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 - jai mitchell

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: January 20, 2018, 07:19:33 PM »
https://cop23.unfccc.int/news/onshore-wind-power-now-as-affordable-as-any-other-source-solar-to-halve-by-2020


Report / 15 Jan, 2018
Onshore Wind Power Now as Affordable as Any Other Source, Solar to Halve by 2020


The cost of generating power from onshore wind has fallen by around a quarter since 2010, with solar photovoltaic (PV) electricity costs falling by 73 per cent in that time, according to new cost analysis from the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA). The report also highlights that solar PV costs are expected to halve by 2020. The best onshore wind and solar PV projects could be delivering electricity for an equivalent of USD 3 cents per kilowatt hour (kWh), or less within the next two years.

Global weighted average costs over the last 12 months for onshore wind and solar PV now stand at USD 6 cents and USD 10 cents per kWh respectively, with recent auction results suggesting future projects will significantly undercut these averages. The report highlights that onshore wind is now routinely commissioned for USD 4 cents per kWh. The current cost spectrum for fossil fuel power generation ranges from USD 5-17 cents per kWh.

The report also shows that the cost of generating power from renewable energy sources continues to fall significantly, to the extent that that all renewable technologies will become competitive by 2020 compared to fossil fuels to meet new power generation needs.

2
I cant find anything about costs or financing in these plans ? I went thru the boston, atlanta and st louis plans but saw no estimates. perhaps i'm missing something on their web site ?

sidd

It looks like they are calling on state legislators to provide funding for financing energy efficiency and renewable energy developments, also using a local green bank and, i think, requiring the utility company to buy the solar energy generated on local rooftops.

3
Science / Re: Importance of pollution and clouds in the Arctic
« on: January 06, 2018, 07:50:49 PM »
While increasing the temperature of the arctic during the winter months, the observation of clouds as a suppressor of temperature and ice loss rates during the summer melting season is well documented.  The increase (2 to 8 times) of arctic cloud impacts compared to  midlatitude clouds as a result of Asian pollution shows that our current melt regime is being stalled by these emissions.

I have recently observed a large change in the temperature trends between the satellite and land-based series.  This large shift is unprecedented in the satellite monitoring period.  This even began around June of 2017. 

Concurrent to this unprecedented shift was a major change in the trajectory of the ENSO away from the return of a strong El Nino and back to a La Nina.  This process has been identified in models to also be an indication of a large pulse of increased pollution.

My reference post with the graphs can be found here:  https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1225.msg137892.html#msg137892

I also note that the PIOMAS data posted by A-Team also shows a rapid reduction in the rate of sea ice loss about this time, further indicating the potential for large increases of pollution at this time and its global impacts on the climate.

4
Science / Re: Satellite Temperature Record
« on: January 04, 2018, 07:39:52 PM »
I just noticed this playing with woods for trees http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:6/from:2015/plot/rss/mean:6/from:2015/plot/gistemp/mean:6/from:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:6/from:2015

I was reviewing an old John Christy lecture to remember the bald-faced lies that they are all starting to swallow with a good helping of crow and I wanted to compare the revised RSS values with the UAH (fake) data.

Then I noticed this.

Does anyone have a good idea why the divergence between RSS and UAH vs GISSTemp and HADCRUT4?  How is it possible that BOTH satellite MSU are showing warming but the surface temp data sets are showing cooling?!??!!!!!!????!!!!!!

This is especially disconcerting since the RSS and UAH have spectacularly low coverage of of the Arctic.

Thoughts?

I could theorize of a sudden and new feature in the upper atmosphere that is causing lower stratospheric warming and cooling the earth but then people would start accusing me of some kind of geoengineering conspiracy. . .  :o

it is also interesting to note that ENSO did this at the exact same time.

note 2015/2016 El Nino no divergence
the last 9 months was not a significant change to El Nino
There is no analogy to this even in the historic record.


5
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: January 04, 2018, 04:42:01 PM »
RSS and UAH are sensitive to changes in ENSO, right? More pronounced warming/cooling and a lag, etc.

note 2015/2016 El Nino no divergence
the last 9 months was not a significant change to El Nino
There is no analogy to this even in the historic record.


6
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: January 04, 2018, 05:18:09 AM »
follow up

it is also interesting to note that ENSO did this at the exact same time.

7
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: January 04, 2018, 04:42:09 AM »
I just noticed this playing with woods for trees http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/mean:6/from:2015/plot/rss/mean:6/from:2015/plot/gistemp/mean:6/from:2015/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:6/from:2015

I was reviewing an old John Christy lecture to remember the bald-faced lies that they are all starting to swallow with a good helping of crow and I wanted to compare the revised RSS values with the UAH (fake) data.

Then I noticed this.

Does anyone have a good idea why the divergence between RSS and UAH vs GISSTemp and HADCRUT4?  How is it possible that BOTH satellite MSU are showing warming but the surface temp data sets are showing cooling?!??!!!!!!????!!!!!!

This is especially disconcerting since the RSS and UAH have spectacularly low coverage of of the Arctic.

Thoughts?

I could theorize of a sudden and new feature in the upper atmosphere that is causing lower stratospheric warming and cooling the earth but then people would start accusing me of some kind of geoengineering conspiracy. . .  :o


8
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: January 03, 2018, 06:39:28 PM »
The 90% range for temperature rise by 2050 is 0.4 - 2.2 C above the 1986-2005 baseline.

I think you mean 0.6  to 2.2
 ;D

seeing that we are now above the low range value in 2017 with a whole lot of residual warming locked in (offset by aerosols, future feedbacks, 10-year lag time between emissions and full temp response) I think we can pretty much throw out the AR5 now.

10
Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: December 22, 2017, 06:27:42 PM »
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-12/teia-hmp122017.php

The study found that by the 2070s, high wet-bulb readings that now occur maybe only once a year could prevail 100 to 250 days of the year in some parts of the tropics. In the southeast United States, wet-bulb temperatures now sometimes reach an already oppressive 29 or 30 degrees Celsius; by the 2070s or 2080s, such weather could occur 25 to 40 days each year, say the researchers.

On our current course, within 40-60 years hundreds of millions of people may be exposed to a combined effect of temperatures + humidity that breach "the limit of human tolerance to heat"—a condition exceedingly rare today.

11
Anyway,  something new.  I don't think I have seen anything else like these plans out there to date.

Have you seen Zero Carbon Britain?

http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/en/

After merely a quick scan it appears as if The Climate Mobilization has not?

I don't know, they don't have a reference to the group in the document.  I guess the thing I was noting was the specific implementation 'hows' not just the 'whats' like, developing a green roof/solar roof program and including EV chargers and building electrification with the energy efficiency delivery program. 

12
This group advocates for a response to the climate emergency that is on scale with the massive effort required to prevent civilization collapse.  They just released 8 demonstration plans for U.S. cities which are pretty much the same policies and technologies but applied to different populations that have different availability of renewable energy resources.

The 36 page plans demonstrate how specific policies and technologies to reduce emissions have been done in other states and countries.  It also promotes urban regenerative agriculture as a way to help sequester greenhouse gasses and increase local resiliency. 

There is a lot of stuff in these documents, a lot of activities and technologies that work together and will fundamentally change the look and feel of a city that adopts such a plan.   I do not understand all of the complex interactions and synergies that something like this can produce.  The biggest unknown in my mind is how a local citizenry will respond when they see their government taking on this level of activity, the inherent local economic benefits that green jobs, manufacturing and the replacement of imported gasoline and natural gas with locally-generated solar and wind power.

I wonder how, for example, the rapid reduction in private vehicle ownership and the development of 'park and charge' lots in cities for electric vehicles will reduce street-level parking in cities?  Do they simply expand the lanes for cars? Or do they put in functional bike and walk paths? both?  What happens when a local city government finances a 'green bank' and the entire city decides that they want to divest their mortgages away from banks that fund oil and gas pipelines?

Anyway,  something new.  I don't think I have seen anything else like these plans out there to date.

check it out here:  https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/implementation-plans


13
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 17, 2017, 06:55:54 AM »
geronocrat
So reports [for AR6?] finalised in 2021 / 2022.

The timeline for the modelling and associated science is somewhat different. See image below. Will new data from 2018, 2019, 2020 data even get considered?

Does that mean a 2 to 5 year lag between data and reports?

What happened in AR5?

As I recall the Cutoff date was December '12 with publication in November 13.  However most of the papers cited were more than a few years old with the period of data often collected and synthesized into a paper within a year.  So I would guess average 'new' paper addition was 2010 or so with the 'new' data from 2008-2009.  However, we must remember that the communication of the ARs takes years to get into policy (or even the public awareness).  We are literally working on documents that still rely on TAR and AR4.

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017/2018 freezing season
« on: December 13, 2017, 11:41:15 PM »
American Geophysical Union 2017 Press Conference on the Arctic Report Card

 
December 13, 2017


15
Science / Re: Beaufort Gyre Reversal and a Return to 1960's Level SIE
« on: December 13, 2017, 07:46:43 PM »
With regard to the "arctic cooling of the 1970's' in your last graphic, I suggest the following correction (not that it was your error).


16
Science / Beaufort Gyre Reversal and a Return to 1960's Level SIE
« on: December 13, 2017, 05:18:30 PM »
This interesting presentation about the potential for a long-term reversal of the Beaufort Gyre under a warming Arctic is very provocative.  While being unable to hear the actual presentation that these slides are associated with (link: https://www.us-ocb.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/43/2017/03/OCB-meeting-2014-Beaufort_Gyre_Dynamics_and_implications_for_North_Atlantic-Arctic-exchange-1_189964.pdf ) the image below is almost magical in its projections. 

Fuller discussion of this can be found here.  http://e360.yale.edu/features/how-a-wayward-arctic-current-could-cool-the-climate-in-europe

Wouldn't that be wonderful???

17
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: December 10, 2017, 10:12:02 PM »
Maybe somebody should calculate what that takes.

My Rough estimate using LCA for renewables is that the full U.S. infrastructure buildout for renewable energy (including storage) would take about 2.5 years of additional annual domestic emissions.  After that the work going forward (making EVs, etc.) can be powered using renewables.

18
The rest / Re: Who should be the Democratic nominee for President in 2020?
« on: December 10, 2017, 04:42:42 PM »
Peter Daou is a propagandist and none of his assertions are legitimate, none.

For example, the 1994 crime bill won his support because of the Assault Weapons Ban and the Violence Against Women provisions.  Compare that with Daou's later assertions that Bernie was in the pocket of the NRA.

https://berniesanders.com/press-release/sanders-voted-for-1994-crime-bill-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-violence-against-women-provisions/

It is pathetic that this clown asserts himself to be a 'progressive' when he is clearly a neoliberal establishment hack.

19
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: December 10, 2017, 04:30:07 PM »
According to the smh article, a Tesla model S requires up to 63kg of lithium carbonate.

Atomic weight of lithium carbonate =74 g/mol (7*2+12+16*3)
Atomic weight of Lithium = 7 g/mol


So about 12kg of lithium.

This kind of post is the reason I like coming here!

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: December 10, 2017, 05:13:15 AM »
How realistic would it be, demand in 8 years of 470 000 tonnes of lithium. That would be like 10 million small Tesla cars a year that have to be sold. Or something like 10 % of todays car sales. And something like a 1000 % increase of Lithium production.

Autonomous electric vehicle ride sharing is projected to decrease private vehicle ownership in urban areas between 40-60%.

21
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 06, 2017, 08:47:35 PM »
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24672

Abstract

Climate models provide the principal means of projecting global warming over the remainder of the twenty-first century but modelled estimates of warming vary by a factor of approximately two even under the same radiative forcing scenarios. Across-model relationships between currently observable attributes of the climate system and the simulated magnitude of future warming have the potential to inform projections. Here we show that robust across-model relationships exist between the global spatial patterns of several fundamental attributes of Earth’s top-of-atmosphere energy budget and the magnitude of projected global warming. When we constrain the model projections with observations, we obtain greater means and narrower ranges of future global warming across the major radiative forcing scenarios, in general. In particular, we find that the observationally informed warming projection for the end of the twenty-first century for the steepest radiative forcing scenario is about 15 per cent warmer (+0.5 degrees Celsius) with a reduction of about a third in the two-standard-deviation spread (−1.2 degrees Celsius) relative to the raw model projections reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our results suggest that achieving any given global temperature stabilization target will require steeper greenhouse gas emissions reductions than previously calculated.

video abstract here:

22
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: December 06, 2017, 05:12:40 PM »
https://twitter.com/abc7leslielopez?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Enews%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
#SkirballFire UPDATE: The 405 Fwy is now CLOSED in both directions between the 101 Fwy and 10 Fwy as the 50-acre brush fire near the Getty Center continues to rage. Mandatory evacuation orders have been issued for parts of Bel Air as the fire approaches homes in the area.

23
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: December 03, 2017, 07:43:50 AM »
They can't wait to get rid of Trump so that they can make Pence the Prez. 


24
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 03, 2017, 04:53:59 AM »
Thanks for the casement reference, Mr. Mitchell.

sidd

sure thing, thanks for the reminder, haven't looked at it for a number of years.  The thing is, from a geological perspective, I can only muse as to the long-term impact of methane emissions from this additional source over hundreds of years.  It seems clear that we will have to monitor and repair these wells in the future to prevent massive fugitive methane leakage.

25
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 02, 2017, 04:08:44 PM »
"The well casing failure rate of every natural gas well ever drilled is 100% on a 200 year timeline."

Since we don't have stats for 200 yr, are you basin this on failure rates for casings or ... ?

sidd

Mostly industry journal studies but also some interviews with industry people.  The fact is that wells are made of cement and steel and capped (if properly) with cement.  Cement and steel fail when left in the ground and cement in this environment is not intended to last for very long forever.  http://tcgasmap.org/media/Casement%20Failure%20in%20Gas%20Wells.pdf

26
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: December 02, 2017, 05:28:34 AM »
The well casing failure rate of every natural gas well ever drilled is 100% on a 200 year timeline.

27
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 29, 2017, 06:04:58 PM »
Royal Meteorological Society update on likely temperature response under (?) RCP 4.5 going forward.

This graphic shows the astounding differences that a very slight difference in climate sensitivity will produce.  It must also be noted that they still are not including many carbon cycle feedbacks that have the potential to increase total additional forcing by as much as a third.

Just eyeballing this, under RCP 4.5 with a climate sensitivity of 4.5 and including carbon cycle feedbacks the 2100 temperature would sit somewhere above 4.3C (in the absence of geoengineering and SO2 emissions).

28
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 28, 2017, 07:41:02 PM »
unfortunately, coverage of 0-700 depth ocean heat content methodologies changed significantly after the deployment of the ARGO float network.  the 0-700 difference in global coverage is inconclusive.  quarterly differentials in ocean heat content including 1 year before and after event are shown.

29
Doctor Jennifer Francis provides a discussion of the intense Arctic amplification and water vapor anomalies that occurred this year as a result of the record El Nino of 2016.

Every indication is that this pattern will become the 'new abnormal' as a result of global warming and, especially, as a result of reductions in SO2 emissions from SE Asia.

10 minute Francis Presentation here:

full presentation (54 minutes) from three scientists on the subject: 

30
Article today that discusses the implication of wise et al. described above by ASLR and the previous DeConto paper describing Thwaites and PIG SLR potentials.

https://grist.org/article/antarctica-doomsday-glaciers-could-flood-coastal-cities/
Doomsday on Ice

Rapid collapse of Antarctic glaciers could flood coastal cities by the end of this century.

By Eric Holthaus   on Nov 21, 2017

The only place in the world where you can see ice-cliff instability in action today is at Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland, one of the fastest-collapsing glaciers in the world. DeConto says that to construct their model, they took the collapse rate of Jakobshavn, cut it in half to be extra conservative, then applied it to Thwaites and Pine Island.

31
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 12, 2017, 11:33:21 PM »
I would also expect that the PIG collapse during the early Holocene was also caused by rapid SLR due to freshwater pulses.  Thank you for your in depth response. 

32
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: November 12, 2017, 12:26:04 PM »
I note that this effect could also be responsible for the presence of hippos in England during the last interglacial maximum.  http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016787809000054

However, it is unclear (to me) how much of this is driven by WAIS impact (since WAIS was intact at last holocene maximum) and how much is an effect of arctic melt and higher latitude (north) solar insolation.

33
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 11, 2017, 11:29:51 PM »
Replying here to Jai Mitchell's graph posted earlier in this thread

Thanks Niall, I expected that was the case but did not have the info to back it up.

34
Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: November 11, 2017, 03:22:51 PM »
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa8fde/meta

Abstract
Washington State experienced widespread drought in 2015 and the largest burned area in the observational record, attributable in part to exceptionally low winter snow accumulation and high summer temperatures. We examine 2015 drought severity in the Cascade and Olympic mountains relative to the historical climatology (1950–present) and future climate projections (mid-21st century) for a mid-range global greenhouse gas emissions scenario. Although winter precipitation was near normal, the regional winter temperature anomaly was +2.1 °C (+2.0σ) in 2015, consistent with projections of a +2.3 °C (+2.2σ) temperature change and near normal precipitation in the future, relative to the climatology. April 1 snow water equivalent in 2015, −325 mm (−1.5σ), and the future, −252 mm (−1.1σ), were substantially lower than the climatology. Wildfire potential, as indicated by dead fuel moisture content, was higher in 2015 than mid-21st century mean projections. In contrast to most historical droughts, which have been driven by precipitation deficits, our results suggest that 2015 is a useful analog of typical conditions in the Pacific Northwest by the mid-21st century.


35
Consequences / Re: General Drought Stuff
« on: November 11, 2017, 03:01:06 PM »
https://www.newsdeeply.com/water/community/2017/05/24/study-western-u-s-snowpack-could-deacline-60-percent-by-2040

Study: Western U.S. Snowpack Could Decline 60 Percent by 2040

The lead author of the new study says a 30 percent decline in mountain snowpack is “very likely” and greater losses are possible. The report points the finger at human-induced changes in the climate.

It was a set of simulations that took several years to complete. And it’s that new set of simulations that allowed us to make what is the most notable statement in this paper, and that is that we’re predicting up to a 60 percent decline in snowpack over the Western U.S. That’s a combination of 30 percent from human impact, and possibly an additional 30 percent decline due to this natural variability. That’s the key result. It is a big number. It’s frightening.

36
Arctic sea ice / Re: PIOMAS vs CryoSat
« on: November 06, 2017, 03:51:06 PM »
Univ of Calgary study indicates that Cryosat-2 has overestimated Freeboard depth due to salinity/reflectivity of first-year sea ice.  First year overestimate of volume up to 25% with total impact on basin (April Max) of 17% overestimated.

link here:  https://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2017-10-24/arctic-sea-ice-may-be-thinning-faster-scientists-initially-predicted#.WgBdozOXxfA.twitter

“It has been assumed by the scientific community that CryoSat-2 can accurately measure the sea ice freeboard, which is the ice we can see above sea level,” says Nandan. “But that ice is covered in snow and the snow is salty close to where the sea ice surface is. The problem is, microwave measurements from satellites don’t penetrate the salty snow very well, so the satellite is not measuring the proper sea ice freeboard and the satellite readings overestimate the thickness of the ice.”

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (November update)
« on: November 06, 2017, 03:47:59 PM »
Univ of Calgary Study indicates that Cryosat-2 has overestimated thickiness of first-year sea ice by as much as 25% due to salinity content of upper layers.

Overall this bias of extra thckness indicates an overestimate of up to 17 percent of total volume in recent years.

https://www.ucalgary.ca/utoday/issue/2017-10-24/arctic-sea-ice-may-be-thinning-faster-scientists-initially-predicted#.WgBdozOXxfA.twitter

“It has been assumed by the scientific community that CryoSat-2 can accurately measure the sea ice freeboard, which is the ice we can see above sea level,” says Nandan. “But that ice is covered in snow and the snow is salty close to where the sea ice surface is. The problem is, microwave measurements from satellites don’t penetrate the salty snow very well, so the satellite is not measuring the proper sea ice freeboard and the satellite readings overestimate the thickness of the ice.”

38
Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: November 05, 2017, 06:44:15 PM »
This study appears to be limited to the United States.  Since the majority of the worlds forests are located in Canada and Siberia I wonder what the projection of total global forest impacts would be.

39
The rest / Re: The problem of Corporate Democrats and how to kick them out
« on: November 03, 2017, 03:19:28 PM »

So all this money did not matter in the end. So why are we even talking about this ?

man, this information must really hurt you.

Ok, how about this.

The reason that the DNC was bankrupt was because Obama and Debbie Wasserman Schultz kept their high-payed consultant and lobbyist friends on the payroll during non-election cycle years. (its in the article)

They intentionally bankrupted the DNC and the following is why.

They agreed after the 2008 election that after Obama was term limited that Hillary would be the nominee.

They then signed an agreement that gave complete control of all spending, fundraising, staffing and communications to the the Hillary Clinton Campaign in August 2015, fully 6 months before the first state primary.

The result of their agreement was that they put the DNC on a starvation diet, with monthly stipends, funneled 99.5% of state-level funding to their organization and produced the most biased, unfair and corrupt primary election in this nation's history.

The result of these total actions produced such an obvious mistaste of the candidate in the mouths of the 40 and under electorate, as well as the well documented distrust from the traditional DNC base of organized labor members, that she lost an election that ANY democratic party presidential candidate in the HISTORY of presidential candidates would have won.

We could have had a president Bernie Sanders and he would have pushed the climate emergency to the forefront, with the U.S. leading the entire world into a rapid mobilization to get off of fossil fuels and restore a safe, late Holocene climate.

In the end, the delay in emissions reductions that have resulted from the DNC corruption of the power elites, as well as their secondary impacts on state-level races (a TOTAL washout - giving the Senate to the Republicans - which also gave them 6 votes on the Supreme Court) may have ACTUALLY DOOMED humanity to >4C of globally averaged warming.

THAT is why we are talking about this.

40
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 02, 2017, 04:41:00 PM »
Lazard just released their 2017 levelized cost of energy study

full report here: https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf

41
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: November 02, 2017, 04:36:58 PM »
 ???

42
The rest / Mark Jacobson Lawsuit
« on: November 02, 2017, 01:35:56 PM »
Background here:  https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/609308/a-renewable-energy-champion-is-suing-his-scientific-critics/

Mark Jacobson of Stanford is relatively famous in the climate mitigation world for developing a national, state by state and (is working on) a global energy resource analysis that shows that is is 'possible' for a state, country or even the whole world to switch all energy consumption to non-fossil fuel (and nuclear) sources. 

Last year the National Academy of Sciences published a response paper co-written by 20 authors to take apart his work.  He claimed that their assertions in the paper (peer reviewed) were intentionally misleading and akin to libel.  It looks like he REALLY believed what he was saying.

Some climate scientists have stated that this is not the correct way to treat scientific debate.  That the conversation should be done through the peer reviewed, refereed literature.  Mark Jacobson did this with a very lengthy response to the paper, which was published.

He is suing for $10 million dollars.

My thoughts,

First off, I am not a big fan of scientists suing people, except when the targets of these lawsuits are actively working, either through ideological insanity or for simple monetary gain, to intentionally suppress good work that is going to help us to get off of fossil fuels and preserve some kind of non-dystopian future for our children.

However, some interesting things about the authors that wrote the paper.

Did there really need to be 20 authors for a response paper?  There is no real core datasets that required field research, why so many authors except to make the paper seem more authoritative.  This is akin to saying, "I win because me and my friends are louder than you are".

Which lends itself to Mark Jacobson's argument that they are intentionally trying to discredit his work, not discuss the scientific merit of his work.

Secondly, Mark Jacobson asserts that most of the 20 authors have ties to Nuclear industry, nuclear support organizations, fossil fuel interests (I think) and/or geoengineering.  He implies that they are trying to suppress his work intentionally to protect their own interests.

In any event this could get interesting.

Mark Jacobson's Paper from 2015:  http://www.pnas.org/content/112/49/15060.full.pdf

Christopher Clack (and 20 authors) paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full

Mark Jacobson's Reply: http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/E5021 

43
Consequences / Re: Hansen et al paper: 3+ meters SLR by 2100
« on: October 26, 2017, 05:56:43 PM »
Evidence of paleoclimate Pine Island Glacier Cliff effect collapse during end of last ice age.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/10/26/new-science-suggests-the-ocean-could-rise-more-and-faster-than-we-thought/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.cf16ef3c6d1b

What’s critical about the markings, explains lead study author Matthew Wise of the University of Cambridge, is their maximum depth — 848 meters, or around 2,800 feet. Because ice floats with 10 percent of its mass above the surface and the remaining 90 percent below it, this suggests that when the ice broke from the glacier, close to 100 meters (over 3oo feet) of it was extending above the water surface.

That’s a key number, because scientists are converging on the belief that ice cliffs of about this height above the water level are no longer sustainable and collapse under their own weight — meaning that when you get a glacier this tall up against the ocean, it tends to crumble and crumble, leading to fast retreat and potentially fast sea level rise.

“If we think about how thick these icebergs would have needed to be considering these float with 90 percent of their mass and thickness beneath the sea,” Wise said, “we think of an ice cliff that was at the maximum thickness implied by the physics of the ice.”

The problem is that if it happened then, well, it could happen again. Both Pine Island glacier and its next door neighbor, Thwaites, are known to get thicker as one travels inland away from the sea, which means they are capable of once again generating ice cliffs taller than the critical size detected by the current study.

“If a cliff even higher than the ~100 m subaerial/900 m submarine cliffs were to form, as might occur with retreat of Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, it might break repeatedly with much shorter pauses than now observed, causing very fast grounding line retreat and sea level rise,” explained Richard Alley, a glaciologist at Penn State University, by email after reviewing the current study for the Post.

44
Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: October 20, 2017, 04:06:16 PM »

45
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: October 20, 2017, 08:07:43 AM »
 :-X

46
Policy and solutions / Re: Boring, boring ol' Elon Musk...
« on: October 19, 2017, 11:41:21 PM »
Larry Hogan, Governor of the State of Maryland, confirmed that they are working with the company for a “rapid electric transportation” system between Baltimore and Washington DC...

34 miles, straight line.  All in the same state with backing from the governor.

180,000 feet.  60 feet per day with a regular (large diameter) tunneling machine.  3,000 days.  8.2 years.

Musk claims that eventually they should reach speeds of 840 feet per day.   214 days.  7 months.

Wonder how much faster Boring is now?  Smaller diameter will buy them a lot.  Of course they could drop in another machine or more in order to get a first line up and running.

I'm so lovin' this.  With robo taxis on each end of the run there would be almost no reason to drive one's own car between DC and Baltimore.

And this could do wonders for Baltimore's economy.  Turn it into a DC bedroom community.

pretty standard practice to work from both ends of the tunnel.

47
The rest / Re: Russiagate
« on: October 19, 2017, 06:09:57 PM »
It may be that there's a successful disinformation campaign to smear people like Obama and the Clintons, but isn't the reason it's so successful that there is something there?

Anyone who believes that Obama and the Clintons are above corruption has simply not been paying attention.

The Real News


Jimmy Dore

48
How a purchased government operates


49
Science / Re: Radiative forcing and CO2eq
« on: October 07, 2017, 05:42:23 PM »
That last graphic is very interesting.

It shows a net forcing from 1850 of +2.5

However, measurements of ocean heat content as a proxy for Top-of-Atmosphere radiation imbalance (see: https://www.ocean-sci.net/12/925/2016/os-12-925-2016.pdf ) show that our current radiation imbalance is between 0.8 and 1.2 W/m^2.

of course, the imbalance of radiation is partially offset by changes in albedo and through blackbody emissions that increase as the earth warms (and it is warmer than 1850).  Though all indications are that the total albedo forcing is slightly positive since 1850 (less reflective). 

This then shows that on a globally averaged value, the temperature must increase somewhat to offset the current top-of-atmosphere energy imbalance.  Since blackbody emissions increase at fourth-power scales the temperature increase necessary will be slightly less than what has been observed (~ 1 C)  so this means that on a globally averaged temperature  scale about 0.8C is locked in at current TOA imbalance. 

This warming will not occur on the ocean surface, however, as has happend in the past, this warming will be represented in arctic amplification and land surface temperatures warming more than ocean surface temperatures.  Likely in proportion to shifts seen since 1850.

Then one must consider the end of fossil fuels to halt growing CO2 emissions and the subsequent halt in SO2 emissions, with some reductions in forcing from shortlived climate polutants, perhaps (at a very best case) 2/3 of the SO2 positive impact from halting emissions can be offset by shortlive climate pollutants and we will receive another +.23C from those combined effects.

so another +1.0C from today's value

Then we must include carbon cycle feedbacks and albedo feedbacks that operate on very short timelines (30-80 years) and we have a big ol question mark of locked in warming.  It starts with a minimum value of 300 GtC additional emissions from warming soils to this 300 GtC (Crowther 2016) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html?cookies=accepted

to this then add emissions from deeper soils that were not included in the Crowther study and are as much as 30% more than the surface soils value in Crowther, yeilding a total emissions value of 400 GtC http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2017/03/09/soils-carbon-climate/ 

These studies are much less rigorous than the recently published published 26-year study on mid-latitude forest soil carbon by Woods Hole and the release from these sources under warming conditions are so great that they are seen to potentially be enough to drive a self-perpetuating warming effecthttp://www.mbl.edu/blog/carbon-feedback-from-forest-soils-will-accelerate-global-warming-26-year-study-projects/ 

Note that there are 3,600 GtC in mid-latitude forest soils

In addition, another woods hole study, this of tropical forest carbon flows, shows that they are now either net neutral or positive emitters of CO2, which is very different from previous assumptions that they are carbon sinks.  https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/28/alarm-as-study-reveals-worlds-tropical-forests-are-huge-carbon-emission-source

Finally, the changes in albedo will also produce future warming as Arctic sea ice disappears and cloud regimes move further northward.  This cloud regime movement is implicated to produce the 9C ESS value of locked in warming potential at our current GHG forcing levels as shown in Snyder (2016) https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v538/n7624/abs/nature19798.html

It should be noted here that the -1.2W/m^2 is a low-end estimate of the total forcing impact of SO2 emissions since it does not include many potential indirect feedbacks, especially potential impacts on tropical cloud regimes and pacific ENSO patterns.

50
Science / Re: Carbon Cycle
« on: October 06, 2017, 05:46:52 AM »
https://scienmag.com/carbon-feedback-from-forest-soils-will-accelerate-global-warming-26-year-study-projects/

WOODS HOLE, Mass. — After 26 years, the world's longest-running experiment to discover how warming temperatures affect forest soils has revealed a surprising, cyclical response: Soil warming stimulates periods of abundant carbon release from the soil to the atmosphere alternating with periods of no detectable loss in soil carbon stores. Overall, the results indicate that in a warming world, a self-reinforcing and perhaps uncontrollable carbon feedback will occur between forest soils and the climate system, adding to the build-up of atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by burning fossil fuels and accelerating global warming. The study, led by Jerry Melillo, Distinguished Scientist at the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL), appears in the October 6 issue of Science.

Melillo, J.M. et al (2017) Long-Term Pattern and Magnitude of Soil Carbon Feedback to the Climate System in a Warming World. Science
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6359/101

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 36