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 - Klondike Kat

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17
1
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 05:39:12 AM »
Is that a little self-reflection?

2
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 30, 2019, 03:41:58 AM »
That and many people are dissatisfied with the way the DNC is trying to control the process, and anoint the candidate of their choosing to gain the nomination.

3
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 30, 2019, 02:56:20 AM »

What mistakes did the Clinton campaign make that Biden's campaign won't repeat?
Terry

I think the reason Hillary lost was that she has the personality of a brillo pad.
Biden is likable.  Puts his foot in his mouth a bit too often, but the guy he would be running against is far worse on that score.

Hard to argue with that.

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 02:54:54 AM »
Quote
Irrelevant.  Even the best can spin the data to support their cause.  I know Dana.  We have sparred often in the past.  He used to be more objective, but John appears to have swayed him towards a more activist approach.  In the end, it is the science that counts, not the scientists
This is what is known as a straw man in that you did not address my comment.
I did not name Dana I named a few well respected individuals including the proprietor of this site.
In reply You mounted an Ad hominem attack on someone I did not even mention .
Quote
Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, typically refers to a fallacious argumentative strategy whereby genuine discussion of the topic at hand is avoided by instead attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the ...
Denial is usually based on such logic errors.
Sk Sc is based on science and insists that any claims are linked to and supported by peer reviewed literature. 
Your use of "activist" was also Poisoning the Well by  using Loaded language .
Poisoning the Well
Quote
(also known as: discrediting, smear tactics)
Description: To commit a preemptive ad hominem attack against an opponent.  That is, to prime the audience with adverse information about the opponent from the start, in an attempt to make your claim more acceptable or discount the credibility of your opponent’s claim
Quote
Loaded language or prejudicial language is language intended to produce an emotional response in the mind of the audience, in order to directly affect their views on a topic.
Many of us on here could also be included under the title activist it comes from being informed about the issue and an understanding of the risks we face. 

False Equivalence
Quote
Description: An argument or claim in which two completely opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. The confusion is often due to one shared characteristic between two or more items of comparison in the argument that is way off in the order of magnitude, oversimplified, or just that important additional factors have been ignored.
Joe Nova post any old nonsense with no such restrictions on content . Witness the series of posts by her husband David Evens pushing a fringe theory called at last iteration "force x the notch and the delay theory of global warming. This in a site that also frequently claims that warming is a  result of a conspiracy to doctor records by a cabal of corrupt scientists .

The frequent easy discerned logic errors of those who oppose any actions to address the issue is what convinced me of global warming .

I see you are using common denial tactics of ad hominem attacks, false equivalence, and deflection (poisoning the well and straw men are good ones also).  There appears to be little use in arguing with you, as your mind appears to be made up, and no amount of science or logic will change that.  SK uses only that science which supports their beliefs, and by your own admission, do also.

5
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 30, 2019, 12:54:12 AM »
I suspect it will stay that way after he loses New Hampshire also.

He never won a primary before, you know that, right? Why would he this time? What's different now (despite him being senile)?

He has the support of black voters, including an ex-president.
So did Clinton, and she also had the women's vote tied up. ???
I fear that the Trumpster has a winning record against Corporate Democrats, and that they haven't learned a thing since writing off their last loss to others - rather than accepting their own shortcomings. You can't learn from mistakes until you've learned to accept that mistakes were made. 8)
What mistakes did the Clinton campaign make that Biden's campaign won't repeat?
Terry

Hard to say at this point.  Let’s wait and see what happens after the primaries end.

6
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 12:41:48 AM »
Klondike Kat
If you think skeptical science is as unreliable as Joe Nova you  really are a denier .
Many respected climate scientists have contributed to SK SC. Some you may have heard of like Benjamin D. Santer, Carl Mears, Jason Box, Kevin Trenberth, Zeke Hausfather and some random guy who uses the name Neven .
Joe Nova has fringe cranks and posts that contradict both each other and accepted science .

As to Toms question.
Without being able to access the papers involved I think the reduction in the number of recorded high days is due to the culling of multiple records at the same site. The method BOM use to get a regional temperature relies on constructing a single record for a location like a town or city rather than the one used by BEST that users every record or part of they can find. That the BOM data set comes to the same result as BEST shows that both methods are reliable.

Irrelevant.  Even the best can spin the data to support their cause.  I know Dana.  We have sparred often in the past.  He used to be more objective, but John appears to have swayed him towards a more activist approach.  In the end, it is the science that counts, not the scientists.

7
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 29, 2019, 05:47:30 PM »
I suspect it will stay that way after he loses New Hampshire also.

He never won a primary before, you know that, right? Why would he this time? What's different now (despite him being senile)?

He has the support of black voters, including an ex-president.

8
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 29, 2019, 04:36:49 PM »
For many of those reasons, I feel that Biden is the only candidate that can defeat Trump.

This is contradictory to almost any poll i've seen. Sanders always beats trump by a bigger margin than Biden. He has a high unfavourable rate. He just blew the Latino vote by outing himself as the deporter in chief once he becomes president. He will very likely lose Iowa and New Hampshire which will make him drop in the polls even more. He went from over 40% to under 30% nationally, and there is no sign of a floor for him.

This is 2019, Kat, not 1969.

The latest surveyusa poll has Biden winning by the largest margin, 13%.  Sanders is a close second at 12%.  No one else is above 7%.

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=5128ee79-1b59-4146-bf80-54906bb24d4b

9
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 29, 2019, 03:17:21 PM »
Tom,
Just like the aforementioned skeptical science website, there is some truth involved.  However, they both focus solely on those aspects that support their contentions, and ignore the rest.  They are the opposite tail ends of a Gaussian curve (namely, they have a real, but small chance of occurrence).  One could read both, and combine the two, but it is probably better to read neither.

10
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 28, 2019, 07:14:14 PM »
Will that stay like that when he loses Iowa? Of course not.

The 'electability' myth is getting weaker by the day.

I suspect it will stay that way after he loses New Hampshire also.

11
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 28, 2019, 06:24:33 PM »
And yet the latest rcp average has Biden leading Sanders 27% to 18%, with Warren third at 16%.  Yes, those are 2019 polls.

12
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 28, 2019, 03:50:34 PM »
For many of those reasons, I feel that Biden is the only candidate that can defeat Trump.
Defeat him in what way?


A contest in fathering the most compromised son?
A contest in leering at the youngest girls?
A contest involving the most Ukrainian support?


Biden is most certainly a winner, or did spellcheck screw up on whiner again.


Terry ;D

Might want to reread the post.  Who has been least involved in partisan politics, most involved with economic expansion since the last recession, and might look best to those Christians?  The issues you stated did not appear on their radar.

13
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 28, 2019, 02:37:09 PM »
Tom,
I would not say there are an idiot, mainly because the response is science-based.  Your key answer lies in your statement about the edge of the absorption bands.  At this point, increased concentrations will result in greater absorption.  Another thing, frequently omitted in these answers is that the absorbed radiation will be re-emitted in all directions.  One-fourth will be returned to the surface and another quarter will be lost to space.  The remaining half will remain in the atmosphere (at a different frequency) and be subject to absorption and re-remittance subject to the physics of the gases present.  This will continue.  Arrhenius was correct, and modern measurements show that.

14
The politics / Re: Elections 2020 USA
« on: November 28, 2019, 02:25:21 PM »
For many of those reasons, I feel that Biden is the only candidate that can defeat Trump.

15
Quote
That is simply were he stands politically.
You mean where he stands?
Yes.  Isn’t spellcheck wonderful?

16
I do not foresee Bloomberg getting enough votes to influence the election.  That may not stop him from trying.  With regards to Obama, he will side with Biden.  That is simply were he stands politically.

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:38:50 PM »
Quote from: gerontocrat
This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

'We' only have 1 finite and exhausted planet with a collapsing biosphere so material growth HAS to end because the bottle will soon be empty. He is no cynic, he is a realist in my view and said so himself.
What was that thing again that now moved to August. Something with to do Earth's resources.


No, growth does not have to end.  Materials can be reused/recycled.  New sources are available, and organic sources are inexhaustible.

18
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 26, 2019, 02:58:11 AM »
Wait a few days.  A big snowstorm is approaching.

Approaching where?

Western and central U.S.

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 25, 2019, 08:13:38 PM »
Nanning,

I take no issue with your solution.  However, you do realize that although it will save money, it will only slow the rate of CO2 increase slightly.  I fail to see the enormous benefits reaped.

20
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 25, 2019, 05:38:06 PM »
Wait a few days.  A big snowstorm is approaching.

21
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 25, 2019, 05:37:14 PM »
Klondike Kat, please answer the question:

Quote
What about a cost-benefit analysis that underestimates the cost of not doing anything and overestimate the cost of doing something? What is the morality of such an analysis?


I'll rephrase it just in case you can't understand it:

What is the morality of a cost-benefit analysis that underestimates the destruction and overestimates the cost of doing something about it?

Do not be so condescending.

Your case is only immoral, if it has been based on deliberately deceptive reasoning.  Otherwise, one does the best they can with the information available.  One can find several cases in which a particular action would not have been taken had a CBA been performed, and others in which CBA yielded actions that should not have been taken. 

In hindsight, it was not a good idea to slaughter 40,000 elephants in Africa to save the grasslands from desertification.


22
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 25, 2019, 02:04:19 PM »
Quote
1. Not doing a cost/benefit analysts is insane and of low morality, and

What about a cost-benefit analysis that underestimates the cost of not doing anything and overestimate the cost of doing something? What is the morality of such an analysis?

Quote
2. We don't want to promote a cure that is worse than the disease, and

The disease if left untreated is fatal. The cure, if done right leads to a better quality of life for everyone.

Quote
3. Doing the cost-benefit analysis is the sane way of preventing 2 above.

You are right about this. The current Nobel prize-winning cost-benefit analysis is insane, that's why it is not working.

I think you have just confirmed what crandles is saying.  Namely, we need to do an accurate cost/benefit analysis, not just some back of the envelope calculations.  We need to find the right cure, not something that makes the disease worse.  Doing something just for the sake of doing something, is not always the best move.  A little logic and sanity goes a long way.

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 24, 2019, 08:01:38 PM »
To KK:
You really think the children will see it like that? Ever?
And their children and all future generation(s)? How do you think they will judge your cost/benefit analysis? How do they stay alive without ecosystems KK?
What is price of the Koala species for example? You have to monetize/commoditise that to be able to do your cost/benefit analysis. I think that's insane.
And I think you don't understand morality my dear.

That all depends on whether we choose the action(s) that result in the greatest benefit.  I understand morality, probably much better than you. The ends does not justify the means.  We need action that considers both today’s generations and tomorrow’s, the rich and poor, etc.

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 24, 2019, 06:27:45 PM »
Thanks for the response.

"must be weighed against the benefits"

Shall we ask the children this question of cost and benefits.
And, how expensive is the survival of civilisation and most of other lifeforms?

To me these costs/benefits questions/policies of yes/no taking action are insane and very low morality.

Actually, not doing a cost/benefit analysts is insane and of low morality.  Why on earth would you promote an action that might make things worse?

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 24, 2019, 01:43:18 PM »
^^
"the possibility of its occurence"  ?

Are you talking about reality? About climate change? Or just the difficult to predict big El Niño's with all its effects? Keeling Curve?
I don't understand why taking action has anything to do with 'costs'? Can you please explain?

I think that crandles did a good job answering your cost question.  Very few, if any, actions occur without an associated cost.  These must be weighed against the benefits.

With regards to possibility.  Everything has a possibility curve, from tomorrow’s weather to next centuries climate.  Nothing is certain, and possibilities change based on inputs.

26
LOL. Did you read your own article? The title is literally Nate Silver: Forecasts Showing Clinton With 99% Chance of Winning "Don't Pass Common-Sense Test".

Silver had Democrats with a 50.7% chance of winning the Senate in 2016. Not 70%.
fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/?ex_cid=2016-forecast

I guess you are right about the presidency.  was not Nate Silver.  However, one week before the 2016 election, he did give the Democrats a 70% chance of winning the Senate, as your link shows.  I guess that makes us even.

27
Polls don't make predictions, models do. Nate Silver's model gave Clinton less than a 70% chance in November 2016, and gave Democrats only a 19% chance of winning the Senate in 2018. So you must be thinking of someone else, Klondike Kat.

Quote
Just last week, Nate Silver’s polls-only forecast gave Hillary Clinton an overwhelming 85 percent chance of winning. But as of Thursday morning, her odds have fallen down to 66.9 percent — suggesting that while Donald Trump is still the underdog, there’s a one-in-three shot he’ll end up the next president. Liberals have tried to comfort themselves with the knowledge that FiveThirtyEight is an outlier among the six major forecasts, and that the other five give Trump between a 16 percent and a sub-1 percent chance of winning.
...
So how likely is it that there will be either a polling error (either nationwide or in enough states to tip the scale) or a last-minute swing the polls simply don’t have time to pick up on (again, either nationwide or in enough key states)? All the other models are essentially telling us that given the data we have, these scenarios are very unlikely to transpire — but Silver’s is warning not to count it out.
...
Other models are leaning more towards assuming that with so much polling in so many states showing Clinton narrowly ahead, it’s highly unlikely that they’ll all be wrong in the same way. But Silver’s model thinks a “miss” in national polling would likely be reflected in swing states too — even states that have been considered part of Clinton’s “firewall” up until now
vox.com/2016/11/3/13147678/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-trump-forecast

fivethirtyeight.com/2018-midterm-election-forecast/senate/

No, it was definitely Nate Silver, and the Senate was 2016, not 18.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/06/nate_silver_forecasts_showing_clinton_with_99_chance_of_winning_dont_pass_commonsense_test.html


28
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 23, 2019, 05:51:53 PM »
Quote
better hope it is all exaggeration to try to create more action,
or else it may become:  this proves the stuff is rubbish.

What if you are confusing exaggeration with uncertainty?

Also, if we ignore the possible danger and don't talk about it, it is 100% guaranteed that nothing will be done about the danger. Nothing will be done because there is no apparent danger and nothing to be done about it.

If we talk about the dangers, some people will examine the facts and take action, while others will complain because we sound scary.

So option 1 results in no action and option 2 results in action from some and inaction and moaning by others.

Given what is at stake and given the uncertainties, I'll take option 2.

I believe that the exaggeration to which you refer is just the tail end of the uncertainly curve.  It has a real, but less likely chance of occurrence.  If it was just a matter of taking action to avoid the possible occurrence, then action makes sense.  When that action cost significant sums of money, the possibility of its occurrence must be weighed against its costs. 

29
I remember a poll just before the 2016 election that gave Hillary a 99.5% chance of a win.

I believe that was Nate Silver, who also gave the Democrats a 70% chance of winning the Senate.

30
Over 60% of registered voters turned out, compared to 58.6% in 2012.

How does this break down to dems/reps? If you state the absolute percentage you kinda prove my point.

It is more than just Dems/reps as it ignores the larger, non-affiliates electorate.  If you a detailed composition of changes between 2012 and 2016 read the following:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2017/11/01/441926/voter-trends-in-2016/

Clinton experienced a decrease in black votes and non-college educated whites.  In the former case, it was largely due to lower turnout (not surprising), by the latter was due to higher turnout and changing preferences.

The NY Times found similar results.  Additionally, the youth vote increased substantially, but did not vote Democratic to the same extent as in the past.  The Democrats did improve on their rather poor 2014 showing, but not by enough to carry the presidency in 2015.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/upshot/a-2016-review-turnout-wasnt-the-driver-of-clintons-defeat.amp.html

Turnout will likely be higher again in 2020, but the election will be decided by which candidate can resonate best with the electorate.  The Dems have a better chance this time, with better candidates.

31
IDK, Kat. Given all the other variables (i.e. donations, grassroots support, independent media support, panic on the corporate Democrats side, etc) i come to the conclusion that Emerson is more likely to be not rigged. ;)

Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy.  On the eve of the 2106 election, Emerson predicted that Clinton would win the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, while Trump would take only Iowa and Ohio. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/11/07/emerson-college-polling-predicts-clinton-wins-by-landslide-n2242543

Emerson also predicted that the Democrats would win control of the Senate, flipping seats in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  They got one out of four correct.
Well, KK, considering they predicted the election 90 years early, one out of four ain't bad!  :D

lol. Must be the seals in Florida.

32
I keep hearing 'rigged or not' as if it wasn't a difference.


In 2016 it backfired.  Too many Democratic voters where so damn sure this dimwit wouldn't win the election and because of that didn't show up at the voting booth.

Except that it isn’t true.  Nationally, the vote total in 2016 was roughly 6% higher than in 2012.  It was 9% higher in battleground states.  Over 60% of registered voters turned out, compared to 58.6% in 2012.  Clinton did not lose because voters stayed home.  She lost because voters liked her less than Trump.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/324206-new-report-finds-that-voter-turnout-in-2016-topped-2012%3famp

33
Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy.

Wait, it's either accurate or rigged. I don't know if i understand 'predictive accuracy' correctly, but this would imply only trends are visible anyway.


Quote
2106 election

;)

Rigged or not, a poll could give accurate results - strictly by chance.  "Predictive accuracy" is how well their predictions correlate with actual results.  Predicting the outcome of an election in which over a hundred million votes are cast, based on a survey of only 1000 or so seems rather daunting to start.  But that is what most pollsters use.

34
IDK, Kat. Given all the other variables (i.e. donations, grassroots support, independent media support, panic on the corporate Democrats side, etc) i come to the conclusion that Emerson is more likely to be not rigged. ;)

Rigged or not, the issues is predictive accuracy.  On the eve of the 2106 election, Emerson predicted that Clinton would win the swing states of Colorado, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin, while Trump would take only Iowa and Ohio. 

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2016/11/07/emerson-college-polling-predicts-clinton-wins-by-landslide-n2242543

Emerson also predicted that the Democrats would win control of the Senate, flipping seats in Illinois, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.  They got one out of four correct.

35
Emerson has consistently had Sanders 10 percentage points higher than all the other polls.  Hence, I believe that this is an outlier.  But, who knows?

36
The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: November 20, 2019, 05:51:56 PM »
The rate as a percentage in the article increased from 12.4 in 2006 thru the crisis to a peak of 15.1 in 2010 and then dropped to 12.8% by 2018,  modulo my caveats about how the count is done. The actual number though is steadily increasing from 37M in 2005 to 41M in 2018. (appendix table 2)

but as i said, the estimates leave a bunch out.

sidd

Actually, they have been steadilty increasing (even by their methods).  It peaked in 2012 (by all measures presented), and has been steadily decreasing since.

37
The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: November 19, 2019, 11:22:14 PM »
Re: " the poverty rate continues to decline"

cite ?

It is quite easy to have declining poverty rates, for example by redefining poverty. Or by not counting the homeless. Or the undocumented. Or as in the previous article i quoted, by miscalculating effects of inflation.


It was in the article cited previously.  The official poverty rate was declining, and even their inflation-adjusted poverty rate was declining.

38
The politics / Re: Economic Inequality
« on: November 19, 2019, 06:46:05 PM »
Guess what: inflation hits the poor in the USA more than the rich

"prices have risen more quickly for people at the bottom of the income distribution than for those at the top"

"3.2 million more people are classified as living in poverty in 2018, and that real household income for the bottom 20 percent of the income distribution actually declined by nearly 7 percent since 2004."

"the annual inflation rate is 0.44 percentage points higher for the bottom income quintile compared with the top income quintile, on average."

https://groundworkcollaborative.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/The-Costs-of-Being-Poor-Groundwork-Collaborative.pdf

sidd

An yet the poverty rate continues to decline.

39
Let me also point out that, while I think it probable that hundreds of millions, if not billions, will die of Global Warming in the next hundred years, I have always had a skepticism that I would reach the Beatles 64. First because nuclear war would destroy civilization. Then because the Millennium Bug would destroy civilization (I was a faithful reader of Gary North). Then because Peak Oil would destroy civilization. I have a couple years and change left, and so far I have a perfect score. Zero. A quarter would have an 87.5% chance of doing a better job and couldn't do any worse. But abortion has killed hundreds of millions of babies in my lifetime. I must make my vote on present realities, if necessary (and it is) choosing the lesser evil.
I think it is interesting to consider that bogeymen always exist in western society because of the lack of visible external threats. Humans have evolved to respond to constant threats. So whether they exist or not, we are hardwired to fear the millennium bug, peak oil, etc. Not so much females it seems -- perhaps because they typically were not the ones who dealt with external threats -- but among males, the paranoia is strong, and I am certainly no exception. When the DMI ran away back in 2016, I was convinced the world would be over by now. It is nice to be wrong!

Both these posts exemplify the potential for paranoia and fear.  The possiblity that a catastrophe could occur in the near (or not to distant) future does hit a nerve with many people.  Some of the above examples show that.  One could even add the Population Bomb and Saddam Hussain's WMDs.  Politicians know this quite well, and will use this fear to enact particular legislation or garner support for a particular activity.  The bottom line is that whenever there is a perceived threat, actions occur to deter that threat.  Actions are currently occurred to stem AGW, just not as fast as some would like.  I firmly believe that these actions would accelerate if/when the threat manifests itself more fully or imminently.  People tend to respond in proportion to the perceived threat.  Hence, one could argue that Tom has the more valid argument due to the current manifestation of his concern.

40
American has a moral imperative to vote for the candidate endorsed by Right To Life.

Well, Tom, this is not a moral, but your religious imperative.

When you put fundamental religious imperatives on others, that's called sharia law.

Are you implying that the U.S. was under sharia law prior to 1972?  What about the rest of the world.  You can disagree respectfully and without making wild accusations.  Your posts are a similar, but opposite, attempt to force your values on others.  Take a step aside and try to view it objectively.

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 11:16:03 PM »
lacking a plausible mechanism in no way minimizes the deductions from the data.  We cannot ignore the data, just because we do not understand why.

C'mon, you'd be the first to jump on the "correlation does not imply causation" bandwagon if the data were saying something different.

Wrong!  The data is correct, whether we understand it or not.  We cannot ignore the truth, just because we cannot describe it.

42
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 05:38:59 PM »
"Is there a barrier between the (arbitrarily defined) periphery and center?"

yes, batyhmetry, and it is not at all arbitrarily defined. It is probably no coincidence that the past 10 years the remaining sea ice is more or less the same as the deep sea arctic. Yes, it will change, and it will melt out eventually. The only question is when. It seems to me that extrapolating from shallow seas to deep seas does not work. At least it has not worked yet...
So the old "bathymetry" argument. If a sea is deeper in the middle then the peripheries are going to be shallower, stands to reason.

But what is missing is any plausible link between ocean depth and how much the sea ice melts, unless we are talking about less than 50 - 100 meters which does not apply to Beaufort, Barents or Kara seas and about half of Laptev, Eas Siberian and Chukchi seas.

I am not any better versed in this argument than El Cid.  However, I will say that lacking a plausible mechanism in no way minimizes the deductions from the data.  We cannot ignore the data, just because we do not understand why.

43
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 03:01:27 PM »
I think it is the opposite.  Precisely because these seas have bottom out during the summer, they cannot    contribute to a decreased minimum.  The additional melt must stem from the remaining ice - namely the CAB, which still exhibits a V-shape.  This should slow the rate of melt in the near future.
Why should it slow the rate of melt? The CAB will start showing U shapes also, and there will be a seamless transition of U's from the periphery to the center, all following the straight and narrow (and strait) linear relationship between global temperatures and sea ice.

But will it?  Look back at gerontocrat's graphs.  While the peripheral seas have transitioned to the U-shaped melt, the CAB has not.  In fact, it has not changed significantly in a decade.  Both the volume and extent have shown a similar pattern throughout the 2010s, while the rest have degenerated.  Once the peripheral seas reached their u-shaped curve, the CAB stagnated.

44
I couldn’t agree with you more.

45
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 17, 2019, 02:02:32 PM »
Warmer (more typical) weather will melt much of the snow in the eastern U.S.  This will be countered by heavy snow out west.  May balance out or may not.

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 17, 2019, 01:58:37 PM »
After looking at graphs of individual seas and making comments on them, this is the quote that seems valid, and  even more so, for many of the individual seas.

Changing state of Arctic sea ice across all seasons
Julienne Stroeve and  Dirk Notz

Quote
5. Accelerated sea ice loss during all months of the year is additionally driven by a lengthening of the melt season. As assessed for the Arctic as a whole through April 2018, melt onset is occurring 3 days earlier per decade, and freeze-up is happening 7 days later per decade (figure 3). Over the 40 year long satellite record, this amounts to a 12 day earlier melt onset and a 28 day later freeze-up.
[/size]

The summer melt turns from a V shape  into a U shape

     Interesting graphical insight gerontocrat.  Seeing those V curves turn into flat bottomed U shapes is a useful visualization of the concept of individual Arctic seas reaching cumulative losses to the point of having temporary ice extinctions.

      Another insight arises from reading your quoting item 5 about the Arctic as a whole gaining 10 days of melt season per decade (starts 3 days earlier, ends 7 days later per decade).  That trend gives a shorthand way of projecting dates for when additional BOE landmarks will occur.  If that rate continued, then once we have September regularly going below the 1M km2 BOE threshold, then every 3 decades after that, at the 1979-2018 melt season expansion rate, the duration of the BOE period would expand by another 30-days.

      I suppose the added low ice/BOE period would be an additional 9 days before and 21 days after the date of annual minimum.  Seems to me that the low ice period would continue to expand forward and backward from the current mid-Septemberish date for annual minimum at the same ratio as before.  Or will that the ratio change as the ice-free period runs into the darkening days of October vs. the sunny dog days of August?  Why is the observed ratio not not the same on either side of the annual minimum, i.e. why 3 days earlier start but 7 days later finish instead of 5 & 5?

..... suggest a much faster expansion of melt season for the Arctic as a whole than a new month every 30 years.   I suspect that is because the 3 days earlier - 7 days later per decade trend, being based on the 1979-2018 record, is slower than the rate of melt season advancement more recently.  I'll take a second look at Notz and Stroeve to see what date estimates can be extracted for when BOE for Aug, Oct, and July might be expected based on current trends.

I think it is the opposite.  Precisely because these seas have bottom out during the summer, they cannot    contribute to a decreased minimum.  The additional melt must stem from the remaining ice - namely the CAB, which still exhibits a V-shape.  This should slow the rate of melt in the near future. 

47
The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: November 16, 2019, 08:04:56 PM »
KK, there will definitely be PO someday. Oil will run out in the 21st, or 22nd or whatever century. It is a finite resource. The only debate is about the time and the reason (exhaustion or replacement or termination of industrial civilization).

There will be, if we keep using oil.  This meme keeps resurfacing every 20 years or so, and then fades.

48
The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: November 16, 2019, 02:46:03 PM »
Actually I missed that part - demand.  Thanks for clarifying.  I can see that as green energy increases and population growth slows.

49
The rest / Re: Peak Oil and Climate Change
« on: November 15, 2019, 10:33:44 PM »
I cannot tell you many times peak oil has been predicted in the past.  No one knows.

50
Re: They look at the system in other countries and see lower costs for lower care.

Anyone stating that is misled or lying.  Other countries in the west have far lower costs for superior care. 

sidd

See previous post for clarification.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 17