Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - crandles

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
1
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 18, 2018, 01:26:55 PM »
Curious if the elderly need to bring their own cleaning gear on pickup or if these fan-dangled new driverless taxis are self-cleaning when a drunk has vomited everywhere inside on the prior trip? :)

Driverless car will have credit card details of previous passenger and right to charge them for necessary cleaning services. If someone refuses use of car due to its state then different car goes to pick up the customer, the allegedly dirty car drives to valet service company who photographs for evidence and considers whether it needs a clean allowing last passenger to be charged or doesn't need a clean, car goes to next customer and passenger refusing trip gets charged for two unnecessary trips and the valet company's assessment. I think this creates appropriate incentives that most people will try to leave the car clean and tidy and not accept car in unsuitable state.

Maybe this need to be expanded with customers photographing any minor issues they are prepared to accept and emailing photo to driverless car management company, but I don't see a major issue with creating such systems.

.

Yes one of the best things is the potential to redevelop some of the city centre parking locations that are no longer needed.

2
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 18, 2018, 01:29:16 AM »
Why do you believe that the elderly would prefer a solitary journey to one in the company of others?
Terry

Who says they won't be able to if they want and can afford it? If there becomes a choice between current taxi prices for human driven car vs half the price for driverless, would you want everyone to be stuck with only the first of these options or for everyone to have the choice? There is possibility of demand for former choice falling drastically and either pushing up price of that option or even making it too scarce so people are left with only the latter choice. But at least this is the cheaper option so you are less likely to be deprived of mobility because of unaffordability.

3
Arctic sea ice / Re: NSIDC 2018 Arctic SIE September average: August Poll
« on: September 17, 2018, 05:41:04 PM »
4.9 on Sept 1st falling to 4.553 on Sept 16th and likely to rise to about 5 or maybe a little more by end of month. Seems almost certain average will be closer to 4.75 than 4.5 or 5. Getting more likely for the average to be under 4.75 rather than over it now, I think.

I went for 4.5 to 5 here but between 4 and 4.5 on the daily JAXA number. Probably shouldn't have had that much difference.

4
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 17, 2018, 05:19:11 PM »
I see no advantage to a driverless car, but recognize that it would eliminate millions of jobs. Buses, trolleys, light rail, subways, and high speed rail all have a place in a sustainable future. Cars, garages, driveways, charging stations, life might go on without them.

Those who are so agoraphobic that they don't wish to share a vehicle with others should at least be willing to pilot the damn thing.
Terry

>eliminate millions of jobs
Do you see this as a good thing - how society get wealthier, or a bad thing - job losses & capitalism, or something that makes it inevitable or ... ? 'no advantage to a driverless car' seems a bit weird; disadvantages outweighing advantages I could understand even if I disagree.

>Buses, trolleys, light rail, subways, and high speed rail all have a place
An elderly person with mobility issues and poor eyesight might take issue and suggest a driverless car also has a place.

5
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 17, 2018, 03:48:43 PM »
Are self driving autos something that we need, or even want?

Terry

No doubt there are petrolheads that don't want them. Elderly people worried about losing mobility certainly should and do want them assuming they will improve safety and not lose mobility. But more important than such special interests, driver is usually largest cost of car/van transport so I think it is coming whether we like it or not. Reduced cost is likely to result in more usage. We may not like or want the effects of this, but it probably makes economic sense.

You will note I expect more congestion from this not less. There may be fewer vehicles more easily shared which makes economic sense (less cost) but those fewer vehicles will do a lot more miles such that there will be more vehicle miles making more congestion.

So it is lower cost driving this which we want, even if we don't like consequences.

I do wonder about other effects, does concentrating on difficult tasks like driving safely with poor eyesight keep the brain active and help reduce speed of degeneration of the mind.




6
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 17, 2018, 03:24:37 PM »
Quote
Who buys a car in 24 hours?

Remember that Tesla sells their cars online. People that might have considered buying a Tesla for a while may be swayed by the prospect free fuel for the life of the vehicle. A twit like that might be worth a few hundreds, maybe thousands of sales. He has 22 million followers.

I like companies where the CEO's try to sell their products. Obviously, not everyone agrees.

Interesting freudian slip calling it a twit rather than a tweet!

Yes, some thinking about it might complete before deadline. But would more get the chance to complete before deadline if it was announced 2 weeks before and 1 week before and 1 day before rather than just the single one day before tweet. The approach taken is clearly not trying to sell cars. It suggests they are selling well enough than a benefit that was always going to be withdrawn can be withdrawn and they don't need to resort to pressure tactics to get people to sign up.

I prefer companies that don't have to resort to pressure sales tactics, therefore this seems good about Tesla.

7
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 17, 2018, 02:14:05 PM »
Who buys a car in 24 hours? If the deadline was to attract new buyers then they would have given a few weeks notice. It was going to end sometime. Doing it this way with just 24 hours notice makes it look like they are being ordered well enough to me. Obviously some people biases are making them see what they want to see.

8
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 17, 2018, 12:26:40 AM »
Musk just tweeted about an update to the Tesla Referral Program....could it be more obvious there is not endless demand for the cars Tesla is producing? Every piece of info that comes about related to Tesla, further corroborates the Tesla bear thesis.
Really? What was the update? I assume Tesla is enhancing the program in a desperate bid to attract some new buyers? At least you make it sound that way. Or maybe you haven't checked the details?

https://electrek.co/2018/09/16/tesla-ending-free-unlimited-supercharging-era/

Quote
New Model S, Model X, and Model 3 Performance buyers still have a chance to get free unlimited Supercharging for the lifetime of their ownership by ordering before the end of the day with a referral code.

After that, the referral program will give $100 of Supercharging credit to new buyers, which is a major drop in value from the unlimited free Supercharging for the lifetime ownership of the car.

Tesla has been talking about ending the valuable referral incentive for years now, but it looks like this time is the one.

CEO Elon Musk even tweeted the deadline last night:

Obviously selling so badly that withdrawing a benefit will entice new orders ??????

9
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: September 15, 2018, 02:49:59 PM »
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-president-bfr-mars-exploration-madrid-talk/

Quote
Other miscellaneous comments showed Shotwell at her best, ad-libbing one-liners that were lucid, accurate, and entertaining.

“We’ll be going to Mars … with NASA and with ESA. It’s gonna be like extreme camping… for 100 years. And then it might be okay.”
“[Space] tourism is inevitable but [SpaceX] doesn’t want to do it too soon”, the goal is to launch “test pilots before families”
“The first cars on Mars will be Teslas.”

Someone's confident Tesla will survive a few years  ;)

10
The rest / Time person of the year
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:41:59 PM »
I hear of betting odds for 2018 winner

Donald Trump 7/4
Elon Musk 2/1
....
Kim Jong-un 7/1
....
Robert Mueller 25/1
...
Teressa May 66/1

Seems like plenty to irk certain people ;)

11
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 10, 2018, 09:06:05 PM »
to be positive a start with (b)

here Tesla and/or Musk did a great and important job/contribution which outweighs any
shortcomings and mistakes IMO, it brings major manufacturers ultimately up to speed which
is 100% good, nothing negative can be said about that effect and the way it was done

...

so both is possible, what is not possible is that the company as what it is now and how it's doing things now and where it stands now is surviving.


Largely, yes, I agree. (Re expectations of electric vehicles, of course people will try to say negative things, but it won't change the truth of this Musk success.)

Re 'both possible': Yes it won't survive as it is now, but you seem to be ruling out possibility of company evolving from what it is now through hiring appropriate personnel rather than by a takeover. Care to explain a little more as to why this is unlikely?

12
Science / Re: 2018 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: September 08, 2018, 04:56:53 PM »
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
September 07:     403.97 ppm

Will it remain as a valid data point and will it be the lowest reading since Nov 2017 and last as that for a long time?

We are about 3-4 weeks from the minimum. Last year's low point was the last week of Sept and bottomed out at about 402.7 on the weeklies. Will be interesting to see if we stay above 405 this year.

Was this on daily, weekly or monthly basis?

No for daily seems likely, if not already established. Likely yes for monthly and the question was presumably really about weekly which seems an open question.

13
Consequences / Re: 2018 ENSO
« on: September 08, 2018, 04:49:41 PM »

14
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 08, 2018, 04:00:12 PM »
I believe (and correct me if I am wrong) that this exercise is just curve fitting to the best possible line.  What we lack (me included) is an explanation as to why any particular fit should be chosen.  Oftentimes, a linear fit can approximate a particular data curve over a specified range.  As the data approaches zero, I would expect this to fail, although in which direction is debatable.  In an unknown situation, oftentimes a moving average can best define the trend, as it incorporates recent data, without bias.  Not that it is any more accurate, but it tends to smooth out the data, removing variations which may mislead the eye.  Lastly, extrapolated beyond known parameters is always highly speculative, as we do not know how that affects the environment.  In short, it is a guess.  But we strive to make it the most educated best possible, and your guess may be different than mine, depending on which parameters we each feel might predominate in a future scenario.

Yes it is highly speculative.

>What we lack (me included) is an explanation as to why any particular fit should be chosen.

I try to refer to the models and if they almost all show a Gompertz like shape, then why would you use a different shaped curve to fit the data? A better fit might be one reason but if this gompertz shape does pretty well at reducing the RMSE that seems additional reason to go with it.

Use too many parameters and you can get a better fit and send the extrapolation off in any direction you choose. Hence it is necessary to try to minimise the number of parameters used. This can be considered to be a form of Occam's razor - if you don't need extra complexity to explain the data then that extra complexity is likely just wrong and should be omitted.

These considerations (particularly considering the physics which is what the models do) tends to act to place some limits on where the extrapolation goes.

Yes, it is highly speculative and the more so the further you go away from the known data. But at least it is based on something. If the alternative is making stuff up off the top of your head, and the people doing that sort of thing tend to be concerned about the issue and therefore likely to give a biased view towards catastrophic effects in order to motivate action,.... guess which I think should be preferred?

15
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 08, 2018, 12:15:09 AM »
1. AIUI Top melt becomes dominant late in the season but earlier in the season bottom melt is more important.

Here is data from a buoy:

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=327.0;attach=49351;image

For this buoy data, in total, it looks like bottom melt is slightly greater, which is what I would expect.

Different buoys react differently depending on their location. Note that bottom melt is a combination of both upward heat flux as you mentioned but also sideways: Open water absorbs far more heat due to its lower albedo and currents and wind can drive that under the ice. Thus near the edge of an ice flow you might get more bottom melt. Buoys may well be placed in thickest strongest looking ice so may be further from edges of floes than average. So bottom melt might be a little more important than data from buoys suggest.

2. Yes, the temperature does matter. The greater the temperature differential the faster the rate of heat flow. Heat lost less any upward heat flow to water beneath the ice is a good measure of the quantity of ice that forms.

3. Clouds slow the rate of heat loss from atmosphere to space and from surface to space. You may have noticed that cloudless nights are a lot colder than cloudy nights. See answer to 2. above regarding effect this has.

Hope this helps.



16
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 07, 2018, 11:44:11 PM »
The lead article states that there is already enough heat in the lower, saltier layer to melt all of the ice in the region throughout most of the year.

A one off quantity of heat that may well be enough to melt all the ice. But what would happen to the heat budget? Surely that would be massively affected with the water venting huge amounts of extra heat each winter due to lack of ice/much thinner ice for it to pass through. After venting this heat burb, would the ice return to normal levels over the next 2 or 3 years? Oh yes, there is the salt as well; but ice formed is relatively fresh by expelling cold briny water which then sinks. So this returns the salt to lower levels. Maybe the salt distribution takes a bit longer to return to something close to recent distribution.

I wouldn't want to risk carrying out this experiment even if I was a lot more confident that nothing particularly dramatic happens and soon returns to normal because even a small chance of something dramatic should be avoided if possible. But we are doing the experiment and so we have to live with the risk. However, I don't see that it makes sense to assume the likely consequences are catastrophic or that the chance of something dramatic happening is more than a low chance. If experts thought there was a high chance of something catastrophic then they would be clearly and loudly saying so.

AIUI the suggestion was that the mixing only occurs to significant extent at the edges of the continental shelves rather than all over the Arctic ocean. Elsewhere the stratification is really rather stable. Yes, changes are happening and eventually this will cause other changes but we don't really know whether this will be slow, fast, only in some locations, or over wide areas, or...

17
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 07, 2018, 08:49:22 PM »
My answers to your questions and remarks:
1. Volume (and, in part, thickness) reduces faster than extent, therefore the non-linearity of the volume data is more expressed than the extent. This leads to extrapolation results with bigger differences between log and lin evaluation. For the winter and spring season the extent differences from year to year were slower in the 80s and 90s and have increased in the 00s but reduced in the 10s. This leads to the effect that the linear evaluation reaches zero a few years earlier than the log fit.
2. I used the log function in addition to the linear because the deviation is slightly smaller in the log function. A quadratic extrapolation delivers almost the same results than the log evaluation.
3. I have no expertise in Gompertz fits therefore I leave this to those who know how to deal with them correctly. But I confess that "Gompertz type fitted curves" look more closer to the volume data than linear, log or quadratic fits.

Generally: Extrapolations into the far future are scientifically nonsense. No-one knows which effect the first BOE in early autumn will have on the extent of the following months and years. With increasing GHG concentrations and changing ocean currents new mechanisms (at least new rates) in melting and re-freezing will be put into place.
I did this evaluation for myself just to know whether - on the basis of a continuation of the trend of the last 40 years - it will take decades, centuries or millenia to reach zero and I decided to share this information with you.

Thanks for the answers.  :)

Not sure I have much expertise with gompertz functions other than the forumla looks like:
=parameter1*EXP(-EXP(Parameter 2*(year-Parameter3))) [+parameter4 if using 4 parameters)]

It is fairly easy to set up a spreadsheet to calculate 'sum of the errors squared' (or squareroot thereof) then optimise the parameters to minimise that total using a solver function/add-in.

I expect all your 'answers' will all be closer than my 4 parameter fits ;)

18
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 07, 2018, 06:19:47 PM »
8k filing
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318605/000156459018022798/tsla-8k_20180904.htm
says

Quote
On September 4, 2018, Tesla’s Chief Accounting Officer, Dave Morton, provided notice that he was resigning from Tesla, effective immediately. Dave stated: “Since I joined Tesla on August 6th, the level of public attention placed on the company, as well as the pace within the company, have exceeded my expectations. As a result, this caused me to reconsider my future. I want to be clear that I believe strongly in Tesla, its mission, and its future prospects, and I have no disagreements with Tesla’s leadership or its financial reporting.”

Tesla’s accounting functions and personnel will continue to be overseen by both Tesla’s Chief Financial Officer and its Corporate Controller, as had been the case prior to and during Dave’s transition to Tesla.

Clearly some people will read more between the lines than others.

GSY rightly claims some commentators are Tesla fans and no amount of reason will persuade them. But it seems odd to complain about that when GSY seem to post more motivated reasoning than others.
 

19
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: September 07, 2018, 05:40:45 PM »
It is time for the monthly update of my extrapolation when the extent [Extent], volume [Volumen] and thickness [Dicke] will reach zero. The extrapolation occured linearly and by a logarithmic function; the latter one constantly resulting in earlier times. See attached table.

Log function arrives at later date than linear for extent but earlier for volume and thickness. Why? Perhaps an example fit and extrapolation would help?

Also why a log function?

Curve seems more like gompertz to me and the models also seem to show gompertz shape. So why use a function that arrives at an earlier date than linear, particularly for volume?

20
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 07, 2018, 01:55:09 AM »
Large-scale wind and solar power 'could green the Sahara'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-45435593

But not sure about it being realistic:

Quote
The scientists modelled what would happen if 9 million sq km of the Sahara desert was covered in renewable energy sources.

They focussed on this area because it is sparsely populated, and it is also exposed to significant amounts of sun and wind and is close to large energy markets in Europe and the Middle East.

According to authors' calculations, a massive installation in the desert would generate more than four times the amount of energy that the world currently uses every year.

Previous studies have shown that installing wind and solar can have an impact on temperatures - but the key difference with this research is the impact on vegetation.

"Our model results show that large-scale solar and wind farms in the Sahara would more than double the precipitation, especially in the Sahel, where the magnitude of rainfall increase is between 20mm and 500mm per year," said Dr Yan Li, the lead author of the paper from the University of Illinois, US.

"As a result, vegetation cover fraction increases by about 20%."

Who would pay for it if most of the energy wasn't needed?

21
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 06, 2018, 02:27:43 PM »
The Tesla short-sellers are exiting en mass!  Tesla has dropped from first-, to the third-most shorted stock!

But is this taking profits with price down from $380 to $280?

22
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: September 06, 2018, 02:24:50 PM »

It opens up the possibility of solar power covering 100% of the grid power, day and night, and to do it cost effectively (lower cost than ANY fossil fuel generated power source).
 
That's revolutionary to say the least.

Surely not really. Cloudy short winter days?

But we don't need to aim for 100% solar. 30% solar 30% wind 20% biomass 15% nuclear 5% mixture of hydro, geothermal, tidal ..., some batteries, some extra burning of biomass on calm cloudy periods (which are not completely windless or sunless), some import from windier/sunnier areas, some alternative batteries like pump up storage, flow batteries and so on.

If we are getting to something like 15% wind, we still need to more than double the power because of converting transport to electric. Given the increased size maybe doubling the number of turbines? Noticeable further work to do, but at least it isn't a needing them all over everywhere exponential expansion problem.

23
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 05, 2018, 05:12:34 PM »

> If he is indeed holding the truth,
>If you take his words at face value,

Big if, I don't know of any evidence. Without evidence, I certainly don't want to repeat allegations in way that indicates that I think allegations may well be true. Doing so might make you also guilty of liable.

>then he is doing the right thing.

Really??? Sure you don't want to think about that a bit more?

I don't want to dismiss importance of child protection but I would rather Musk concentrates his time on his areas of expertise engineering and running important companies. If Musk has evidence, he should give it to a suitable expert in an appropriate position to prosecute and/or take suitable protective measures. Tweeting about it is the wrong thing to do because if it turns out to be false the tweets might provoke vigilante attacks.

>I believe Elon over the propaganda everyday of the week and twice on sundays.
>In this case, the guy joined the propaganda to trash Elon's effort to help save the children.
>I side with Elon because that "diver" started the quarrel.

How do you know it is propaganda? The guy is much more expert than Musk. It seems highly likely to me that the mini-sub was a bad plan that could get stuck despite using inflatable copy. Send it through a few millimetres different place and it may get stuck. If getting stuck is at all a risk then you want the boys to be able to bend and the sub wouldn't be as flexible. Maybe some version of this needed and deserved to be said to Musk. So I am not at all clear about whether it is propaganda or not.


In short, if Musk had evidence and was doing the right thing, we wouldn't be hearing about it in the way we are. Therefore, what we are hearing is evidence (but probably not proof) that Musk is likely doing the wrong thing.

24
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: September 05, 2018, 03:53:19 PM »
I'm just going to review the order of events:

Not sure that order of events matters much. Without evidence of its truth Musk is in trouble in 2 ways: 1. Financially it is likely to be costly. I would say likely out of court settlement; why would Musk waste lots of valuable time trying to defend himself?

But also 2) it does appear to show Musk is losing it. You can understand losing plot at being told mini-sub is useless for task and saying something silly, but why repeat it with tweet about wondering why no lawsuit was launched.

Better for us fanbois to admit this.

Whether we move on to claiming that Musk is still an inspirational leader despite some flaws is more interesting. Does this then sound like diehard fanbois attitude or is it the truth that the detractors will find our maintaining this annoying? Should we do that because they will find it annoying or because it is the truth or avoid doing it because it will just look like diehard fanbois attitude?

25
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: September 05, 2018, 03:27:44 PM »

I will repeat the reality of the electrical industry, in the UK, as it happens in the home.  10 years to try and fit smart meters.  Abject failure.

How long did it take to balance the needs of washing machine manufacturers and washing machine consumers?  Decades.

Umm. Did supply and demand mean that the required engineers grew as needed over that time? If there was a shortage of engineers did those engineers find they could charge more for their services and this higher rate of pay bring extra people into the industry?

Replacing PV parts Hmmf I am inundated with people cold calling to offer services I don't want: New inverter that produces 25% more electric, yeah right, cleaning services. Hmm, yes this is a different problem.

If consumers find their system is running poorly or failing due to components, I am sure they will want replacements and the demand will be met in the normal way as with any other product.

>"smart meters.  Abject failure."
Are people demanding them? The comments I hear is they are the most useless thing ever. If I switch kettle on I am using more electric, and these smart meters tell me this. Real 'No sh!t Sherlock!' information. So perhaps the demand for these things isn't there and that is why it is an abject failure.


26
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 05, 2018, 01:50:10 AM »
It's a good question how long to go before you can establish a trend, in this case. In most cases for climate you need decades. This certainly does not meet that standard.
*Exactly*,  and thank uou.

Decades is about establishing a reliable number for a trend i.e. a number. Steepening or flattening is a binary choice. That is a different ball game. 2^11 = 2048. No, I agree that doesn't really work, I believe there is much more than a 1 in 2048 chance of the trend now steepening. However, maybe that is about the future which is hard whereas this is about observations to date.

If there were only 6 years after inflection point, I would believe that the process of fitting the curve was essentially data mining the residuals for an overfit of the data. So it appears to me to be more like 2^(11-6)=32 and 31/32 is more than a 95% confidence level but only a little more.

Perhaps better than guessing that number 6 used above, instead model a linear downward trend with noise to match the data 200 times. What would the 10 5 percentile model that is best at showing a slowdown in the rate look like? Would it be more or less convincing than my graph?

Waiting 20 or 30 years data before declaring whether the trend is flattening appears to me to be misuse of the valid reason for wanting that much data to get a reliable trend rate number.

(Edit: I meant 5 percentile or 10th most flattening data set)

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 04:50:44 PM »

The point of looking for the natural extreme is to show the range of variability. 

Sure, that is sensible if that is what you want to do.

I don't believe the flat trend, so if BOE happened, more likely to be a bit of trend steepening and some natural variability.

Should we worry more about trend steepening than about it occurring due to variability? Possibly depends whether you expect serious consequences from a BOE that was just due to natural variability?

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 04:42:09 PM »
Increased GHG levels, increased water temperatures, increased air temperatures, any other forcings,  internal variability, and feedbacks both positive and negative.  That covers everything, right?   ;D

A few more considerations, ...

Natural / internal variability, hmmm. Is there any unnatural/external variability?  ;) ;D
Do aliens aiming meteors at the Arctic count as unnatural?  ;) ;D

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 04:03:36 PM »
I pray there is a flattening trend, although we seem to be within the range of natural variability now.

Doesn't seem to work the same on my graph, but maybe I have cut the natural variability too much.

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 03:51:42 PM »

I also agree with crandles on this:

Quote
I try to remember to say I don't believe the flat trend at the end, I still believe trend is still going down.

though in my case I'd clarify it as:

I don't believe the trend will stay flat; it will probably continue downward in fits and starts.

Yes, that looks like a good extra clarification. Could be fits and starts or somewhat smooth trend and if a  smooth trend then I don't see any reason why it can't accelerate downwards again (even if I am saying I don't see any evidence for it in the observations yet).

Continued warming, internal variability, and feedbacks both positive and negative.  That covers everything, right?   ;D

Increased GHG levels, increased water temperatures, increased air temperatures, any other forcings,  internal variability, and feedbacks both positive and negative.  That covers everything, right?   ;D

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: September 04, 2018, 01:12:28 PM »

Actually it doesn't. The first assumption you are making is the system is linear.  It's not.  The second mistake you are making is that there was a stall.  You are making the fundamental mistake of interpreting short term variability for a trend.  That's the same thinking that was used in some circles to use 1998 (an outlier year) as an anchor point against which to compare climate data - and proclaim loudly that the trend in global temperatures was going down.  I recommend against that sort of thing.  It will bite you in arguments.


Point of inflection (think straight line) is around 2005/6. Since then it has been flattening. 11 years is quite a lot of data to suggest this is short term variability.

I try to remember to say I don't believe the flat trend at the end, I still believe trend is still going down.

Anyway how many years data do you want before you start admitting there appears to be flattening trend rather than continue to dismiss it as short term variability?

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: September 04, 2018, 12:12:50 AM »
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/08/29/arctic-heating/

might be worth a look though it looks like it includes significantly lower latitudes:
Quote
Let’s take a look at the data from NASA, and from Cowtan & Way, for the region from latitude 64°N to the pole, which we’ll call the Arctic.

Think someone found the data for the dmi 80N charts and maybe someone did it from that.

GISS 64N to pole temps included here
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/ZonAnn.Ts+dSST.txt

33
Arctic sea ice / Re: Holy Sh!t: Year-Round Arctic BOE Imminent
« on: August 31, 2018, 01:43:33 PM »

Quote
In the coming years, however, excess BG halocline heat will give rise to enhanced upward heat fluxes year-round, creating compound effects on the system by slowing winter sea ice growth.

So even before the current layered structure of the Arctic has undergone the expected 'fundamental change,' the effects of this heat will be felt very soon, not decades or centuries, but in 'coming years.'

Am I misinterpreting something here?

What proportion of folks thinks this is new and/or only in 'coming years' as opposed to thinking this has contributed to upward heat flux over the last few years (or decades) and therefore already included in the trend of observations?

Just because this is being talked about in this way for the first time doesn't mean it hasn't been there in the observations.

34
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: August 29, 2018, 05:37:34 PM »
Occasionally above 0.2.  ;)  Occasionally meaning super El Ninos:



from
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/how-much-from-el-nino/

35
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: August 28, 2018, 04:55:36 PM »
Come on, Treform2 has made 2 posts on this forum. (Treform posted not at all if you think it might be old member lost password and created new membership.) What sort of welcome to the forum is this? (Even if it is a mistake, it looks like an easy one to make.) Treform2 didn't even say it was obliterated.

Welcome to the forum Treform2. What you have received is not the normal welcome new members get.

If it hasn't collapsed then this should be pointed out, but I think there may be a different approach for a new member than the manner of the posts made here. I find the attitude shown to a new member distinctly uncomfortable.


36
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 26, 2018, 07:24:07 PM »

Then how do we charge a 600KW/h battery, or a 1,200KWh battery.  Let alone a fleet of 100 of them.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1033260379147620352
What’s cool is that it was driven across the country alone (no escort or any accompanying vehicles), using the existing Tesla Supercharger network and an extension cord

Tesla semi specs suggest 300 or 500 mile range and <2KWh/mile.

Doesn't say how long the stops were, but are they likely to to exceed driver rest time?

37
Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: August 26, 2018, 12:43:33 PM »
For longer term battery storage, do flow batteries make sense? Presumably large tanks to store large quantity of energy in some liquids is quite cheap? But maybe getting enough power out of them is requires large quantity of expensive equipment? Or do the liquids degrade over time? or...?

Ha, typed this before seeing previous reply but may as well still post.

38
The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: August 24, 2018, 05:52:16 PM »
What happens when Trump voters like her are presented with REAL evidence of conspiracy and collusion by the Trump team with the Russians?  THAT is coming.  It is only a matter of time. 

If that happens, why do you think it will be any different?

Of course there is bad news here for Trump, in that while 1 in 12 are die hard Trump supporters but that means about 5 in 12 short of what he needs when it comes to reelection. (Also 1 in 12 may not be enough to stop retrials. OTOH he is unlikely to lose all Senate seats at mid-terms before such evidence is presented.)

39
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 23, 2018, 08:20:12 PM »
Quote
Elon Musk has hired Morgan Stanley to assist him in his potential bid to take Tesla Inc. private, according to a person familiar with the matter.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-23/musk-is-said-to-hire-morgan-stanley-to-help-take-tesla-private

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 22, 2018, 05:14:57 PM »

Nice summary.  I'd add one point.  Complex systems dominated by negative feedbacks tend toward a stable equilibrium.   Complex systems dominated by positive feedbacks tend to oscillate.  Not just climate.

Though over thousands of years we *do* see oscillations in climate.  To me, this suggests climate is dominated by slow positive feedbacks in general.  (Slow when not accelerated by humans, anyway).   This shouldn't be a controversial interpretation here, I think, as we often discuss a wide array of positive feedbacks to climate effects.

Re 'dominated by'

You could also take the view that heat out varies with 4th power of temperature and this is a strong negative feedback that dominates the system and tends to prevent run away situations. Taking bathtub analogy for climate: Increase the rate of flow into the bathtub or close part of the drain hole(s) and the level goes up but stabilises rather than continuously rising because the rate of outflow depends on the height of water.

Generally we tend to consider this part of the setting for climate and don't call it a negative feedback. If taking this view, yes positive feedbacks dominate and slow positive feedbacks can and do cause slow changes to different states.

So take your pick on whether positive or negative feedbacks dominate.  ;)

41
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 22, 2018, 01:15:38 PM »
Certainly the equable climate of the early Eocene is a problem climate models have difficulty explaining. So yes it is a valid point to bring this up. At some point I would expect things to differ from what the models suggest. Water vapour partial pressure hmm water has low residency time in atmosphere so adjust fairly quickly and what reason for expecting the models to have it wrong. Possibly doubtful, but what do I know, the models are likely to be wrong somewhere.

Perhaps more useful to ponder whether the effect is likely to be sudden or emerge slowly at first then accelerate and also whether it is likely to be soon.

It is certainly possible the models are badly wrong, but I don't see any reason to see why it should emerge soon. Is guessing now/soon like winning the lottery, a raffle or just rolling dice? A reasonably large raffle seems the most appropriate suggestion to me. YMMV

Also if it emerges slowly at first then accelerates then maybe we would see it in deviation from the trend. At present the trend seems to be getting less steep.

42
Science / Re: Sunspots as proxy for TSI
« on: August 22, 2018, 12:49:27 PM »

2/1300 > 100/1000000  (rise in co2 levels)

Yes but 2/1300 variation is a fairly regular cycle which evens out to a long term trend of practically nothing, whereas the CO2 keeps going on up and up. So not a fair comparison - variation in cycle vs trend. To do it properly it should be trend vs trend.

43
The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: August 22, 2018, 12:44:53 AM »

44
The rest / Re: Mueller Investigation & Cohen Investigation
« on: August 22, 2018, 12:23:06 AM »
Adam Schiff tweet

Quote
Michael Cohen’s guilty plea appears to implicate the President in a knowing violation of campaign finance laws, with the payment of hush money to advance the Trump campaign. This is the first guilty plea directly alleging potential criminal activity by the President.

A republican saying that !?

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 21, 2018, 05:03:12 PM »
  A little bit to add:
Some time back, there was discussion on this forum of a paper that examined the hypothetical of removing all ice from the arctic in spring, and modeling whether it would return.  As I recall, that model yielded a return of the ice--under present status of global warming.

I believe that is likely to be Tietsche et al 2011
Recovery mechanisms of Arctic summer sea ice
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010GL045698

(There is also a similar paper by Schroeder & Connolley that reached similar conclusions.)

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: August 21, 2018, 03:57:21 PM »
I suspect I am in small minority to some extent agreeing with your deniers against the above posts.

I think there certainly is a negative feedback from more open water losing more heat. It certainly isn't the only feedback and I would suggest that in summer the albedo feedback is more important but in winter it is the open water losing more heat that is dominant.

The combination of these two major feedbacks means that heat is accumulated in the summer. Come fall and winter this extra heat is rapidly lost with the freeze up only having been delayed by a week or so, so far and this has little effect on the volume of ice at maximum.

So I think the negative heat loss feedback looks like it will be sufficiently dominant to stop the positive feedbacks creating a run away situation but it cannot reverse the situation already reached.

If you take a different view, how else do you explain the following sort of shapes apparently emerging? Why isn't it continuing to curve ever steeper if you think the positive feedbacks are dominant?

(Note I don't believe the flat trend, I think it will continue downwards while GHGs and ocean temps are rising.)
 

47
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 21, 2018, 03:22:17 PM »
Re Graph of accounts payable.

This is a nice graph showing Tesla growth - the more they produce the greater accounts payable become. What does GSY think it shows?

If it was showing days to pay bills, a rising trend would be seriously worrying and lots of people would be talking about this and suppliers would be seriously unhappy/worried, but if they are saying they want to maintain or grow their business with Tesla, it appears they are not unhappy. Hence, it likely shows growth in production.

There is just way more motivated reasoning in GSY's posts than in what he calls Tesla fanboys posts. Posts are clearly provoking reaction. Is there any other name than troll for this?


48
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 20, 2018, 08:53:40 PM »

Still no pro-Tesla folks willing to guess what Musk meant by," ... from a personal pain standpoint, the worst is yet to come" ?

Personal pain seems to be about how busy Musk is with his 120 hour weeks, so when he has to deal with not only ramp up in production continuing and a going private transaction with all the paperwork demands that is going to involve.....

Yes that is only a guess, but it doesn't seem hard to make such a guess to the point of it going without saying.

Re security fraud: Yes it is looking like Musk should have said something like 'funds appear available' rather than 'funding secured' but how should this be categorised: as a petty offence or a misdemeanor or something serious like fraud? There may be the potential for it to be serious, but without evidence of some personal trading or a connected person trading, there seems little reason to assume it is going to be the worst of these.

You also seem to be assuming that if Saudis' are investing in competitor that this is an either/or investment and not a case of them being interested in both.

JP Morgan have got a target price of $195 or $198 bar a few days when Tesla price has been over $275 for most of the last year. Obviously you believe in reporting neutral sources.

49
Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: August 18, 2018, 12:38:42 PM »

It's not like fossil fuels would be outlawed, they would just be expensive. You could make tools, they would just be more expensive. And it would be outrageously expensive to make a car, or to power it, regardless of power source. Not everyone would have to farm...it would just be much more common. Food would just be much more local. Food that can be stably stored and transported probably would be still. Trains are incredibly efficient. Air travel would reduce 1000 fold. You think the year 1850 is nonsense, a fake time? Wouldn't we be much much better at farming and simple living with access to information and some more complex durable tools and materials. Modern technology doesn't just stop, it gets redirected toward leveraging historically normal human occupations. And energy consumption drops to less than 10% current levels, probably more like 1%. We are currently incredibly wasteful. Carbon negative farming is the only realistic option for reducing GHG levels. It is so ****ing stupid to instead cross our fingers and wait for some technology to save us so that we continue living lives which cause cancer and depress us.

Outrageously expensive? Yes, the cost would be higher due to a steep carbon tax (hopefully gently increased so as not to cause too much disruption on introduction), but what happens to the tax money? The government gives it back to the people by tax cuts and/or a basic income to everyone so people have more income to afford the higher prices. Average person with average income and average ff use and ability to switch to lower ff use is still able to afford similar lifestyle despite all prices increasing but ff heavy use items more than others. The rich would be more able to afford the investments like to install solar panels and purchase electric cars when they become available to keep their running costs down.

>"energy consumption drops to less than 10% current levels"
huh? Renewables already contribute like 20% of our energy consumption, why would energy consumption drop to 10% so that renewables are taken out of use??? Sounds like you are making it out to be a far more dramatic change than it needs to be.

Any suggestion we need to go back to the stone age or even just 1850 just makes the public turn off and think environmentalists are just nutters who want to stop the world because they want to get off.

(Of course it can go the other way too. If the recommendation is to use low energy light bulbs
then it can't be much of a problem. So judging it right can be difficult. However people seem to frequently be going over the top.)

50
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: August 18, 2018, 12:34:42 AM »
Does anyone else see this as a potential for Saudi Arabia — who is already taking massive steps away from depending on oil for its economy — to step outside of (flip a finger at) OPEC and the rest of the oil countries, and profit by assuring a massive growth of clean energy and a quicker death of ICE transportation?  Never mind legacy automakers’ tentative steps toward EVs;  Saudi Arabia could have Tesla vehicle and clean-energy factories up and running on all continents in no time, if it funded global clean tech to its own advantage.  Why bother with OPEC debates about each countries’ oil production limits if you can drive oil companies out of business by reducing global demand?  SA’s oil is, as I recall, one of the cheapest to produce, so they could anticipate continued, but decreasing, oil income until the Oil Age comes to an end.

Sounds like some risk diversification to me but whether they can get enough such diversification? Hmm. Some diversification is better than none.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41