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 - Archimid

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 18, 2019, 02:28:16 PM »
Seriously Archimid, do some math.

Not only you want people to ignore the threat of climate change, you want to misinform them about their options to maximize their chance of survival.

A refrigerator uses 1-2 kwh PER day.

 An 18 inch modern refrigerator can consume much less than 1 kWh a day under normal use. A good chunk of that energy spent replacing the cold that escapes every time. If refrigerator discipline is kept and a high efficiency refrigerator used that consumption can fall drastically.

Plus let's say that you heat just a room and that is also abnout 2kwh if you have very good insulation. plus lighting, etc. That is minimum 4 kwh per day.

Look at your assumptions for crying out load. If you are using the batteries for heating, you don't need the batteries for refrigeration. Even then one, powerwall is 13.5kWh, 13.5-4 = 9.5, so even when using worst case scenario as you have tried, the powerwall is enough for 3 days and then some.

Not even doing the math you can see. That's how blind you are about this.

Your battery will last 3,5 days at best during winter, when you often go without any significant sun to recharge the battery for weeks. Get real now.

Get real? The energy you get during winter is function of the size of your array, the angle of the array relative to the sun. As long as there is light the batteries will at least trickle charge. The sun will eventually come out and will give you a significant charge. If the sun doesn't come out, you have bigger problems.

The fact is that having a home with back up power provided by sunlight is an strategic advantage. Take it or leave it.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 18, 2019, 12:37:32 PM »

As you probably know, solar panels attached to the grid will not work when (in your MadMax world) the grid goes off. So, you need to deattach them. Also, you will need batteries for the panels to be of any use. Unfortunately current batteries can store very little electricity. A big Tesla Powerwall2 (5900 usd) can store 13,5 kwh.

13.5 kwh will run your refrigerator, your lights, some fans during summer, some heating during winter, communication equipment and you still have some energy to spare for your EV or to cook small meals. It will recharge every day the sun comes out.

13.5kwh is more than most people in the world will ever need to survive.

Going back to the bear analogy, in a collapse situation a properly defended home equipped with solar panels and batteries will give you an edge over everyone without back up generation or anyone  dependent on fuel for generators.

If you want to use your panels for heating in the middle of winter you are going to freeze to death, it won't last a day.

If you try to warm a whole house while hanging around in your underwear, sure. But if you use the energy for a small room and you use propper clothing and blankets, solar panels and batteries can make the difference between life and death.

Do you not see that or are you preventing people from protecting themselves??

As for heating you'd better load up on wood. Look up coppicing, you'll need it.

Wouldn't it be better if he had both? Also, why are you counting on wood don't you think everyone will be doing the same thing? See Haiti to understand what happens when fuel is scarce and everyone starts cutting wood for their energy needs.

On Topic:

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019 melting season
« on: July 17, 2019, 09:49:27 PM »
Never,I’m truly sorry to hear that. Thank you for ASIF. Take whatever time you need. You will be missed.

Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: July 17, 2019, 12:37:29 PM »
Interesting cherry.

1769-1770  Bengal, 10 mln dead
1783-84           11 mln dead
1791-92           11 mln dead "...In the next year, 1792-93, no rain fell till October, some people left the country and others died from want."

Luckily during the 20th century India acquired technology and tremendous GDP growth like the rest of the world. According to your arguments for "not alarm", that technology and wealth likely decreased the frequency and severity of droughts during the 20th century.

I won't look it up, but if I'm correct in my reasons "for alarm" fatalities and severity of drought probably decreased during the 20th century even before adjusting for population growth. However in the 21st century the numbers are likely going down again, even with 21st century technology or at least improvement stopped and became more volatile. As the Arctic melts and the worlds climate goes to shit, numbers will revert to those of the past.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 16, 2019, 12:55:29 PM »
First comes Archimid (whom I respect as well) with his interpretation of "natural selection" and the implication that because I'm poor and represent the poor, when TSHTF we 'the poor' are easy targets without security and when we die en mass, that is because we are 'less fit'. He calls that natural selection

No. I was asked a very specific situation. Gerontocrat comes around with his Army to take my stuff.  I try to fight him off with my neighbors. Whoever wins, proves to be the strong by winning and survives. The other one doesn't. Natural selection happens. That's all I said.

Rich people are only rich in the current world order. Under collapse, the difference between rich and poor dissolves, and it becomes the connected ones vs the unconnected ones. When food is scarce money losses its value, so there won't be a rich vs poor fight. Rich people lose the most from climate change.

I believe your overreaction stems  from including humans in natural selection. It is true that racist delude themselves into thinking they are strong and like to use natural selection analogies to affirm their superiority other other group they see as unfit. It actually brings me happiness to know that racist will get a huge reality check as they see their perceived superiority dissappears as the world order changes. However, that is not what I'm referring to. I know that "strong" or successful adaptation is a function of the environment, not the individual.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:10:13 PM »
Or maybe it is just me seeing this because I want to believe it as reinforcing my beliefs?

That is a brave question. So far it hasn't been answered. In fact it has been avoided. Too bad I can't answer it because I have the exact same question and I may be the one seeking to reinforce beliefs.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 15, 2019, 11:50:38 AM »
The truth is somewhere in the middle

Is the Earth round or flat?

Neither! Without knowing it, you proved oren right.  ;D

Ha. I guess spheroid is somewhere between round and flat.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:42:31 AM »
The truth is somewhere in the middle

Is the Earth round or flat? What if I start saying to anyone that would listen that the earth was flat, would the truth be in the middle?

I agree that between two honorable parties trying to get to the truth, the truth is generally in the middle or nowhere at all. But if a malicious party creates arguments to create a middle where there is none the belief that "The truth is somewhere in the middle" will make you a victim of lies.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 15, 2019, 12:32:43 AM »
1. Demand for Model 3 is being created as we speak. The more Model 3s on the road, the more demand will be created.

2. Tesla latest ramp, where they are simplifying and speeding up body production means lower cost, which means they can further lower the prices, further increasing demand.

3.  As FSD evolves, you won't have to buy an EV to ride on one. So it may be that most of us will never own a Tesla but end up riding on them anyway. That's a dream future that won't happen without insane effort and dedication.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 14, 2019, 05:55:06 PM »
You call that natural selection? Wow.

It is literally natural selection. Like, textbook natural selection. Groups of animals fighting each other for resources, who ever lives gets to see another day.

That has always been the natural order, but food abundance made us forget about that behavior.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 02:03:43 PM »
10 and -10 nicely average to 0 and 10C guarantees an arctic sea ice melt down. I thought they were useful numbers to illustrate my point.

The rest / Re: Good music
« on: July 14, 2019, 01:58:00 PM »
The Magic Flute – Queen of the Night aria (Mozart; Diana Damrau, The Royal Opera)

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 01:32:05 PM »
1. Yes, certainly true if there is a redistribution of temperatures, but is this likely?

There IS a redistribution of temperatures and it is mostly caused by Arctic sea ice loss.

Warming in the Arctic has been much faster than the rest of the world in both observations and model simulations, a phenomenon known as the Arctic amplification (AA) whose cause is still under debate. By analyzing data and model simulations, here we show that large AA occurs only from October to April and only over areas with significant sea-ice loss. AA largely disappears when Arctic sea ice is fixed or melts away. Periods with larger AA are associated with larger sea-ice loss, and models with bigger sea-ice loss produce larger AA. Increased outgoing longwave radiation and heat fluxes from the newly opened waters cause AA, whereas all other processes can only indirectly contribute to AA by melting sea-ice. We conclude that sea-ice loss is necessary for the existence of large AA and that models need to simulate Arctic sea ice realistically in order to correctly simulate Arctic warming under increasing CO2.

From the paper:

We found that large AA occurs only from October to April and only over areas with significant sea-ice loss in both observations and model simulations. AA largely disappears when Arctic sea ice melts away or is held fixed for calculating surface fluxes. Periods with large AA are associated with large sea-ice loss in model simulations, and models with bigger sea-ice loss produce larger AA. Increased LW radiation and latent and sensible heat fluxes from the newly exposed Arctic waters enhance surface and low-tropospheric warming and cause AA, whereas water vapor feedback, increased downward LW radiation, and other processes can only modulate the AA induced by sea-ice loss or indirectly contribute to AA by melting sea ice. Our results highlight the essential role of sea-ice loss in producing AA under GHG-induced global warming.

2. Given the report is tasked with reporting on a 1.5C warmer world (and perhaps whether much different from a 2C warmer world), they didn't really have much choice.

I know they didn't have much choice. If they use the proper language to describe what the science tells, they will be considered mad alarmists and their words never published.

3. Is it a mistake? If they think it is a long way off (which unlikely with less than 1.5C warming implies), is it better to link it to some measure of global change rather than some specific years? Not sure on this, there is not much scope for 1.5C to arrive at noticeably different years but perhaps there is scope for 2C to arrive at different years depending what happens with future emissions.

It is a huge mistake. A BOE will happen because of the natural feedback that already started, evident by Arctic Amplification, not because of CO2 or global temperatures.

Perpetual improvement goes on but I don't think this is what is being referred to here. I don't think the models are rerun just the output adjusted.

To think the leader of the world will be making decisions based on this is terrifying.

Fair point but what if essentially all the models show the same shape? Do you still think that is co-incidence or do you start to ponder if this shape is a reliable result from the models

Most models are the same shape because:

1. They are based on the same set of assumption, which is the climate of the 20th century for high resolution and the climate of the past with low resolution. As the climate changes, the models will fail and then improve.
2. The models don't have enough local scale resolution.
3. Results of exponential shape are scary.

What is this? Seems like you are trusting your gut instead of the result of modelling.

I'm trusting what my eyes see, and when I search the literature I get confirmation. See article linked above.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 14, 2019, 12:00:13 PM »
And there does not seem to be a change of this behaviour in the next years.

The leaders of our world and consensus science are betting our lives that there will be a change in this behavior. The loss of thick ice will stabilize and thin ice will work just as well as the thick ice of the past. This stabilization should last 3 to 5 decades.

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 14, 2019, 11:52:21 AM »

What do you do when 'Gerontocrat' comes by with his merry men?

See point 5. Your neighbors will take your stuff or help you protect it from the gerontoarmy. Who wins is up to the moment, but if you are in a defensive position, you have the advantage.

I'd say most people cannot afford to do those things you propose. What will they do?

Natural selection happens.

Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: July 14, 2019, 11:46:48 AM »
Thank you for this thread rboyd. It is needed.

I have been finding it difficult to find information on the wider global impacts of a Blue Ocean Event,

Me too. Most I find tells me to not worry about it because a BOE will be like Tuesday. Everything will work just like before sans ice on top. Fish will get fat, shipping lanes will open. Sure Eskimos will have to end their lifestyle but Siberia will be the next Europe and Russia will be great again. Polar bears that stick to the coast will be just fine.

Because of this our risk assessment of a BOE is completely wrong.

A collapse of the polar cell and ferrel cells with a resulting equible Northern Hemisphere climate

The problem is not an equable climate. I don't believe the planet is hot enough for that yet. The problem is the transition to an equable climate, which has already begun.

Climate patterns that held for millennia are now shifting to match the new temperature difference.  Global warming is worse for the changes in temperature differences between the equator and the North Pole than the rise in temperatures.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 11:13:41 AM »
On the consequences of a BOE according to Crandles post:

These changes are very likely to stimulate fisheries productivity in high latitude regions by mid-century

Absolute madness. I totally believe that fish population may increase in the arctic because of warmer water and better light. However that is almost an irrelevant fact, relative with the myriad of changes that are happening as the Arctic melts.

This mentions nothing about changes in atmospheric currents that are already beginning, nor oceanic currents, nor acceleration of Greenland melt, nor forest fires, nor methane release...

Really, this part of the document is a work of fiction. It mentions possible positive feedbacks but it ignores possible negative impacts. This document misleads the proper risk assessment of the Arctic.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 14, 2019, 10:48:25 AM »
Thanks Crandles. My response, quotes edited for legibility.

However, the modeled sea-ice loss in most CMIP5 models is much weaker than observed. Compared to observations, the simulations are weak in terms of their sensitivity to both global mean temperature rise (Rosenblum and Eisenman, 2017) and to anthropogenic CO2 emissions (Notz and Stroeve, 2016).

That makes perfect sense. Arctic sea ice is decreasing faster than the models predict because influence from positive feedbacks like albedo warming, intrusions of hot air and winter cloudiness are overtaking both the global warming signature and the CO2 signature.

This mismatch between the observed and modeled sensitivity of Arctic sea ice implies that the multi-model-mean response of future sea-ice evolution probably underestimates the sea-ice loss for a given amount of global warming.

The first mistake is to associate Arctic Sea Ice with global temperatures. If Antarctica cooled 10C and the Arctic warmed 10C the Arctic would melt with zero degrees of global warming.

To address this issue, studies estimating the future evolution of Arctic Sea Ice tend to bias correct the model simulations based on the observed evolution of Arctic sea ice in response to global warming.

Bias correct... I honestly don't know exactly what that means, but that never stopped me from speculating before, so here we go.

I assume bias correction involves tinkering with parameters and functions until the model produces a better match for the observations. Then the future results are expected to produce better result. If that's the case, I understand the scientific validity and necessity of bias correction. It is a process of perpetual improvement.

Often based on such bias correction, pre-AR5 and post-AR5 studies agree that for 1.5 °C global warming relative to pre-industrial levels, the Arctic Ocean will maintain a sea-ice cover throughout summer for most years

Bias correcting a model that has the wrong shape (strait line vs exponential) will still produce the wrong result. How do we know if the model has the wrong shape?  We don't, unless a model with a different shape shows better skill.

But what if a different shape can only be resolved adding so many variable that the model can't be computed? Or what if assumptions taken as invariable because of hundreds of years of climate data are no longer valid when the climate changes? Unknown unknowns.

In particular, the relationship between Arctic sea-ice coverage and GMST is found to be indistinguishable between a warming scenario and a cooling scenario. These results have been confirmed by post-AR5 studies (Li et al., 2013; Jahn, 2018), which implies high confidence that an intermediate temperature overshoot has no long-term consequences for Arctic sea-ice coverage.

So I went looking for the confirmation studies and found what I believe to be Jahn, 2018. This is part of the abstract:

For warming above 2 °C, frequent ice-free conditions can be expected, potentially for several months per year. Although sea-ice loss is generally reversible for decreasing temperatures, sea ice will only recover to current conditions if atmospheric CO2 is reduced below present-day concentrations.

This paper says that the ice will be gone 2 months during summer,  so from mid July to mid September, but there will be no hysteresis. That is quite simply unbelievable and it doesn't even pass a sanity check.

Even more unbelievable is "sea ice will only recover to current conditions if atmospheric CO2 is reduced below present-day concentrations."

The sea ice disappearance might have started because of CO2, but the acceleration of sea ice loss is not because of CO2, as the failure of the models prove. The loss of sea ice is now mostly do to albedo feedback, jetstream destabilization and local Arctic GHG, not CO2. Reducing CO2 back to historic levels will eventually restore the ice, but that will take decades or centuries.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 01:00:29 PM »
But they are better than nothing, you have to work with the tools you have got not the ones you would like, and the models show the same thing for 2020 2040 and 2060.

Let me be very clear about this. In the model that predicts a BOE by 2080, if you instantly remove the ice in 2020, 2040, or 2060 the ice immediately comes back. Well of course it does. The model is underestimating melt and/or overestimating freeze.

A wrong model is worse than nothing, if you make decisions according to the wrong model.

However, as the arctic keeps changing and showing scientist new secrets, I'm sure that better models will emerge.

You might want a newer source and better model, but basically tough: If it doesn't exist, then you are not going to get it. If there are two papers saying the same thing, then another paper is unlikely to be published unless it is saying something markedly different.

You don't think missing the first BOE by 4 decades (possibly more) is something markedly different?

Consequences / Re: Prepping for Collapse
« on: July 12, 2019, 12:46:23 PM »
Let's say that you are in a group and a bear attacks your group.  To escape, you don't have to outrun the bear, only the slowest person in the group.

It is the same with collpase, specially in the first world. All food will not disappear over night, there will be food but less food. Same with water. Same with fuel.

So what you need is:

1. Water: If money was no object I would buy an Solar Atmospheric water generator.  This way as long as the sun comes out, you will have drinking water. Else, water reserves will do for a while but you need to fins a way to replenish them. I can collect and store rainwater for this. 

2. Energy: You need to become energy independent, or as close to it as possible. Solar panels and batteries will keep your refrigerator powered and your lights on for decades, although if you use lights at night, you should cover the windows, or else you become a target.

3. Food: Always keep a few months worth of food in your home. Start a home garden with high calorie plants. Raise chickens. It will be incredibly hard to grow enough food to feed yourself year round, but any calorie that you can grow makes you a bit faster. Less food that you have to acquire.

4. Security. You need a weapon and ammo. You must have a plan to secure your perimeter. Keep your hoard a secret.

5. Neighbor relations: Your neighbor will either help you protect your stuff or try to take it away.  You must sort that out before collapse picks up speed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 04:16:56 AM »
A BOE will most certainly not cause the end of all life on earth, not by a long shot. Only the end of modern civilization and, overtime, a huge chunk of the human population. Most of nature will be just fine after a few hundred years of climate stability. A scientist 50k years from now will

Archimid, your prediction cut off in mid-sentence. What was it?

My apologies, I thought I deleted that. I was trying to make a point that a scientist long into the future will not know about our abrupt climate change problem because they will be surrounded by green, just like we are today. They might assume that because it is green and there is life around them humanity's climate change problem never happened.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 04:09:06 AM »
The impacts of a BOE is simply a continuum of what we are already seeing. The very low SIE and SIA we are reaching now are already impacting the weather across the NH. While we define a BOE as less than 1 million square kilometers, NH weather will see no real diffirence between 1.4 and 0.8 million square kilometers.

I agree that it is a continuum. It has already started. From now on things only get worse as more open Arctic is warmed and the atmospheric currents start running amok. Things get progressively worse as ASI shrinks during summer and the Arctic winter keeps its meteoric temperature increase. By the time a BOE is here ( excluding sudden BOE) we'll be in enough trouble. But a BOE makes things worse, much worse. The year after the first BOE, by definition there will only be first year ice.  It will lead to another BOE , but earlier, and with more heat to dissipate before freezing begins. This will warm the Arctic faster than it is warming now, with global consequences to match.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 12, 2019, 03:45:15 AM »

The research like Tietsche et al and Schroeder and Connolley

I asked for a resource with a BOE before 2070 for a good reason. If the model that you use says the arctic will have ice in the summer 50 years from now, that model is missing something huge, a BOE will happen much sooner than that. Thus a model that has the ice going by 2070 is very likely to assume the ice will return, because it is already underestimating the changes happening in the Arctic.

The paper you posted uses HadCM3. From a quick search HadCM3 predicts ice free during summer somewhere around 2080. That ain't happening. Please try a newer source, with a model that makes a prediction for the first BOE that more closely matches the observations.

suggests that the lack of ice from BOE means little snow can be supported by ice during time when there are reasonable amounts of snow. The ice gets thicker than usual (not thinner) during the freeze season due to lack of insulating snow.

I don't understand. Can you explain to me how can there be conditions for sea ice formation but no condition for snow? It seems the opposite will happen. There will be more snow than ever before. By your own argument that should result in warming. The data clearly indicates that snow fall during fall is increasing.

  After two years it gets back to pretty near normal. This research is covering situation where unusual weather causes a BOE when the climate is not really ready for a BOE yet.

Actually, this research is covering an imaginary situation where the first BOE happens close to 2080.

I think arguing that one BOE causes next year to have longer BOE is like arguing that a record low ice volume means the next year will definitely beat that record.

All things being equal, a record low volume increases the chances of a lower volume next year for the mere fact of having a lower starting point. But the argument of  why the first BOE highly increases the chances of a BOE the year after is much more nuanced than that and with better fundamentals.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 04:41:27 PM »
Yes, you made clear that YOU THINK that BOE will bring disaster and pretty much and end of all life.

 A BOE will most certainly not cause the end of all life on earth, not by a long shot. Only the end of modern civilization and, overtime, a huge chunk of the human population. Most of nature will be just fine after a few hundred years of climate stability. A scientist 50k years from now will

You never supported your claims with any literature and disregarded any literature I cited (many times!) even from pretty reliable journals,

Quite the opposite, I have used your links to prove my point. Abrupt climate change happens, and the type of abrupt climate change we are inducing will end our civilization, just like minor changes in Holocene climate ended local human civilizations.

These show that the changes in the past happened in decades not centuries or millenia and the changes were huge and widespread (Greenland temp change at the end of the last ice age of 8-15 C in a mere decades or years!).

Indeed. I’m not challenging that fact. It is just that you are overlooking the changes that took place at the time. The climate changed, the flora changed, the water cycle changed. If humans of the time had settled at the time, their settlements would have failed.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 03:01:28 PM »
And in all those threads I’ve made clear the existence of  massive ice sheets that offset the warming. Ice sheets that do not exist today except for Greenland. I also made clear that the time frame of these events of the past happen over centuries and millennia, not decades. 

It’s all right there in the same literature you now allude to. You just don’t want to see it.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 12:43:46 PM »
The IPCC states "with high confidence" that there will be no hysteresis (because they excluded feedback from all of their models) and that the Arctic will just refreeze like normal.

I'm convinced that after the first BOE the Arctic will refreeze like normal, if by normal you mean later than ever and by the end of the freezing season there is a record low amount of first year ice. No instant hysteresis. Hysteresis happens in the years after the BOE as consecutive BOE's happen at earlier dates.

As to linkages and the effects on temperate weather patterns, effects are uncertain. Some results indicate that weather will remain variable. Jennifer Francis etc do not agree.

IMHO the effects are visible and evident but scientist haven't figured out how to correctly account for it. As the Arctic shrinks and the climate extremes get worse data will come in and scientist will get a better quantitative understanding of the new climate regime. Hopefully, not too late.

What seems obvious is that there will be a lot more evaporation from the open ocean in the autumn. But the relative increase of humidity and latent heat in the atmosphere won't be large, not in Western Europe.

To me the biggie is going to be the change in atmospheric pressure as arctic temperatures depart normal Pleistocene temperatures in a geological instant ( a few decades).

In the past, when fast warming like this happened it was stopped by glaciers melting quick and cooling the ocean. Where there used to be glaciers during Pleistocene warming there is now permafrost. I don't know if Greenland alone is capable of that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 11:25:49 AM »
The abrupt changes in planetary climate that a BOE will bring are not magic. They are simple physics. The Earth has had a planetary refrigerator for likely millions of years. After a BOE that refrigerator fails and the NH will know true climate change. There won't be any denying because we'll be busy surviving.

I'm not arguing against logic here. It is frustrating to see how intelligent people who are aware of the role of arctic sea ice on atmospheric and oceanic patterns can't see the destruction that will ensue as the arctic disappears. The destruction has already started and the Arctic has barely begun to change.

But I may be wrong, so let's get to the science. Find me a paper that describes what happens after the first BOE, that doesn't ignore the ASI teleconections to the rest of the world and predicts a BOE much sooner than 2070.

Good luck with it. 

Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: July 11, 2019, 01:02:18 AM »
After a BOE there won't be debates about climate change, it will be quite clear. What happens in the Arctic does not stay in the Arctic.

After a BOE, anthropogenic climate change won't even matter anymore. Human emissions will drop significantly  the year after the first BOE. Plastic pollution will pretty much stop a few years after. About the only impact humans will have on the planet at that point will be that of war, and it won't be for long, we'll be fighting with stones and sticks after a while.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 09, 2019, 03:57:33 PM »
The same graphs as before but using the CAB. As an interesting point I asked excel for the correlation coefficient for these graphs. This is what I got:

PIOMAS (2000-2018): -.52
High Arctic: -.10
Arctic Basin: .42
CAB: .77

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 08, 2019, 04:53:51 PM »
There is less ice to melt, sure.
The ice there is more difficult to melt, certainly.
But it is warmer and the ice is weaker.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: July 08, 2019, 03:26:27 PM »
That drought was part of the natural balance, for which crops and farmers have adapted to for hundreds of years, thousands in the case of native crops. If the trend continues the adaptations to drought will be useless, but they will have to invest into new adaptions for the new levels of rain, no guarantees on the results.

We know it will get warmer, precipitation will increase, seasonality will change. Yet we are expecting for farmers to adapt at the same time we are telling them they don't have to worry about adapting.


Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 07, 2019, 06:11:03 PM »
NeilT I think you are applying general purpose rules to a specific use case.

Li+ batteries degrade most when fully charged, when fully discharged, when charged too fast, when charged too slow, and when it reaches temperatures outside their normal operating range. Damage to Li+batteries is accumulative and so far, irreversible.

To maximize battery life the Battery Management System (BMS) actively avoids situations where batteries are damaged.

First and foremost, Battery temperatures are highly managed. If temperatures exceed the optimal operating temperature the BMS limits the charge and discharge rates to avoid battery damage.

Charge and discharge  only happen it rates that are safe for the battery. The car will not charge faster than it is safe to do so according to temperature and state of charge. The same for discharge. If the battery is too low, hot, or cold the BMS will discharge only what it is safe to discharge.

This leaves max and minimum charge degradation. One must assume that the BMS reserves true max capacity and true min capacity. User can't charge to the true max or discharge to the true min. So the worst degradation is immediately eliminated.

Max charge takes a long time to reach ( hours for the last few percentage points) so most of the degradation that comes from charging to max is eliminated by charging very slowly. It is inconvenient and it is warned against, so 100% charging is kept to a minimal

Min charge will likely be used more often, however, not many people will let the car discharge below 5%, so this happens rarely. Further more, the BMS limits the discharge rate when the state of charge is very low, further limiting the damage.

To finish, because the BMS is there to prevent the user from harming the battery, most battery failures will be factory defects at the cell levels, but because Teslas have thousands of cells, if a cell has a defect it can be simply cut off from the system. One battery out of thousands is insignificant. Several batteries in the lifetime of the vehicle is significant but the battery remains fully functional.

NealT you are mostly correct about battery degradation but you underestimate the BMS and slight changes to battery chemistry that optimizes the life of the battery for Automotive use.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (July 2019)
« on: July 07, 2019, 02:22:38 PM »
The following 3 attachments cover Loss from Max to day 181 in blue and Loss from day 181 to Min in red.

1. PIOMAS, complete set.
2. PIOMAS, 7 High Arctic seas as defined by tealight.
3. PIOMAS, 5 Arctic Basin seas.

Consequences / Re: Floods
« on: July 06, 2019, 04:15:03 AM »
Tamino gets it.

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 06, 2019, 03:27:14 AM »
During this time of transition, Elon Musk is the most experienced auto CEO.

The irony is hilarious.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Will the Bering Sea ever be the same again?
« on: July 04, 2019, 04:19:30 AM »
I don't think so, but maybe there is a small rebound left in it?

Science / Re: Magnitude of future warming
« on: July 04, 2019, 03:55:25 AM »
The 1.5C target is just a mythical dream based on magic thinking  not an achievable goal

It will require a miracle. Luckily, miracles do happen, usually to those working hard towards a goal.

Same with Climate change. If humanity mobilizes with the impetus of WW2, with the scientific determination of the space race, with a New Deal for the whole world where energy independence, conservation, recycling, reusability become the new world wide paradigm.

We do more, with less. We become richer with less, but better stuff. We plan our civilization to work together with nature.

It will also require considerable geoengineering.

It is important that these decisions are memorialized now. When SHTF people will look for someone to blame, so we must make sure the people condemning us to misery now are the ones that pay when it is time to pay.

We should be making monuments about climate change deniers.

Arctic background / Re: Research Icebreaker Polarstern
« on: July 04, 2019, 03:06:06 AM »
MOSAiC Expedition Countdown Series (2)

Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: July 04, 2019, 01:24:32 AM »
Crandles, your "middle" of the road assessment seems too conservative to me. It ignores things like:

For the first time in 2 quarters, no workforce reduction.
Model S and X were updated, significantly, with implied cost reduction.
Record sales on the same line. Fix cost savings.
The Model 3 production line is continually made more efficient.
Hi ASP for RHD Model 3, the initial wave is always the priciest models.

And for the sake of balance, one thing that I think will bring profits down, leases. But honestly I have no idea how they account for those.

Frankly, after seeing the sales results I expect profits.

Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: July 03, 2019, 01:19:45 PM »
Let's suppose that the thinner arctic ice combined with the hotter Arctic changes the way Arctic sea ice area decreases.  Let's suppose large swaths of contiguous ice area, sometimes not including peripheral ice, decrease in a day. On a map of the ice there should be a significant chunk of ice missing.  Let's call that event a poof.

How much contiguous daily area loss constitutes a "poof" event? 

 200k? 500k? More? Less?

Quick defense. I'm not lying. I don't believe El Cid is lying either. He simply can't accept the difficult reality of climate change, so his brain plays tricks on him. He ignores evidence and uncertainties in favor of a rosy reality. Can't blame him. This is happening at all levels of climate science and human leadership.

It is very easy write a forum post. But to say the things I say here in a scientific conference or journal is an entirely different thing.  Few do it, and the ones that do are shamed for it.

If we had a decadal resolution for DO events we would have more accurate picture for VGV's game, but you are right, it is a bit offtopic. Let me try to make amends.

If the point of the game is to raise awareness, then it is important that it has a good basis in reality, even after artistic freedoms are taken.

4C by 2100 will certainly have an apocalyptic feel but it will miss some very important tipping points that will happen on our way to 4C, ( way before 4C), that may provide a better setting for the game than 4C.

For example a BOE.

A BOE will have similar but worse effects than DO events in the short term. As the world transition from a block of ice on the Arctic ocean during summer to "warm" ocean summers there will be abrupt climate disruptions.  However after sometime, perhaps decades, the climate should reach a new normal. That is the 4C world.

The look of the 4C world depends greatly on the human reaction to abrupt climate change. If we go to war with each other then you get a madmax world. Nuclear winter, followed by resumed warming after particles settle and radiation sticks for millenia.

If we decide to fight for survival and fight climate change instead of each other but we fail anyway, 4C won't be that much different than today except that first world countries will live like third world countries and there won't be third world countries.

SO much change will happen that no geopolitics can be predicted. You imagination will likely suffice.

Things that will become a permanent threat to humans that could serve as game mechanics.

 Heat waves: heatwaves when there is no ice in the summer will be like nothing any human has ever seen.  Temperatures will regularly climb in the 50's in the continental Northern hemisphere with 60's going from unthinkable to rare.

A well equipped traveling party caught in such heat wave will be slow down to a crawl for days or weeks. If they don't have water and refuge they are done in a matter of hours, minutes in the case of extremes. If they have plenty of water they can survive as long as they have refuge from the heat, probably somewhere underground or caves.

Monster snow storms:

This is a problem mostly for the northern most NH. A warm arctic ocean during summer means lots of water vapor.  However warm the Arctic gets during summer, it will cool down to below freezing with the long Polar. This snow will bury entire cities after a BOE but, by 4C, remaining humans may adapt.

It won't be terribly cold, but the snow will be unpassable by current means.

Torrential rains:

We've all seen strong rain. But nothing like what is coming in a warmer world. Take the strongest rainfall you have seen and multiply it by 2 or 3. Rivers will from in flat land in a matter of days, making the terrain unpassable until the rains subside.

 We would put more effort into growing food in more locations and doing more to protect crops from pretty bad conditions even if we cannot protect from the worst?

Why would be protect our crops? The line is that we shouldn't fear famine because we currently over produce and the changes in climate will be a minor grievance. The problem is for 2100, for brown people, in third world countries.

If the line was, "we better protect our food because climate change might take it away", then maybe. But the line is "Don't worry, I have enough food".

Now, I know that as these events occur more often and with more intensity more people will jump into action and the panorama changes. But the longer it takes, the more damage and the more difficult to come back. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound cure.

Arctic Amplification to demonstrate that the changes happen during the same time frame but with lower amplitude the farther we get from the Pole.

This image demonstrates the changes in temperature, not the changes in climate. Huge difference.

The Arctic has already warmer 2-6 C during winter vs the 1950-80 baseline while NH midlatitudes warmed 1-2 C, and the global average is up 0,8 C on this timeframe

And the 6th mass extinction is well under way, with dramatic changes in local climate just starting to show up. As it gets warmer, it all accelerates.

3. If a DO event happen today, that is, if the average temperature over Greenland rose 8C in 4 decades it would lead to war, famine and an end to human civilization as we know it. European and North American weather will go to s**t. Mass agriculture will fail for several years.

Any scientist who has studied the consequences of DO events on planetary climate patterns calls it abrupt climate change for a good reason. Precipitation changes and temperature changes lead to vegetation and hydrologic changes that would have destroyed modern civilization.

Other proxy records throughout the Northern Hemisphere also document the widespread environmental imprint of these rapid warming events. Marine sediment cores (Dokken et al., 2013) and aerosol records from Greenland (Spolaor et al., 2016) show a reduction in perennial sea-ice cover in the Nordic Sea and Arctic Basin, and ocean circulation proxies indicate an increase in the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) (Lynch-Stieglitz, 2017). Records from North America indicate a change in the moisture advection from the Pacific with drier conditions during the warm interstadial periods likely related to changes in atmospheric circulation (Wagner et al., 2010; Asmerom et al., 2010). These circulation changes coincide with increased wildfire activity in North America as clearly imprinted in the Greenland ice-core record (Fischer et al., 2015). Furthermore, records from Eurasia indicate rapid changes in the local ecosystems (Rousseau et al., 2017). In the lower latitudes, speleothem and sediment records from both South America (Wang et al., 2004; Deplazes et al., 2013) and eastern Asia (Wang et al., 2008) indicate a northward displacement of the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) at the time of DO warming (Cheng et al., 2012) resulting in rapid changes in tropical hydroclimate and methane emissions from the tropical wetlands (Baumgartner et al., 2014).

As expected.

I can give you hundreds of links showing that DO events changed precipitation patterns and vegetation significantly all over the world, but they are of too low resolution, hundreds of years.
To asses the impact on civilization we need a resolution of decades. That simply doesn't exist.

So we are left wondering, if there was a sedentary, global civilization, who enjoyed 10,000 years of relative climate stability  and built their infrastructure for the parameters of their stable climate, would it survive climate change at the scale of a DO event?

The answer is a resounding no. Holocene climatic changes that were of much less magnitude than the changes that happenned during DO events have been responsible for the disappearance of entire civilizations, they have cause wars and they have cause famine.  To assume that the much more abrupt changes of an event similar to a DO will not have a negative effect on civilization is absurd. However, it is mentally comforting.

5. A BOE is much worse than a DO, with much farther reaching consequences.

See my previous response on why a BOE is much worse than a DO event. DO events were largely in part because of changes in arctic sea ice, and they had the protection of icesheets. A DO event would have ended civilization.  A BOE will end civilization and large part of current nature.  Nature will most certainly reassert itself after sometime.  To an observer in the future it will be like nothing ever happened. To the ones that lived the changes it will suck.

1. Global warming is not the same as local warming. Global warming of 4C over 100 years has not happenned on the paleo record, not even during the fastest global warming on record, the PETM

2. DO (Dasngaard-Oeschger) Events are a great analogy and example on how abrupt climate change is very likely and it is very destructive.

3. If a DO event happen today, that is, if the average temperature over Greenland rose 8C in 4 decades it would lead to war, famine and an end to human civilization as we know it. European and North American weather will go to s**t. Mass agriculture will fail for several years.

4. No madmax event can be perceived from DO events because there was no human civilization. There were humans, modern humans with all the mental capacity we have today, but they never could settle. I'm sure the rapidly changing climate didn't help. It wasn't until the Holocene climate stability that civilization emerged.

So literally the evidence indicates that during fast local warming episodes the normal human population is somewhere around 1 million individuals.

5. A BOE is much worse than a DO, with much farther reaching consequences.

6. Temperatures in the Arctic region have risen almost 1C a decade for the last 2 decades and accelerating.

The initial climatic repercussion are just starting to be felt, just like during the DO.

El Cid. You are confused by the graph. Look at the time scales. To the left time is in thousands of years and to the right time is in millions of years. Your claims are wrong, but it seems like you have unconsciously thrown the towel. You don't want to see the difference between global and local.

The very few million people that lived through those event looked like mad max but without the technology and the nuclear waste. But luckily most of them where nomads, so when their dwelling was destroyed, they just pick and move.

We are not nomads.


Anyway, the fact is that during the past million years our planet went through many very quick temperature changes of more than 4 C and not just on Greenland but on the whole planet (see chart).

This is simply false. you will have to provide another citation because the one you provided last was local warming, not global. There have been global 4C changes over scales of thousands of years, not centuries, much less decades. Current warming is 10 times faster than the fastest warming on record. The only change that was probably faster than the one we are subjecting the planet to was the meteor that killed the dinosaurs and cooled the earth overnight.

Some species died, some adapted, some places became deserts, some turned from desert to forest, some places became drier, some wetter but sorry, no MadMaxWorld

Why would there be a madmax world if there were less than a million humans around. It wasn't until the long climate stability of the holocene that humans finally grew into what we are today. People that lived through those changes likely experienced hardship.

Anyone who respects science and the facts understands this

Understand what? That the species that lived through these times of change were stressed and many dint survive? No they don't. They take for granted that abrupt climate change won't happen because they are magical beings to whom the universe owes a perfect climate.

But what most fantasize about here is untrue: the constantly happening extreme weatherevents that make all life impossible did not happen, not when global temps were 6 C beyond current or 12 C above.

The lies you must tell yourself to believe your convenient truths. Your numbers don't even make sense. Global temperatures 6C and 12C above today at the same time we are talking about the last ice age?  6C-12C happenned last during the time of the dinosaurs. Not even the continents existed like they do today. You are speaking non sense.

The game's basic premise, that a 4 C temp rise will lead to a MadMax type of World is simply very unlikely

 You don't understand the difference between local and global temperatures and your lack of understanding of the time frames involved.

I love facts and hate emotionally overhyped things

Yet, your emotions betray you and make you ignore evidence in favor of comfortable lies. I understand. It is scary. Most people can't handle it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41