazon's ?
Will their stock tank ?

Yes, expected growth makes a big difference.

Value of growing or shrinking perpetuity can be considered to be valued as a present value(PV). The formula being: PV = D/(r-g)

where D is dividend, r is the discount rate and g is the growth rate. If g appears to be significant proportion of r the PV increases noticeably. (If g is bigger than r then either that growth rate won't last long and you need a more complex formula that takes account of this period and what happens next or you have the wrong rates for r and/or g.)

Size also matters, if you are already selling to 90% of world population then there is probably not much scope for further growth. With GM there is probably more scope for shrinkage than there is for growth. A lot depends on expectations: if shrinkage begins when expected then there may well not be much share price movement. However if Apple or Amazon started shrinking when further growth was the expectation then there would be a big downward correction in the share price.

We can deduce that the market expectation is for Tesla to grow much more than GM.
(Shorts pushing FUD probably don't want to hear this conclusion and can somehow ignore it preferring their own reality version that it is just irrational exuberance.)

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 23, 2019, 04:26:16 PM »
Oh my god, someone has created AI bots with multiple names like Zizek, GoSouthYoungins, Lurk ... just not sure whether funded by Tesla shorts or by FF interests trying to ruin the signal to noise ratio here on Neven's blog by posts and by deliberate flailing wind up attempts.

How is this sort of post contributing anything?

No I don't really think so, but it feels like it sometimes.

Edit 24 Feb:
This post was
1. Immediately after Zizek's
2. Used same three words to start
3. Went as far as explaining I didn't really think this
4. Went as far as explaining I was posting this as a way of pointing out what use is Zizek's post.

Despite all this people managed to totally misunderstand my post. Good grief what do I have to do? Perhaps I should have quoted Zizek post to make clear it was a response to that.

oh my god archmid you are a work of art.
Apparently Elon Musk is funding some AI non-profit and has created a fake text generator. I'm 99.9% sure you are the result.

Edit 2: As a thank you to Lurk for continuing the discussion (after I have admitted that with benefit of hindsight perhaps I should have quoted zizek post) and thereby making my point against zizek even clearer that people don't like such things and therefore why do it, I have struck out Lurk and GoSouthYougins from my post.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla Future
« on: February 23, 2019, 01:47:44 PM »
Both indicate an unwarranted assumption:
... Constant number of shares.

True, having to issue lots of new shares to raise cash could be a bad sign they are in trouble or it could be a good sign of wanting to invest more faster so perhaps potential mixed signal if going down the market capitalisation route. Perhaps why I preferred the turnover option to the market capitalisation option.

Model 3 at twice current rate then more in model Y might get to more than 4* current turnover plus some semis and pickups and some big increase in static storage energy business. But it is hard to reach 40 * turnover without again considering merger/takeover of a larger company which might get you to turnover and/or market capitalisation target of $1trillion but doesn't mean a current investment now yields 20 times value.


End of Q4 didn't have any stock on ships so $3billion cash and reserves is not going to be representative of times

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla Future
« on: February 23, 2019, 01:52:54 AM »
What does $trillion company mean?
Last quarter turnover near 7 billion so that requires ~40 times turnover increase in 5 years. That seems a bit rapid to my mind. But maybe you had stock market capitalisation or something different like that in mind? (179 million shares at $294.71 gives current value at ~$50 billion so ~20 times growth in value in 5 years: still seems steep)

Is there room for a 'successful $100-1000 billion pa turnover company' option?

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 22, 2019, 10:20:12 PM »
Recent divergences continue

Had I better say: No, this isn't a denier graph. The conclusion reached include

This implies about -0.06 °C per decade combined cooling bias in HadCRUT4 over the last two decades. The trend in differences between CW-buoy and HadCRUT4 over 1997-2017 is -0.06 (±0.02) °C per decade. Note that coverage bias was more prominent up to about 2012, while the ship-buoy bias has come increasingly to the fore during the recent surge.

But it is also appears that the IPCC methods severely underestimate observed global warming

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: February 22, 2019, 10:17:33 PM »
Recent divergences continue

No, this isn't a denier graph. The conclusion reached include

This implies about -0.06 °C per decade combined cooling bias in HadCRUT4 over the last two decades. The trend in differences between CW-buoy and HadCRUT4 over 1997-2017 is -0.06 (±0.02) °C per decade. Note that coverage bias was more prominent up to about 2012, while the ship-buoy bias has come increasingly to the fore during the recent surge.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 18, 2019, 06:03:47 PM »
Just like they do every recession?

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 18, 2019, 01:27:37 PM »
What do you think it is supposed to mean?

We have had wild daily swings before, typically? high readings (or is it almost always? or even always) and they have always settled down again. We have an unusually large number: 6 (maybe 8?) of them in the last month or so compared with 1 in Feb 2018. I don't think we should let a few odd readings cause us to panic. If it settles 'up' to give consistent readings above 4ppm above the previous year then that would be genuine cause for increased concern and/or investigation.

I am expecting upward drift due to El Nino to values higher than 2.5ppm per year. 2.5ppm per year +- a bit with ENSO clearly gives us a GW problem certainly cause for concern. However, suggesting it could go to 5ppm sounded like inappropriate panic, and some keep calm and don't get carried away with a few wildly variable data points words seemed appropriate.

Environmentalists screaming the end of the world is nigh then it turns out to be a bit of variable data just makes the general population react by saying those environmentalists are always crying wolf and are increasingly likely to dismiss environmentalist views. So it is a bad idea and doesn't help the cause.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 18, 2019, 12:22:10 AM »

Note the large variation of about 4ppm in last month compared to a year ago only having a range of around 2ppm.

Of course a 2.5ppm increase is something to be worried about. However, I suggest unusual increases of over 3ppm when the data is so variable is just unusually variable data and is quite likely to settle down. Yes, it might be suggestive of something bad, but if you are going to get extremely worried over this, then you are going to have to get used to being extremely worried about several different things at any one time.

Policy and solutions / Re: BAU until they peel my cold dead hands from it
« on: February 17, 2019, 09:15:03 PM »

My favorite part, is that Musk's little pet project at SpaceX is this:

A water-tower company built that beautiful piece of work.

Are you predicting this will never fly?

Did you also predict SpaceX would never land and refly a F9 booster?

So what is wrong with a water-tower company being expert on building with stainless steel? The outer shell is hardly all there is to rocket science.

Is reflying F9 boosters a) impressive, b) a minor impressive stunt or c) a complete fraud, or something else?

Yeah NASA and other companies do $300 million dollar + launches. Then along comes SpaceX doing them for under $100 million dollars. right blast NASA for inefficiencies but SpaceX is the one showing up the inefficiences so why direct your ire at them?

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 17, 2019, 08:55:39 PM »
Hi and welcome.

Hope this helps:

clearly the cycle is location dependant, with opposite cycles in N vs S hemisphere.

The water temp does have effect on CO2 absorbtion/retention, however note the much larger cycle in N hemisphere vs S. There is more land in N and I doubt this is a co-incidence.

Policy and solutions / Re: BAU until they peel my cold dead hands from it
« on: February 17, 2019, 03:24:26 PM »

is what a fraud looks like: lots of promises and no products at all.

I get that you don't like Musk and green BAU, and Musk 'promises' or are they in many cases just suggested timelines that turn out to be 'aspirational'. There is a big difference there.

I don't like to imagine what language you would reserve for Rossi in order to distinguish him from Musk. There is a huge difference and your language towards Musk is more appropriate for Rossi.

Every conman or fraud has had everything to lose

Hmm. hardly the case really is it. If Rossi has been to prison twice over oil waste before e-cat, what else did he have to lose? More like no other options but to give another fraud a try.

What else needs to be said to show you your language re Musk is over the top? Seems like your language is designed to deliberately wind up Tesla fans; why do this?

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 16, 2019, 12:59:42 PM »
That's all well and good. Though doesn't that 2.5ppm also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts too?

Huh? Do you mean the 1.5-2 values we have recently had 'also include the "noise/variations" from ENSO shifts'? The linear trend at 2.5 looks to level out both the peaks and the troughs.

Which make me wonder if there isn't something else going on that is unusual/different than simply ENSO affects.

Why would you think anyone was claiming there aren't other effects besides ENSO?

ENSO is largest known effect, that doesn't mean there aren't other effects. Besides emissions, natural uptake as mentioned, I would expect other oceanic oscillations to also have an impact.

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 16, 2019, 12:25:13 AM »
We were at the tail end of a moderate 2nd year La Niña in January 2018.  We’re currently in a weak El Niño that could very likely be a multi year Niño.  So I would hardly say “no significant difference in ENSO.”

Depends what period you are looking at. If looking at May-Aug 2018 vs 2017 there is little difference perhaps even a fall in the index. If looking at Sept-Dec 2018 vs 2017 there is quite a rise. The correct period to look at depends on the lag.

from abstract of above study:

El Ninos originating in the central tropical Pacific (CP El Nino) and El Ninos originating in the eastern tropical Pacific (EP El Nino). We find significant differences between the two types of El Nino events with respect to time delay of the CO2 rise rate that follows the increase in tropical near surface air temperatures caused by El Nino events. The average time lag of the CP El Nino is 4.0 ±1.7 months, while the mean time lag of EP El Nino is found to be 8.5±2.3 months. The average lag of all considered 1960–2016 El Ninos is 5.2±2.7 months

given those differing lag periods, it is not quite clear which period we should be looking at. (sorry don't know if this El Nino is CP or EP.)

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: February 10, 2019, 06:58:07 PM »
February 09:     414.27 ppm

Might be deleted, but that looks like a record high daily number.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (January)
« on: February 10, 2019, 06:54:25 PM »
Have we noticed PIOMAS being 7th lowest before?

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: February 10, 2019, 03:38:27 PM »
Sono motors claims about 18km of solar only range.  That's more than I expected. That seems usable for some niche applications. As a proof of concept it is great. I don't expect fully solar cars any time soon, but for low speeds, short range applications solar cars might become a reality.

Presumably that 18kms miles (30km) an average per day. But how much variation from dark cloudy winter day to sunny summer day?

Full battery range 250Km (155 miles), so that allows some scope for bad days  - might manage 3-4000 miles a year with hardly ever charging.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: February 01, 2019, 01:10:01 PM »

I'll get back to you when I've again assembled the data.
My recollection is that the contract written in 2003? was for a specific date in 2018, and that the satellite problems had been identified and repaired sometime years prior to 2018.
How these repairs could have had any effect on Spacex's inability to fulfill the terms of their contract is anyone's guess.
Please don't accept the above as fact - I'll get my ducks in a row & then respond with links. :)

My recollection was (also?) faulty: From

I remembered something like
And MDA discovered a fault in one of the three Radarsats in late 2017, requiring repairs in Germany and another launch postponement.

but the article was blaming failure to land booster on Dec 5th 2018 as cause for further delay. I should acknowledge that could be, despite my assertion they have plenty of boosters available now.

My feeling is that article has a slant against SpaceX. For example

But the explosive failure of a Falcon 9 rocket in June 2015 had a ripple effect on launch schedules, pushing dates forward.

is completely true. However, if fails to mention 18 launches in 2017 and 14 in first 7 months of 2018 effectively caught up with the backlog.

Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 31, 2019, 11:01:40 PM »
I suggest reading

The ocean is taking up a large part of the emissions. The amount the ocean takes up in short term depends on the partial pressure of CO2 (just the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere) compared to what was already absorbed previously (which depends on past proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere).

The main first order effect therefore, is that if you half the emissions then you also half the amount the oceans take up and this is a rapid effect (like a Edit:month?year in the tropics).

Lots of other effects:
Land also adjusts to CO2 level but doesn't take up as much and may be a bit slower.
Sequestering to deep ocean - biology and water overturning cycle
Rock weathering.

These are getting slower and weaker effects.

Edit 2
See also:
and other searches for airborne fraction.

The airborne fraction is a scaling factor defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO
2 to the CO
2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[1] It represents the proportion of human emitted CO2 that remains in the atmosphere. The fraction averages about 45%, meaning that approximately half the human-emitted CO
2 is absorbed by ocean and land surfaces. There is some evidence for a recent increase in airborne fraction, which would imply a faster increase in atmospheric CO
2 for a given rate of human fossil-fuel burning.[2] However, other sources suggest that the "fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades".[3][4]

Changes in carbon sinks can affect the airborne fraction.

This concept exist because it is fairly stable. So cut emissions in half and the ocean and land uptake are also approx cut in half keeping the airborne fraction roughly the same.

Sorry for the bad news. This means cutting emissions in half does not get the job of stabilising CO2 levels done, we need like a 95% cut in emissions eventually rising to 100% in order to stabilise CO2 levels.

Seems I have got some of this stuff wrong and I should come back and correct and add better info.

See comments commencing 12 Jan 2019 at

and some continuation at

Ok here are results from a sudden stop in emissions. Cols are years, emissions in ppm CO2 equiv, atmosphere conc and the annual increment. The drop is immediate but modest and tails away fairly quickly. Which I think is what I said. I hope :-)

The temp stays very flat, it actually drops a whisker for a few decades before increasing very gradually over the centennial time scale. Due to the deep ocean gradually warming.

[159,] 2010 3.9877255 386.2585 2.04413596
[160,] 2011 4.0634923 388.3413 2.08285478
[161,] 2012 4.1406986 390.4636 2.12230999
[162,] 2013 4.2193719 392.6261 2.16251556
[163,] 2014 4.2995400 394.8296 2.20348574
[164,] 2015 4.3812312 397.0749 2.24523507
[165,] 2016 4.4644746 399.3626 2.28777833
[166,] 2017 4.5492996 401.6938 2.33113060
[167,] 2018 4.6357363 404.0691 2.37530726
[168,] 2019 4.7238153 406.4894 2.42032396
[169,] 2020 4.8135678 408.9556 2.46619665
[170,] 2021 0.0000000 406.5635 -2.39208398
[171,] 2022 0.0000000 404.7401 -1.82341108
[172,] 2023 0.0000000 403.1955 -1.54462036
[173,] 2024 0.0000000 401.8031 -1.39232590
[174,] 2025 0.0000000 400.5070 -1.29612394
[175,] 2026 0.0000000 399.2814 -1.22562982
[176,] 2027 0.0000000 398.1137 -1.16768541
[177,] 2028 0.0000000 396.9972 -1.11655029
[178,] 2029 0.0000000 395.9275 -1.06968026
[179,] 2030 0.0000000 394.9016 -1.02591050

Hi, and thank you for the numbers. 2.392 going into sinks looks to be just a little larger than in each of the past three years and wasn't what I was expecting. Much nearer to what you said, but I'm not sure either of us were expecting increase in that first year.

Sinks of 1.0259 is less than 43% of the 2.392 in just 9 years. I would doubt that continues as an exponential decline.

Chris, this version of the model only has a 1y tilmestep so the details within that time scale are a bit imprecise. In fact the sink into deep ocean for the first year (after stopping emissions) won't see the atmospheric conc at all, whether it was +100 or -100 would make no difference. A shorter time step (but the same underlying equations) would change that just a fraction I think.

Carbon equation has 3 time scales (and 20% of emissions stay in atmosphere for ever) so a simple exponential won't describe it well. Still 340ppm at 2350 in this scenario.

This model uses "the Myhrvold and Caldeira" equations.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 31, 2019, 07:59:09 PM »
The CSA believed Musk when he contracted to put their satellites in orbit, them couldn't deliver.

Not sure about last delay, but delay before was a problem with the satellite which SpaceX is not responsible for. SpaceX has got lots of boosters available now and in each of first seven months of 2018 they launched twice a month, in the six months since they have only launched 8 times. Not sure but I suggest this could well be commissioning slowdown following 4 months out of service after Sept 2016 failure.

Blaming SpaceX as a convenient target for your ire when the indications are that the blame lies elsewhere does not reflect well on you.

Sorry about the off topic, but it didn't seem appropriate to leave this.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 31, 2019, 12:20:24 AM »
I do sense a little bit of hyping/polishing/attempting to try to frame the numbers favourably.

Gross margin down from 22.32% to 19.97%
Operating profit margin down to 5.7% from 6.1%

not huge falls and some declines were expected.

yet the text says things like
Despite margins in the automotive industry typically being lower in Q4, that was not true for us as our operating margin remained strong at 5.7% in Q4.

Automotive gross margin 24.3% from 25.8% in Q3.

Despite introducing a lower-priced mid-range variant and other headwinds, Model 3’s gross margin remained stable in Q4 at over 20%.

Little mention of net profit down from 4.56% of revenue to just 1.9%.

Biggest change (particularly below operating income) seems to be the non fully owned subsidiaries have gone from losses to profits.

they seem to address this saying
impacted by a non-cash charge of $54 million attributable to non-controlling interests

Seems a funny thing to say if it is a result of subsidiaries going from losses to profits. Perhaps they are trying to suggest the $54m is a one off?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 30, 2019, 11:36:01 PM »
I've been trying to get my head around this.  Just over 12 months ago Tesla had a workforce of 33,000 and before the latest cuts had a workforce of 45,000.  So a net gain of 9,000 after all the cuts.

The amount of talk over production line inefficiencies leads me to think that as they are ironed out then less staff are required to cover for the failure of the automation.  I suspect this round of cuts wont reduce production, but they are still a long way off targets.

The labor hours per Model 3 vehicle declined yet again by roughly 20% compared to Q3 and by about 65% in the second half of 2018 alone.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 28, 2019, 06:00:36 PM »
If I understand the orientation correctly, it's probably some ice rise. These glaciers are hard to wrap your head around.
Does the fact that there is an "ice rise" principally exclude the presence of frozen sea water with ice bergs in it above that ice rise? I am no glaciologist, so please excuse my question.

If the glacier has retreated back further than ever previously known and the glacier is moving forward, then surely the ice almost certainly originated from snow further inland?

This location certainly looks like
the edge of the glacier, both sides of which tend to look broken and dark, break up irregularly
to me as FredBear said.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 25, 2019, 02:37:13 PM »
Tesla has 5 working days to raise TSLA to ~$360, or it needs to pay out $920M in cash. Recently Musk claimed he'd pay 1/2, with the balance in stock. That no longer appears possible.

This won't break Tesla, but it's close to a $Billion they won't have going forward that they were counting on.

Why do you say that?

Tesla, Inc.
September 30
(In thousands)
Cash and cash equivalents $ 2,967,504

Aim profitable and cash flow positive every quarter.

So they had more than 3 times the $920M at the end of September, and don't seem to be counting on the other $2billion.

Yes, layoffs and rocket collapses are embarrassing but saying 'counting on' when the evidence is otherwise just shows up your biases.

Oh, Oren beat me to it.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 20, 2019, 09:14:45 PM »
Not sure I would trust me if I were to try tracing the line. Not sure if that ice front date is 1907, 1927 or 1937. Ice front perhaps is similar to 1972-2016. 2018 moved more, however bay seems to have widened??

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: January 20, 2019, 12:50:09 PM »
Maybe, when climate change has fully set in (T > 5°C than today), our ancestors may plant some pine trees on that island in a wind sheltered and sunny corner, if it is not inundated until then...  ;)

That would be remarkable even if you mean descendants.  ;)

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: January 19, 2019, 12:57:17 PM »
If ppm of C02 are increasing in the atmosphere, that must mean ppm of something else is declining. What other atmospheric gas is declining as CO2 increases, and does this need for something else to decline at all effect the rate of growth of CO2 ppm in the atmosphere?

Carbon in fossil fuels are burned(oxidised) to create CO2, so it is O2 in atmosphere that is declining. The effect on O2 in the atmosphere is negligible:

CO2  280 ppm  -> 410ppm (46% change)
O2 209590ppm -> 209460ppm (0.06% change i.e. you experience more effect of less oxygen at top of small hill than at bottom)

Obviously this change in O2 hardly makes any difference to the ability to burn fossil fuels.

Edit ppm typos

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 18, 2019, 03:04:17 PM »
"This quarter will hopefully allow us, with great difficulty, effort and some luck, to target a tiny profit," he wrote.

doesn't sound good.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: January 16, 2019, 04:15:25 PM »
Massive spinning ice disk:

(Maine is not quite Arctic, sorry)

Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 14, 2019, 12:28:41 AM »
new record daily value rather early in the year:
January 12:     413.45 ppm


The rest / Re: More stupid questions
« on: January 13, 2019, 05:21:50 PM »
1. Northern Hemisphere winter is when the Earth is closest to the Sun. I'm not sure whether there are albedo effects that might mitigate that, but I'd thought that 3.3 % difference in proximity would mostly outweigh it. Perhaps there's a bit of a shift of the precise maximum towards late autumn, though, before the northern ice has built up?
Southern hemisphere has more oceans which do suck up energy quite a lot more than the NH highlands that in spring are often also snowcovered, like the Arctic Ocean. So wintertime of Northern Hemisphere is still the correct answer. January-February, once most of the Antarctic sea ice has melted, would be my answer... Once Arctic goes ice free in spring the situation could change for the north points a bit longer towards the sun during the year so this could indeed be flipped around.

Partly depends on what is meant by
our planet recieving the most energy?

Is the energy received if it is reflected by clouds and/or ground? Or only if the heat energy is absorbed?

If reflected energy is "received" (even though reflected back out unaffected) then 3rd Jan date is close enough (oblate shape might mean larger cross-section area at solstices than at equinoxes? but expect this effect to be pretty small.)

If reflected energy by clouds and ground don't count, then it seems possible that a NH snow maximum in January might be time of least energy received.

Not claiming any knowledge on cloud trends so that could skew answer away from what I am suggesting for reflected energy by clouds and ground don't count, and I am not going to even attempt to venture an answer for situation if reflected energy by clouds don't count but reflected energy by ground does count other than saying it is possible cloud minimum might outweigh distance from sun effect.

Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere snow cover
« on: January 11, 2019, 08:23:21 PM »
Snow brings parts of Europe to standstill

Heavy snowfalls brought chaos to parts of Germany and Sweden on Friday, leaving roads blocked, trains halted and schools shut.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43