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: 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.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: January 09, 2019, 09:05:06 PM »
That's 550GWh of batteries that will require ~120% more AC electricity to charge them once or twice a week.

Won't be "~120% more AC electricity" if they are mainly powered by solar panels at homes and at charging stations. (Then it will mainly be DC electric.)

Pedantics asides, if almost all of the new power generation is renewables like wind and solar because it is cheaper than ff, is this getting us to a better position? Clearly it is, so what is the gripe?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 08, 2019, 02:19:50 PM »
Even without tariff considerations:

Cheaper labour but more transportation costs may make sense.
But more expensive labour and more transportation costs doesn't make sense.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: January 06, 2019, 02:54:54 PM »

Breaking:  Elon Musk’s plane (flight plan) spotted heading to Shanghai.
Possible groundbreaking ceremony for Gigafactory 3? 
Months ahead of schedule, if so….

How long does it take to put up a tent?  ;)

Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 05, 2019, 09:03:36 PM »
likely to be mainly above 410 for next 6 to 7 months
Or, in other words, likely to be mainly above 410 for the rest of my life.

or any period starting now.  ;)

Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 05, 2019, 03:49:59 PM »
January 04:     410.03 ppm

First day over 410 since ~ end of Jun and likely to be mainly above 410 for next 6 to 7 months.

2018 annual average will be well below 410, but perhaps one more way of saying we have reached 410 level has been reached.

Arctic sea ice / Re: AMSR2 Sea Ice Volume/Thickness
« on: January 04, 2019, 12:06:46 AM »
The second was the 2010-2013 time frame.  in that range all three measures - Annual average, spring and fall - flatten out.  As another interesting and possibly key item, annual loss intersects and then starts to follow the annual average curve.  I'm not sure what this means yet, but it sure looks like a strong signal. 

Possible, of course. However, my thoughts were that as the spring maximum declines, there is less ice and what remains is in harder to melt places. We are quite likely to have a maximum of melt which necessarily is followed by a decline. Could this be what we are seeing and the correspondence to the average level (and rate of decline?) is more like a co-incidence rather than one following the other?

The rest / Re: 2019 Predictions
« on: December 28, 2018, 04:19:25 PM »
I predict it will remain boringly near the low edge:

eg this years report card says:
In 2018 Arctic sea ice remained younger, thinner, and covered less area than in the past. The 12 lowest extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last 12 years.

So I predict next year it will say
In 2019 Arctic sea ice remained younger, thinner, and covered less area than in the past. The 13 lowest extents in the satellite record have occurred in the last 13 years.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 03:10:46 PM »
The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2

perhaps it is not that surprising.

There is an opposite opinion.

Earth's air pressure 2.7 billion years ago constrained to less than half of modern levels

How the Earth stayed warm several billion years ago when the Sun was considerably fainter is the long-standing problem of the ‘faint young Sun paradox’. Because of negligible1 O2 and only moderate CO2 levels2 in the Archaean atmosphere, methane has been invoked as an auxiliary greenhouse gas3. Alternatively, pressure broadening in a thicker atmosphere with a N2 partial pressure around 1.6–2.4 bar could have enhanced the greenhouse effect4. But fossilized raindrop imprints indicate that air pressure 2.7 billion years ago (Gyr) was below twice modern levels and probably below 1.1 bar, precluding such pressure enhancement5. This result is supported by nitrogen and argon isotope studies of fluid inclusions in 3.0–3.5 Gyr rocks6. Here, we calculate absolute Archaean barometric pressure using the size distribution of gas bubbles in basaltic lava flows that solidified at sea level ∼2.7 Gyr in the Pilbara Craton, Australia. Our data indicate a surprisingly low surface atmospheric pressure of Patm = 0.23 ± 0.23 (2σ) bar, and combined with previous studies suggests ∼0.5 bar as an upper limit to late Archaean Patm. The result implies that the thin atmosphere was rich in auxiliary greenhouse gases and that Patm fluctuated over geologic time to a previously unrecognized extent.

>There is an opposite opinion.

My quote clearly suggest that it is "believed by most scientists" and therefore clearly allows the possibility of other opinions. However my quote was clearly about Hadean eon (4-4.6bn years ago) and you try to argue with something from 2.7 billion years ago which is towards end of Archean Eon. So it doesn't exactly refute what I said, does it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 01:31:23 PM »
This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Why are you assuming that there was a "tectonic catastrophe" on Venus? I don't see why I should assume anything other than this is your hobby horse for which you have zero evidence.

Thick atmosphere does sound unusual but given that

The early Earth during the Hadean eon is believed by most scientists to have had a Venus-like atmosphere, with roughly 100 bar of CO2

perhaps it is not that surprising.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 22, 2018, 12:00:37 AM »
Lethal levels of CO2 are about 84,000 ppm so about 200 times the current level. That only takes 8 doublings of the CO2 level and with climate sensitivity of 2-5C per doubling that would give warming of 16C to 40C. Therefore, it looks like we should worry about lethal CO2 levels before we worry about 100C temp rise.

And to get to 100C temp rise, getting to 100% CO2 atmosphere at current pressure levels is not enough so we would need to significantly increase the amount of gases around Earth to achieve that so there may well be a few other issues before reaching that 100C temp rise.

Policy and solutions / Re: Space colonization
« on: December 21, 2018, 06:04:41 PM »

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.

What is this "tectonic catastrophe"?

So far, I have seen a link to large quantities of carbon in the crust and mantle.

Much of this carbon is in solid form. Also 'Rock weathering' results in carbon being removed from atmosphere into solids. Yes, heat up these solid compounds with lava and throw it through atmosphere and some may well end up being oxidised to CO2. However Earth has been through lots of cycles of significantly increased volcanoes like yellowstone eruptions. AFAIK none of these have increased temperatures by anything like 100+ degrees celcius in the last couple of billion years.

So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

If so? Yawn. If you think it is much more probable, then I am sceptical.

edit: maybe a couple of billion is pushing it a little but range over last 500 million years appears to be only about 20C:

Petermann is EXACTLY where it was last year on this date (area wise).  The shape of the terminus and it's position relative to the valleys north and south of it is unchanged. There are no major fractures sen either.  This summer has been the coldest in at least 7 years in NW Greenland as well.

Note this post is dated 2013!

Science / Re: Solar cycle and an El Nino prediction
« on: December 10, 2018, 12:35:00 AM »
Termination of Solar Cycles and Correlated Tropospheric Variability

Rather begs the question of why it is on ? If it was important / interesting, &/ likely valid, would it be somewhere else?

My bet would be there are so many ways of analysing relationship, if you go looking in enough ways, you can find a correlation that you can write up in a way to suggest there is a strong correlation.

Table B.1. Temporal shifts applied to EUV BP Terminator dates to align to step changes in
GCR record. See Figs. 5 and 6.

seems to be saying they shifted the dates by -100 days in one cycle +100 days in another cycle and +30 days in a third. If I am interpreting that correctly, which I may well not be, sounds like it provides lots of scope to make the data fit?

Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: December 08, 2018, 01:11:17 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.

Policy and solutions / Re: Direct Air Capture (of Carbon Dioxide)
« on: November 26, 2018, 07:32:30 PM »
This has been posted on CCS thread

Does anyone have any comments on this?

I'm hearing it touted as a way to reduce CO2 to preindustrial levels in 10 years (admittedly with very extensive deployment!), but there seems to be little information on how the atmospheric capture actually works... and whether there's enough lithium to do it on that scale in the first place! Call me a sceptic, but to have no news after two and a half years...

Any further info on this process?

There's a later, and highly detailed article in Nature:
Tracking airborne CO2 mitigation and low cost transformation into valuable carbon nanotubes

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 23, 2018, 11:57:44 PM »

2018 UPDATE of my series about @IEA versus reality in solar PV

Once again reality is steeply increasing
and once again the IEA is having none of it

Don't these guys ever learn?
This has been going on since 2002
Seems their models simply can't conceive of exponential growth

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: November 21, 2018, 02:29:26 PM »
I was aware there are people working on it. 'Working on it' so far seems to be 'just looking for potential resources' (and link provided is just testing a cubesat that has been looking for resources on Earth to test its systems so not even started looking yet). Well not going to put a plan together without knowing where you are going to go, so fair enough as a starting point. However IMHO, it just underlines how much development is needed. Add another 5 or 10 years to your timescale and I might accept that it could happen by 2035 or 2040.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: November 21, 2018, 12:34:29 AM »
My bet is that asteroid mining will supply the nickel past 2030.

Wow that seems ambitious. Musk is aiming for manned free return trajectory around moon by 2024 and SLS about the same at best. That is half of 12 year time frame gone just to be able to take such a baby step toward asteroid mining. ET Landings, taking off again, autonomous mining equipment and spacecraft loading, journeys to and back from asteroid .... there seems an awful lot to develop in a very short period. Even if possible in that timeframe, there is the issue of whether value of goods returned have any hope of being worth the cost and risk involved?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 11, 2018, 07:19:58 PM »

Tesla: The Q3 Accounts Receivable Mystery  By John Engle.
Tesla reported blowout earnings in Q3.

Further analysis reveals many of the methods used to engineer the quarter cannot be repeated.

One mystery involving the balance sheet, and thus not directly impactful on the income statement was an unusual spike in Accounts Receivable.

The 10-Q did little to answer the mystery, but we may now have an idea of what caused it and why.

On Saturday, Nov. 3, a Tesla spokesman told The Times that a large receivable from one of its partner banks for loans issued to US customers is the 10% entity noted in the 10-Q, and almost all of this receivable was cleared in the first few days of Q4.

This can be viewed as a simple explanation. US customers buy car under some finance deal so the bank/finance company pays the money to Tesla. The accounts receivables do look high and by more than a week ends sales. This could be seen as supporting hypothesis of some large fleet sales being put through just before the quarter end.

If this is the explanation, why are sales and accounts receivables being recognised? It isn't because the money is received so the logical conclusion is it is because the cars have been delivered. If the cars are delivered then there is nothing unsustainable here.

So do these critics go with this simple explanation?

Oh no:

In essence, if Tesla’s statement is true, then the 10% institution must be a lease partner to which Tesla is providing residual value guarantees on leased vehicles. That would mean that the Accounts Receivable spike is the result of Tesla receiving returned Model S and Model X leased vehicles. The implications.....

We find this explanation rather compelling ... First, it explains the mystery of the Accounts Receivable spike. ...   It also fits with the short-sighted behavior on the part of Tesla management .... it also deals with the issue of how finished goods value could rise even as inventory dropped.

Wait what? At end of lease, Tesla receives the used car back and receives a large chunk of money just after the year end. What sort of nonsense is this? It is either nonsense or Tesla have pulled some remarkable financial engineering which has resulted in remarkably cautious recognition of profit. And they find it "rather compelling" huh???

This seems much much more like they reached conclusion that Tesla was padding the accounts in some unsustainable way then go looking for evidence, find high accounts receivable numbers then spin some story to explain it hoping people won't think through the implications of their lease return vehicles explanation.

If you are wondering if there is anything in finished goods or inventories that need explaining, the numbers are

Code: [Select]
Item                  Sept 18   June 18  Dec 17
Raw materials   $ 997,476 $ 972,739 $ 821,396
Work in process   358,113    350,443    243,181
Finished goods  1,657,339 1,721,860 1,013,909
Service parts       301,199   279,601    185,051
Total              $ 3,314,127 3,324,643 2,263,537

Given Q3 production numbers of  80,000 vehicles and deliveries of 83,500 vehicles, I might have expected mix to change to reduce average cost and for finished good to have reduced a little more and for other categories to have increased a bit more than they have. But is this to such an extent that you need to start inferring some weird lease return accounting effects? I think not.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:45:20 PM »
That image is fig 2a (showing PIG) of the following paywalled reference, and the attached image is fig 2b for Thwaites.  As I am too cheap to purchase this paper, the images come from sidd, but these images make it clear that the red line shows the local grounding line and the yellow line shows some short of time averaged (from 2009 to 2014) position for the ice face of the associated ice shelves (note the dotted yellow line across the active calving front for the Pine Island Ice Shelf, PIIS, indicating that this ice face was actively shifting during the 2009 to 2014 period).

Just enter paper name into

and you get

New bathymetry of the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) of West Antarctica with
the a) Pine Island, b) Thwaites/Haynes and c) Smith/Kohler glaciers. Grounding line positions
are red (year 1996), ice front positions (year 2008) are yellow, AUV tracks are green, and seismic
data are black crosses. Bed elevation is color coded from brown/yellow and green (above sea
level) to light blue and dark blue (-1,400 m), with light contours every 100 m and thick contours
every 400 m. Profiles A-A’ to F-F’ in orange with dots every 10 km are shown in Figure 3.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November)
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:39:22 PM »
Latest update on the ASIB: PIOMAS November 2018

I'm still unable to login in order to comment over there.

The last successful comment was on October 24th.

Seems like I am signed in with Typepad because I can reach edit profile page. However Neven' blog pages still say "Sign in with ...." rather than having post comment boxes. Not sure if that is the same for everyone.

Policy and solutions / Re: The Keystone Pipeline
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:18:42 PM »
Thread has gone rather quiet and out of date, but seems I may as well resurrect it:

A United States judge has blocked the construction of a controversial oil pipeline from Canada to the US.

The judge in the state of Montana said the Trump administration had "discarded" facts when it approved the Keystone XL Pipeline in 2017.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November)
« on: November 08, 2018, 10:09:41 PM »
Yes warning re not https and looks same.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 03, 2018, 05:43:22 PM »
Tesla’s contracts with suppliers specifies payment terms.  When they were starting out, as a small company, suppliers would agree to maybe 30 days, maximum.  Now that they are an established company, Tesla regularly gets terms of 60 to 90 days.

But they can save millions by decreasing the time between when a car is manufactured and when it is delivered/paid for. 

Did you mean to switch from suppliers and account payables to customers and accounts receivables at this point? It doesn't seem clear why you are making this switch.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 03, 2018, 05:25:23 PM »
It is old news:

In response to the Wall Street Journal report [dated 26th October 2018], Tesla said in a statement:

Earlier this year, Tesla received a voluntary request for documents from the Department of Justice about its public guidance for the Model 3 ramp and we were cooperative in responding to it. We have not received a subpoena, a request for testimony, or any other formal process, and there have been no additional document requests about this from the Department of Justice for months.

then 2 Nov article
Tesla Inc said on Friday [2 Nov] it had received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

(My bold both cases.)

That seems like a fairly major development between 26th Oct and 2 Nov to me, unless there is some evidence that one of these statements is wrong.

Seems to me WSJ knew what it was talking about when they reported on 26th October that
Tesla Faces Deepening Criminal Probe Over Whether It Misstated Production Figures

even if at that stage Tesla didn't know that. The accusation levelled at WSJ that it was old news looks wrong or is at the very least misguided.

Another Edit:
The 2nd Nov article can be interpreted to be confused/confusing about what was said Fri Nov 2 and what was in quarterly filing released Wed 24th Oct.

10-Q was released Fri 2nd Nov and p51 of that is quoted by Sigmetnow

Yet another Edit:
FWIW The 2nd quarter 10-Q in the same position just says
Other Matters
From time to time, we have received requests for information from regulators and governmental authorities, such as the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We are also subject to various other legal
proceedings and claims that arise from the normal course of business activities. If an unfavorable ruling were to occur, there exists the possibility of a material
adverse impact on our business, results of operations, prospects, cash flows, financial position and brand.
which therefore fails to mention the subpoena and this suggests the subpoena is since Aug 6 2018 when 2nd Quarter 10-Q filed.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 03, 2018, 01:37:27 PM »
ps: I do analysis, I don't do FUD.
Sorry, didn't mean to imply you were doing FUD.

>All big companies do.

Yes well, big companies do tend to have more of a reputation for extending the terms. But 30 days from end of month is really a minimum for any regular supplier of any size and then the orders tend to be arranged for most to come at the beginning of the month and then it doesn't take much of a delay to get to 60 days. This may be depressingly normal but that's more of a fact of life than something to single out as a reason to not like Tesla's results.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 03, 2018, 01:05:08 AM »
Had a quick look at the Tesla Qu3 SEC filing.

The bit I didn't like was growth in current liabilities especially Accounts payable, only partially offset by growth in accounts receivable.
Accounts Payable 3.6 billion iron men
The more I look at it, the less I like it.

Yes, I would like to see total staff costs to exclude them and calculate creditor days. But lets compare what we have got to Ford:

Tesla Qtr ending 30 Sept 18
Accounts payable 3,596,984 ($1000)
COGS plus operating exp for qtr 6,407,656
So 0.561 of quarters expenses

Ford Qtr ending 30 Sept 18
Accounts payable 23,273 ($1,000,000)
COGS plus operating exp for qtr 34,450
So 0.675 of quarters expenses

Tesla Qtr ending 30 June 18
Accounts payable 3,030,493 ($1000)
COGS plus operating exp for qtr 4,623,623
So 0.655 of quarters expenses ($1000)

Ford Qtr ending 30 Sept 18
Accounts payable 22,743 ($1,000,000)
COGS plus operating exp for qtr 35,972
So 0.632 of quarters expenses

So they were marginally slower paying creditors at the end of June but they are now significantly faster.

Are Staff costs (and any other costs included which do not give rise to credit terms) as a percentage of COGS + operating costs likely to be so different between Tesla and Ford that it significantly changes the view given by this analysis? I doubt it.

Why do you dislike it so much? AFAICS, it yet again shows the FUD of not paying suppliers suggested by Tesla critics to be nonsense. 

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 03, 2018, 12:23:44 AM »
U.S. securities regulator subpoenas Tesla on Model 3 production estimates

Seems like that wasn't an old story dragged up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others
« on: November 02, 2018, 07:48:41 PM »
Since someone said they didn't know what GISS was:

GISS / GISTEMP Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Does a global temperature record including LOTI (Land Ocean Temperature Index)

LOTI Land Ocean Temperature Index (Combined Land-Surface Air and Sea-Surface Water Temperature Anomalies) see GISS / GISTEMP

GHCN-v3 NASA's global meteorological station Temperature Index data (version 3)

ERSST-v5 NASA's Sea Surface Temperature Index data (version 5)

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) division does a global temperature record.

NCDC National Climatic Data Center. Division of NOAA that does a global temperature record.

HadCRU UK Met office Hadley Centre Climate Research Unit. Does a global temperature record, HadCRU4.

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: November 01, 2018, 08:24:49 PM »
Paper is at

For ocean heat content implications, Fig 1 seems the relevant graph:

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 01, 2018, 05:29:55 PM »

This is largely background information to get readers oriented, and to reduce idle speculations.

Thank you.

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: November 01, 2018, 02:34:53 PM »
I am not at all an expert but my reaction to

"the current stabilization mechanism (besides Evans Knoll) is the point of contact with the SW tributary glacier, which has just been lost or seriously weakened."

is to wonder what happens. I imagine that both PIG and SW tributary advance more rapidly until Evans Knoll and SW tributary again provide stabilisation pressures. This advancement further thins the glaciers so that might make PIG more prone to calving in response to pressure from SW tributary. OTOH the Arndt paper suggests the rift that recently calved was induced by (intermittent) back pressure from the grounding point that is no longer playing a part. It is not at all clear to me whether Evans Knoll will play that same role nor, if it does, whether more or less effectively.

That is no more than wild speculation by me. Anyway, any comments or further or different speculation welcome.

Science / Re: Ocean temperatures
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:13:23 PM »
A higher ΔOHC will also affect the equilibrium climate sensitivity,
recently estimated at between +1.5 K and +4.5 K if CO2 is doubled1.
This estimated range reflects a decrease in the lower bound from 2 K to
1.5 K owing to downward revision of the aerosol cooling effect (in the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment
Report, as compared with the Fourth Assessment Report)1,24, but
relied on a low ΔOHC value (0.80 × 1022 J yr−1
 for 1993–2010).
An upward revision of the ocean heat gain by +0.5 × 1022 J yr−1 (to
1.30 × 1022 J yr−1  from 0.80 × 1022 J yr−1 ) would push up the lower
bound of the equilibrium climate sensitivity from 1.5 K back to 2.0 K
(stronger warming expected for given emissions), thereby reducing
maximum allowable cumulative CO2 emissions by 25% to stay within
the 2 °C global warming target (see Methods).

I wondered if this meant that it mainly affected the lower bound rather than all points on the pdf being pushed up.

James Annan is quick to respond:

I think they are just focusing on the lower bound as it provides a strong constraint on what we'd need to do to stay under 1.5 or 2C. Their revision will affect the upper bound too. Longer post coming!

and that longer post is at

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 01, 2018, 01:08:51 PM »
Maybe not on topic on this thread. But here, anyway:
Oceans 'soaking up more heat than estimated'

Researchers say that the world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years.

Their study suggests that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought.

They say it means the Earth is more sensitive to fossil fuel emissions than estimated.

Being discussed at,2434.msg179047.html#new

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 30, 2018, 11:11:18 PM »

Konrad et al. (2017) show how changes to the ice shelf
and grounding line region of PIG and other Amundsen Sea
embayment glaciers propagate upstream on a timescale of a
few years. Thus, the recent reduction of back stress can be
expected to propagate to the grounded trunk of PIG, causing
further acceleration of flow and thus further dynamic thinning.
Accordingly, a restabilisation of the ice shelf due to repinning
at a ridge, e.g. by a very rapid advance or thickening
of the ice shelf, cannot be expected in the foreseeable future,
at least for as long as rapid basal melting driven by CDW
incursion continues. Instead, the ice-shelf calving line seems
to have made an irreversible step to a new position and orientation
in 2015, which has been confirmed in 2017, following
progressive detachment from the pinning point over the
previous decade. We do not expect further significant rapid
calving line retreat in the next few years. The northern margin
is now stabilised by a pinning point near Evans Knoll,
which rises above sea level where the nearby ice-shelf thickness
is about 450 m, and the southern margin is stabilised by
thick tributary ice inflow (Fretwell et al., 2013). Nevertheless,
continued rapid ice-shelf thinning as observed in other
studies (Pritchard et al., 2012; Rignot et al., 2013) and as
confirmed by our observation of pinning point loss (Fig. 3)
will further destabilise the PIG ice shelf in the future and
at some stage is expected to lead to calving occurring even
further upstream.

The triangular feature is Evans Knoll.

Has calving now gone past Evans Knoll such that further calving can be expected? Or will the glaciers just accelerate so the calving front advances to stabilisation points of Evans Knoll and the SW tributary?

Perhaps also worth noting
rapid thinning of the ice shelf that has occurred over the past two decades,
exceeding 5 m yr−1 in recent years (Pritchard et al., 2012; Rignot et al., 2013)

Antarctica / Re: PIG has calved
« on: October 30, 2018, 07:27:56 PM »
Are these the same features visible on last image and gif?

Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: October 29, 2018, 08:12:57 PM »
Another reason not to use it ...

Study Finds Unexpected Levels of Bromine in Power Plant Exhaust

A new study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, finds unexpectedly high levels of reactive bromine-containing chemicals in plumes emitted by coal-fired power plants not using a particular type of exhaust-cleaning technology.

Bromine species impact the chemistry occurring in the atmosphere as sunlight can convert them into extremely reactive chemicals. These could then react with and alter the breakdown process of compounds such as nitrogen oxides and ozone, which are both pollutants that can have detrimental effects on respiratory health. ... Some of the by-products produced by these reactions are considered possibly carcinogenic after long-term exposure, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

... Some coal-fired power plants artificially enhance their fuels with bromide salts because they help reduce the emission of mercury, a chemical with highly toxic effects. But this strategy can introduce bromine-containing chemicals into the atmosphere in an uncontrolled way, according to the study's authors. ... "In their attempt to clean up the mercury, they created a secondary problem with the bromide."

Because bromine emissions from coal-fired power plants have not been studied until now, their impacts on the atmosphere, which might extend into regions far from the point of emission, are not well understood. (... Arctic?)

Ben H. Lee et al. Airborne Observations of Reactive Inorganic Chlorine and Bromine Species in the Exhaust of Coal-Fired Power Plants, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (2018)

 (... Arctic?)
Sure you don't mean ozone holes?

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 27, 2018, 05:50:39 PM »

Isn't it striking that this period of huge warming anomaly is coincident with the La Niña minimum (though not coextensive with)?

Super El Nino spikes do seem absent. Perhaps this area does not see much ENSO correlation or even is correlated the opposite way to most areas?

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 26, 2018, 03:24:40 PM »
If the Tesla statement also means it expects to pay back the $900m of debt in Q1 2019 AND also produce $300m in profit, then we're talking a totally different ballpark for profit.

But, if you are a bear, you are not going to look under that stone very hard.  Are you?

Profit and cash flow are different things. Debt repayments do not come off profit. So your "totally different ballpark" looks a bit weird.

We achieved GAAP net income of over $300 million, increased cash and equivalents by $731 million and achieved a greater than 20% gross margin for Model 3. And moreover, we expect to again have positive net income and cash flow in Q4. And I believe our aspirations I think it will be for all quarters going forward. I think we can actually be positive cash flow and profitable for all quarters going forward, leaving aside quarters where we may need to do a significant repayment, for example in Q1 next year. But I think even in Q1, I think we can be approximately flat in cash flow by end of quarter.

I wondered if the better cash flow was more depreciation than capital expenditure but they were about the same $503 depreciation vs $510 capital investments. So most of the difference $351 million was in sorting out working capital reducing time to delivery to 20 days from 30 days. While they may gets some further gains in Q4, they can't keep doing that so this is likely to be small in Q1 2019.

If the debt repayment is $920 million in Q1 and depreciation is again similar to capital investment  and the work capital changes are small this implies aspirations for profits of about $920 million.

Automotive sales gross profit is nearly $1.5 billion and increasing the number of car sales by circa 46% (13wks *(7k M3cars/week - 4k averaged this quarter) / 85k cars produced) might be expected to push $311 million profit to close to a $billion profit in Q1 2019.

$920 million profits being aimed for looks like a high proportion of that $billion profit in a quarter and I would have to disagree with the 'guidance looks weak'.

Of course they might be planning very little capital expenditure and then they could be cash flat with profit of just $0.5 billion and I would then have to agree with 'guidance looks weak'.

So IMO whether the guidance is weak is a bit open to interpretation. (Possibly mainly dependent on the amount of capital expenditure that is planned for Q1 2019.)

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 25, 2018, 05:20:09 PM »

Also wanted to let all interested parties know that James Hansen just published another document on his website in which he elaborates on the acceleration claims:

Global warming accelerated markedly in the past several years. What is driving that acceleration? I suggest that at least a portion of the increased warming rate is probably because growth of atmospheric aerosols is no longer keeping pace with growth of greenhouse gases.

Indeed, global aerosol forcing of climate may have stabilized or even decreased slightly during the past several years, because of efforts to reduce air pollution in parts of the world such as China...


So reduced aerosol forcings not feedbacks. That could be faster and acceleration emerge with continued ff emissions. (Comparing strong La Nina with weak La Nina still seems dodgy.)

I also note the carbon fee and dividend news from Canada:

The policy announced today by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau applies a tax on carbon starting at $20 per ton in 2019, rising $10 per ton annually until it reaches $50 per ton in 2022.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 25, 2018, 03:47:31 PM »
It would take just over one year at 5K/week to get through that if they were only filling reservations.

We may be trying to calculate different things here. If you want to know the wait from placing order today to delivery then I think there is less than 420k orders (as deposits are 4% lower) and at 7k per week, this is less than 60 weeks. This is maybe customer relevant but varies with what you are ordering: If they are producing it now then it will be shorter but if they are not yet producing it then it is longer.

But I was thinking of a different number that is more production oriented: When does supply catch up with orders such that you would have to curtail production to just supply what is ordered. This involves not only producing the current order list but also the orders received in the time while you produce not only the order list but also those ordered in this period. Clearly this takes quite a lot longer.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 25, 2018, 01:40:01 PM »
Looks like about two years at 10k per week.

Not sure how you calculated that 2 years.

942 down to 906 looks like about 4% fall in deposits which could suggest about 25 quarters to catch up with orders. However, I didn't include that calculation because there are lots of factors: If there is more deposit per vehicle (or is the $1000 on initial order and extra $1500 when you configure details unchanged?) and more vehicles manufactured in future quarters then these are both factors towards catching up with demand much sooner.

Note that we don't have a breakdown. If semi deposits are going up (and there are no completed orders for them to be going down) perhaps model 3 orders are going down rather more rapidly.

With lots of 'going bankrupt' FUD, perhaps people held off putting down a deposit. If Q3 results solve that concern, perhaps those orders will now be put in and the orders will start going up not down in future quarters.

4% change in deposits could easily be just seasonal pattern or noise.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 25, 2018, 12:00:45 AM »
                           30Sept18 31Dec 17
                           USD (000) USD (000)
Customer deposits 905,838 853,919

Up on Dec but down on $942 million at 30 June 2018. Not sure if there might be seasonal fluctuation but clearly will take a long time to work through the backlog at this rate of decline.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 24, 2018, 12:19:58 AM »
I did read that a "change of just 1% to the Earth's albedo has a radiative effect of 3.4 Wm-2, comparable to the forcing from a doubling of carbon dioxide"

No idea where the number comes from unfortunately.

But I did some quick math. Surface Area of the Earth is 510,064,472 km2. 1% change would be 5,100,644.72 km2.

The 2000-2009 avg. for summer minimum sea ice in the arctic drops 968,139 km2 from the 79-99 avg (almost .2%).

The 2010-2018 avg drops 2,040,500 km2 from the 79-99 avg (~0.4% change in earth surface) giving, 1.36 Wm-2 difference

See the graph I've attached.

Of course it probably doesn't work like that (with a linear relationship to the amount of forcing), and I do know that this doesn't account for what the rest of the earth’s albedo change was during that time, and that the change in albedo would only be during a few summer months...

Still I wanted to offer up these back of the envelope calculations, since if I’m lucky enough to receive any criticism, it will be quite the education for me and probably some other lurkers.

I probably ought to be able to offer more and better constructive criticism but FWIW:

Average albedo of Earth is roughly about 0.3
whereas Arctic figures vary see

If we say snow and ice average 0.57 and open water looks like about 0.07 then you have a change in albedo of around 0.5. So perhaps your figures are a further factor of two from explaining the size of the effect.

I think your numbers are correctly telling you that arctic sea ice retreat is not hugely significant. I think land areas formerly covered by snow may well reveal larger numbers. Rutgers has some numbers if you want to play with them.

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 23, 2018, 11:56:42 PM »
Lagged temperature effect following ENSO is such that we are likely near a global temperature minimum even if it hasn't already been reached.

Still it is clear the last La Nina was pretty weak so it does seem dubious to connect strong La Nina minimum to weak La Nina minimum.

I think Hansen is getting a bit carried away with talk of more than a doubling in rate. If there was valid reason for doubling of the rate over just a few short years, why has the temperature record from 1970 to date looked pretty much like a straight line?

I wouldn't be surprised if Hansen does publish a paper claiming acceleration in rate is now detected. However if this happens then I would predict that this detection will be of a very weak acceleration not anything anywhere near a doubling in rate.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: October 23, 2018, 04:30:44 PM »
Wow!  Much earlier than expected.  The news must be really good!

Market seems to agree with price up $14 to $275. (Of course, that is still way down on ~$342 before taking private tweet.)

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: October 23, 2018, 02:35:59 PM »
Forgive my colloquialism. I simply meant that he repeated it in a second post on his website, which suggests he's quite confident that it has some merit (which I recognize does not mean that it does).

No worries. I meant at least in part that the repetition seemed part of some timing issue with an improved version.

I assumed he was referring to oceans but also to increased warming from decline in albedo due to loss of summer sea ice. I thought this was widely accepted as an amplifying (or positive) feedback? I don't quite understand your explanation for the arctic graph. The annual data looks like there could be an acceleration kicking in around 2013, which is in keeping with Hansen's graph. Again, I understand it's a rough approximation, but what I don't understand is that there would be surprise if there were acceleration, that it would be evident in the arctic, or that it would be due to the loss of arctic sea ice... Granted I'm a newb.

Yes albedo feedback is widely accepted as positive feedback. It causes faster rate of rise but do you see acceleration with 'continued high fossil fuel emissions'?

A really fast feedback like water vapour feedback increases the rate immediately so with "continued high fossil fuel emissions" you wouldn't expect to see acceleration.

Albedo feedback from sea ice and land snow cover isn't quite so fast so maybe some acceleration but seems to me to be likely small enough to be lost in the noise. Glacier and ice sheet retreat are pretty slow feedbacks and I don't think we would expect continued high fossil fuel emissions to continue long enough at accelerating rates to keep the radiative forcing constant in order to see such acceleration.

Airborne fraction changes from failing carbon sinks also seems pretty slow and again I don't  think we would expect continued high fossil fuel emissions to continue long enough.

So I am still confused about precisely what he is saying about feedbacks.

I am suggesting that the arctic graph looks like it could be fitted with two straight lines which I tried to describe as a point acceleration. Ongoing acceleration would look more like a smooth curve like:

My explanation for the curves would be high ocean heat capacity causing inertia not climate feedbacks.

A slow curve is not much different from the straight line Hansen notes that we have observed so far, when you only look at a small portion of it. So I get that Hansen is saying that just because what we have observed so far looks like a straight line, this doesn't mean we shouldn't expect the acceleration to emerge. (It is just his explanation for the acceleration that seems dubious to me.)

Edit: Perhaps he is thinking about methane emissions from permafrost and methane clathrate burbs as feedbacks from temperature rises. Ocean heat capacity inertia seems more solid explanation to me for the moment.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 43