Please support this Forum and Neven's 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 - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14
1
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: September 17, 2017, 05:55:09 PM »
US wildfire costs exceed $2 billion, a record amid a year of extremes

http://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/U-S-fire-costs-push-past-2-billion-a-record-12199292.php

The wildfire season that has leveled hundreds of homes, closed roads and parks, and sent hazy smoke into major cities across the West has become the most expensive in U.S. history, officials said Thursday, marking another chapter in a year of brutal extremes linked to climate change.

2
The rest / Re: Systemic Isolation
« on: September 16, 2017, 06:22:37 PM »
Proof rests on a surprising link between infinity size and the complexity of mathematical theories

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mathematicians-measure-infinities-and-find-theyre-equal/

In a breakthrough that disproves decades of conventional wisdom, two mathematicians have shown that two different variants of infinity are actually the same size. The advance touches on one of the most famous and intractable problems in mathematics: whether there exist infinities between the infinite size of the natural numbers and the larger infinite size of the real numbers.

3
Science / Re: Radiative forcing and CO2eq
« on: September 16, 2017, 02:26:45 PM »
Such a clear answer, thanks. The distinction between forcings and feedbacks is very clear to me now.

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: September 15, 2017, 10:05:25 PM »
Cost of a "few trillion dollars" for a speculative technology that we may need? Crushing huge amounts of certain types of rock and spreading the powder over the tropics to draw down carbon and increase ocean ph values seems like bargain in comparison.

Ok, but what if crushing rocks end up being a very bad a idea for some unknown reason? There is no planet B. If a trillion dollar swarm of satellites causes unintended consequences, they can be just deorbited and scraped. No harm done.

Yeah, it is expensive, but it is reversible and chemically inert. 

5
Science / Re: Radiative forcing and CO2eq
« on: September 15, 2017, 09:47:40 PM »
When you say "Land use albedo" are changes in snow and ice albedo included?

6
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 15, 2017, 07:11:10 PM »
Category 5 Hurricane according to NOAA

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshws.php

A high percentage of framed homes will be destroyed, with total roof failure and wall collapse. Fallen trees and power poles will isolate residential areas. Power outages will last for weeks to possibly months. Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks or months



For first time in 300 years, no one is living on Barbuda.( Video).

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/15/americas/irma-barbuda-population-trnd/index.html





7
Science / Re: Radiative forcing and CO2eq
« on: September 15, 2017, 06:36:50 PM »
Good stuff Ned W.

8
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: September 15, 2017, 06:00:18 PM »
Parkinson's law:  "work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion"

The IPCC is too slow to keep up with climate change. They need to set shorter deadlines but at the same time iterate more than before.

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Geoengineering, another rush for money?
« on: September 15, 2017, 05:27:21 PM »
Feasibility of cooling the Earth with a cloud of small spacecraft near the inner Lagrange point (L1)

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/46/17184.full

If it were to become apparent that dangerous changes in global climate were inevitable, despite greenhouse gas controls, active methods to cool the Earth on an emergency basis might be desirable. The concept considered here is to block 1.8% of the solar flux with a space sunshade orbited near the inner Lagrange point (L1), in-line between the Earth and sun. Following the work of J. Early [Early, JT (1989) J Br Interplanet Soc 42:567–569], transparent material would be used to deflect the sunlight, rather than to absorb it, to minimize the shift in balance out from L1 caused by radiation pressure. Three advances aimed at practical implementation are presented. First is an optical design for a very thin refractive screen with low reflectivity, leading to a total sunshade mass of ≈20 million tons. Second is a concept aimed at reducing transportation cost to $50/kg by using electromagnetic acceleration to escape Earth's gravity, followed by ion propulsion. Third is an implementation of the sunshade as a cloud of many spacecraft, autonomously stabilized by modulating solar radiation pressure. These meter-sized “flyers” would be assembled completely before launch, avoiding any need for construction or unfolding in space. They would weigh a gram each, be launched in stacks of 800,000, and remain for a projected lifetime of 50 years within a 100,000-km-long cloud. The concept builds on existing technologies. It seems feasible that it could be developed and deployed in ≈25 years at a cost of a few trillion dollars, <0.5% of world gross domestic product (GDP) over that time.

10
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 15, 2017, 05:20:27 PM »
Last year right about the end of the melting season, I thought that I could finally rest easy for a few years. I thought the arctic will at least follow the slow transition as described in the thread of that name. Then the 2016 freezing season happened.

A good recovery in this freezing season might "reset" the sea ice and buy us a decade or two of sea ice. If the recovery is over and another "warm" winter is in the works, we'll have a BOE over the next few years.

11
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 15, 2017, 03:07:48 AM »

Do you have data on those claims.  The PBSG lists the Barents, Hudson Bay and North Beaufort as Stable, while South Beaufort is in decline.  No data is available for the Chuhcki population.  Most recent estimates have increased total numbers.

http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html

https://peerj.com/preprints/2737v3/


The second link is Crockford in a non peer reviewed journal.  The first link seems legitimate in that it looks like real information. I have no clue haw Daniel B infers his claims from that. My first guess is that he just saw higher numbers in more recent years and that is enough to mislead many including himself.

This is terribly off topic, but obfuscated lies must be called out. Thanks TT for the link to continue this conversation in a proper thread.

12
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 15, 2017, 12:23:08 AM »
I live just east of Tallahassee, Florida.
...
I should have put the lantern in storage (both  times) as I did lawn furniture, etc.


I'm glad you are ok and have the power back on.  The good thing about these events is that we learn our vulnerabilities and have a chance to be better prepared next time. Chances are that next time will be sooner than last time.

13
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 13, 2017, 06:25:54 PM »
 
Five Dead After Florida Nursing Home Goes Without Air Conditioning After Irma

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/13/us/nursing-home-deaths-florida.html

Five people are dead and 115 have been evacuated to a local hospital from a nursing home that had no air conditioning following Hurricane Irma, the police said Wednesday.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 13, 2017, 03:05:32 PM »
An up tick from RSS North Polar anomaly.

15
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 13, 2017, 02:55:39 PM »
DOE Officially Marks SunShot’s $1 per Watt Goal for Utility-Scale Solar

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/doe-officially-hits-sunshot-1-per-watt-goal-for-utility-scale-solar

It's official. The solar industry has met the 2020 utility-scale solar cost target set by the Energy Department's SunShot Initiative -- three years early.

16
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: September 11, 2017, 07:16:23 PM »
While democrats are doing the "legwork" house by house, one face to face reasonable conversation at a time, the deniers have an army of trolls and bots changing the public opinion,  telling blatant lies and using any tool in the book of propaganda to reach millions of people.

Basically, they weaponized free speech.

17
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 11, 2017, 07:08:00 PM »
And is being paid with borrowed money. What happens to that debt as natural disaster start outpacing reconstruction efforts?


18
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 07, 2017, 07:02:28 PM »
I'm stealing that FU Earth image.

19
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 07, 2017, 12:23:00 PM »
Long night, but is over. we got lucky again and only experienced winds  of about 40 mph. We are all ok. we lost cell signal at about 9 at night, but it is back already. There is no power, and dont expect any for maybe weeks, perhaps longer. There is water.

 The sun hasn't come out yet, but with a flashlight I can see fallen branches everywhere. Some neighbors were blocked in by a fallen tree, but we cleared it fast.  There is a fallen tree over the next street over but is tangled up with powerlines. we decided to wait for the power company to give the all clear before clearing it.

Now to get some coffee and wait for the sun to come out to start cleaning up.  The mango tree looks ok.  8)

I worry terribly for the people of florida, cuba and the islands on Irma's path. Anyone on the path of this monster must take extreme precautions.

20
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 07, 2017, 12:20:38 AM »
The local media reports that 42% of the island is without power. Some branches are already falling from my trees.

21
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 10:24:21 PM »
Those are great news indeed. I'm already without power, but to be honest it lasted more than I thought it would. There are already 30-40 mph outside. Mango tree looking good.

22
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 07:53:33 PM »
Thanks for the good thoughts. The mango tree looks strong and healthy. He is young and flexible and with few leaves. Because I planted it during a drought I'm hoping he has deep roots. I think he'll be ok.

My first hope is that Irma takes a turn for the north and leave us be, but if it doesn't, I'm hoping to get some good pictures, maybe even video to share with you. My area is expecting winds of about 80 mph. Those are the fastest wind speeds I have ever experienced so I'm not sure what to expect.

23
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:53:06 PM »
Don't hold back for me! That's why hang around here.  ;D  Nothing scarier than watching the Arctic disappear right in front my eyes, so post away. I really can't overstate the wonderful job you are doing.

24
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:31:51 PM »
Oh no, Sigmetnow. I thank you with all my heart for the job you have done on this thread. This has been my go to place for reliable info. Thanks to it, I started scheduled last minute preparations early and had plenty of time to tighten up the place.

I admit, it is scary. I'm not sure what to expect, the eye will pass 60 miles to my North over the next 24 hours. My biggest vulnerability is created by my own trees. They held up during hurricanes Hugo and George, so I'm hoping they hold again.  My other worry are my windows. My house is made out of concrete but the windows are a weak point. The next 24 hours might be very long.

The next few weeks and months will probably suck. No power, no water and probably significant cleanup and rebuilding. But whatever. I'm ready.  8) 8)

25
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:05:21 PM »
Well, I did all I could have done to prepare, except for trimming my front yard trees. Now is time to lock down the hatches and ride the storm. I expect wind of up to 85 MPH in my location. I think I'll be ok. I took some before pictures of areas I think vulnerable. Hopefully, I can get you some after pics.

26
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 06, 2017, 06:00:05 PM »

I'd like to know more about this. Do you have the source and/or more info?

My source was the /r_teslamotors on Reddit. There is a thread there where they mostly debate  if the car is floating or not.

https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotors/comments/6xjmnh/a_model_s_floating_in_a_flood_bag_in_flooded/

The company that sells these bags is :

https://www.extremevehicleprotection.com/pages/faq

27
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 05, 2017, 03:19:34 AM »
On floods and electric cars:

A Model S, floating in a flood bag, in flooded garage in Houston

 

28
The forum / Re: Arctic Sea Ice Forum Humor
« on: September 05, 2017, 12:52:56 AM »

29
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: September 04, 2017, 02:40:48 PM »

Fort McMurray wildfire finally extinguished after 15 months

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/fort-mcmurray-wildfire-finally-extinguished-after-15-months

The fire — first spotted on May 1, 2016, before entering Fort McMurray two days later — was declared extinguished on Aug. 2, said Lynn Daina of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry.

At its height, the May 2016 wildfire burned an area of 589,552 hectares, or 5,895 square-kilometres.

Even after the fire was declared under control on July 4, 2016, embers burned throughout the area during the fall. As the days grew colder, it burned underground and remained there throughout winter.

30
I  prefer 10 cat 1 or smaller storms a year over 1 cat 5 a year. Our infrastructure is built to withstand cat 1 and less pretty well.  However our infrastructure did not evolve to withstand Cat 3, 4 and 5 since they were so rare during the  20th century.

If there are less storms, it is expected that we get less landfalls, but if there are more  cat 3,4 and 5 storms it is more likely that one of those make landfall. The difference in destruction between cat 5's and 1's is not linear. Cat 5 are orders of magnitude more expensive than cat 1's.

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: September 03, 2017, 03:17:36 AM »
To me, if weather variations are completely ignored the Arctic seems primed for an early minimum. However, any warm air intrusions might  take this year to second place very fast.

32
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: September 03, 2017, 02:03:18 AM »
republicans love big government. The military, the war on drugs, congressional pork and immigration are the clearest example. They only use the "big government" label for things they don't like.

33
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: September 02, 2017, 04:56:20 PM »
That's why I'm really hoping for a hiatus in temps, even if I have to put up with "no warming since 2016" bs. If temperatures climb like they did in the 90's we are screwed.

34
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 02, 2017, 12:38:19 AM »
Wind turbine: emergency stop without mechanical brake

https://youtu.be/dvrttCzpUh4

This things can take a beating! I didn't realize how ingenious this breaking mechanism is.

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 31, 2017, 06:54:07 PM »
What a cliffhanger season. ;D ;D

36
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: August 31, 2017, 02:55:52 AM »
Robert Mueller Eliminates Trump’s Trump Card

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/08/robert-mueller-eliminates-trumps-trump-card.html

Donald Trump’s ability to issue presidential pardons has been the ultimate weapon looming over Robert Mueller’s investigation. Trump could potentially pardon himself of any crimes. More importantly, he could dangle a pardon to his former staffers to encourage them not to supply Mueller with any incriminating information on Trump. Mueller is apparently handling his investigating like the prosecution of a mob boss, pressuring underlings to flip on the boss. Trump’s advantage is that, unlike a mob boss, he can give out an unlimited number of get-out-of-jail-free cards.

37
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: August 30, 2017, 04:24:01 PM »
When they say climate change will mostly affect the poor they must be referring to intangibles like well being and life, because dollar wise the ones with the most will lose the most.

38
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: August 30, 2017, 03:15:01 PM »
Cold spikes like the current one are not uncommon. The temperature will reach peak cold soon and then shoot back up.

39
Not to mention that the glacial minimum will happen over thousands of years. That is not even noticeable over human lifetimes. Is not even noticeable over many generations.

40
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 30, 2017, 02:25:18 AM »
No stinky exhaust or no loud noise. I'm not sure what I like more about an electric truck.

41
Consequences / Re: Hurricane season 2017
« on: August 29, 2017, 03:32:10 PM »
My understanding is that total number of hurricanes is decreasing, but the total number of strong hurricanes is increasing. That is double bad. Low strength storms make up a significant portion of the normal expected rainfall. High strength hurricanes are very destructive as we can clearly see.

People saying this has nothing to do with global warming are fighting hard to keep their head under the sand. Too bad the climate DGAF. These types of event will only increase in frequency and intensity regardless of how deep they bury their heads.

42
Daniel B. I'm quiet sure that floods have always happened in the Houston area. However, I would expect that as the world warmed the frequency of high intensity(and cost) floods increased. As the world warms even more this will happen more frequent. Does any one have a good (recent) link that   quantifies the frequency of these types of events? Anything before 2014 is probably outdated, but I doubt much exist that includes the last 3 years.

43
The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: August 28, 2017, 02:26:48 PM »
That pulling away might not be real. While conventional wisdom says that showing unity shows strength, that may not apply to Trump. He is creating chaos to gain strength. Giving the appearance of dissent within the ranks gives relative credibility to those that appear to dissent. Then they spend that credibility doing something outrageous that doesn't seem outrageous because of the credibility we already lent them.

Session and the rest of Trumps accomplices are doing the same thing. They appear to dissent over trivial matters but then establish even more outrageous policies. It is a slow grind to absolute power.

44
Permafrost / Re: Arctic Coastal Change
« on: August 27, 2017, 07:08:52 PM »
Wow. Thanks BFTV.

I see three distinct layers from the top, followed by a long flat layer that seems to extend all the way down. Does anyone know what time frames those layer represent? Hundreds of years perhaps thousands? Do they have a name? It there some event that can be tied to the layer's boundaries?

45
Science / Re: Trump Administration Assaults on Science
« on: August 26, 2017, 02:55:05 AM »
US energy agency asked scientists to scrub references to climate change

http://www.nature.com/news/us-energy-agency-asked-scientists-to-scrub-references-to-climate-change-1.22513

Multiple researchers who received grants from the US Department of Energy (DOE) have been asked to remove references to “climate change” and “global warming” from the descriptions of their projects.

46
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 25, 2017, 06:02:39 PM »
I agree that if everything else remains the same for the next 18 years,  your analyses is likely correct. It is unlikely to hit 2C in 18 years.  I just don't think that everything will be the same. I doubt that in 18 years we will have summer sea ice in the Arctic. I think that after a BOE you can pretty much throw all the old models and data  away because it will be a different world.

I think  the warming we  experienced so far didnt change the climate much because "cold reserves" like the oceans, glaciers and ASI  buffered much of the extra heat.

I see oceans and glaciers as none renewable cold reserves. These reserves accumulated over thousands of years. They are being slowly saturated and depleted. These reserves are not likely to be depleted fast. However, as they are consumed they become less efficient at buffering heat, resulting in slightly faster warming. 

The ASI is different. I consider it a seasonal cold reserve. The Arctic accumulates cold during winter then that cold is used by the Northern hemisphere as a heat buffer during summer. That does not change the heat balance of the Earth  directly but it keeps  year to year temperatures within  a closer range.

  I believe that system is in danger of failure. If it fails, not only will there be abrupt climate change due to changes in seasonality,  changes in  albedo will increase the rate of warming . If that happens then 2C will be hit in no time.


47
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 25, 2017, 01:51:06 PM »
There is now less global ice and warmer ocean than the last 18 year period. in the next 18 years there will be even less ice, an even warmer ocean and there might not be arctic sea ice in the summer. It seems unlikely only if everything else remains the same as it was before. That seems unlikely.

48
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 24, 2017, 07:14:46 PM »
Just out of curiosity,do you believe that each region has the best possible climate due to a supreme being?

Each region has the best posible climate because over the last few generations it evolved to be  adapted to the climate of that region. The roads, the houses, the bridges, the local crops, the calendars of activity are all adapted to the climate of region that can sustain them.

Research has shown that these climates have not been stable over time; often changing dramatically. 


That is both true and false depending on the temporal and spatial frame that you choose. In time frames relevant to the climate change debate that is false. The climate have been stable for thousands of years. If the climate was unstable we wouldn't have evolved to be the dominant species of the planet. Of course that doesn't mean the climate hasn't changed, sometimes dramatically. It only means that the changes were easily absorbed by the global civilization, thus we define the climate as stable.

Why do you think that today that they are the best possible?

Because everything we have built is optimized for the environment where it will work. If those parameters change our infrastructure might fall outside the range of those parameters and not be optimized anymore. Thus the best climate is the one we built everything for.

Change can be good, bad, or indifferent.  Broadly claiming that change is bad is a defeatist attitude.


Yes. For example lets say you have your work area set up in certain way and someone comes around and changes everything. In that case change is most likely bad. You have reasons to have everything setup the way you have it setup. However it could be that some of the changes made you realize a better way to do something, in which case change is good.

That's the type of change that climate change will be.

Broadly claiming that change is bad is a defeatist attitude.

No one is claiming that change in a general sense is bad. I'm claiming that a particular type of  change, climate change, is bad. And it is not defeatist it is realist. It is very likely that most changes in climates will be bad, because, by far, most climate changes are bad in the short term more often than not. That this particular climate change is global, not local make it even worse.

As Teddy Roosevelt once said, “There can be no life without change, and to be afraid of what is different or unfamiliar is to be afraid of life.”

That does not apply. I'm not afraid of climate change because is something different. I'm afraid of climate change because chances are it will be very very bad.






49
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 24, 2017, 04:47:47 PM »

 Not sure what your claims about religion have to do with crops, but claiming that change, in and of itself, will bring chaos seems to be more religion than science. 

If you break an egg, do you expect an omelette? No. If you break an egg you expect a broken egg. If that egg becomes an omelette or a stinky rotting mess depends on humans performing work on the egg. Information and energy must be spent to make something useful out of a broken egg.

The climate to which each individual region is perfectly adapted to is the best possible climate. That's the egg. Global warming is breaking that egg because it is changing the limits we used to build our infrastructure. There is no reason to think that most places will outright benefit from the random changes  unless they can invest information and energy to adapt. There is every reason to think that changes in the climate will push infrastructure beyond it's limits and carry a cost.

The only reason to think that changes in the climate will favor us is if we asume that humans must exist and nature will always adapt to allow for our existence.  That defies every observation I have ever made of nature.

These types of studies try to ascertain the effects brought on by specific changes.  Making broad claims about changes does little good, if the changes are confined to a small region.

The whole world is changing, some places before others. But as old systems(the Arctic, glaciers, precipitation patterns, seasonality) are  degraded by the warmth the frequency, magnitude and global distribution of change will increase.


50
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: August 24, 2017, 03:44:37 PM »
Changes in winter climate has little effect, except to possibly increase the growing season in temperature limited areas.

Late snow can be deadly to many crops.  Warm springs, can help insects and other organisms dangerous to crops to develop early or never be eradicated by cold. There are many other possible effects that can't be known because such rapid change is new.

To assume climate change will be neutral or good is nothing but religion. The likely outcome is that changes in established weather patterns will bring chaos, until new patterns are established for long enough for humans to adapt. Nature owes humans nothing.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 14