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 - dnem

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
1
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: January 23, 2020, 05:53:19 PM »
Hi nanning. I think your response is little overstated.  My "worldview" understands well what you are saying.  But that does not negate that high-technology is the dominant cultural norm of modern humanity and the existence of small pockets of pre-industrial peoples won't change the trajectory of the modern human species, which, as I indicated, is toward oblivion. I am most certainly facing the truth!

I mean this as no attack. Please understand that I have great respect for you and the purity with which you live your life. It is an inspiration! That said, I think you often oversell the idea of the "noble savage." The sad fact is that we are all Homo sapiens and the traits that define us have led us to the perilous state we're in. Yes, certain dominionistic traits have become unfortunately dominant, but these traits arose, and then spread, among our global tribe. There is certainly much to learn from individuals and peoples that do not embody a dominionistic worldview, but I don't think it is useful to think of these traits as some how "other" from humanity.  They define humanity, for better or worse. Sure looks like worse.

2
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: January 23, 2020, 05:23:33 PM »
Sorry to clutter this thread with this stuff, but thought some that responded might find it interesting. When I got my system, the installer provided a monthly predicted output based on the orientation, angle and potential for shading of my system.  I used that to standardize the data, with monthly output expressed as a percentage of the predicted value for that month.  First I just averaged each year's monthly Actual/Predicted to look at degradation. A linear regression through the values indicates a decay of 0.29% year.

Then I plotted every month as a percentage of that month's prediction for all years 2011 through 2018.  Early 2012 stands out as a long period of high output, sunny weather.

I had some system issues in 2018 that make the second half of the year's data suspect.



3
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: January 23, 2020, 12:54:47 PM »
Tom, there is a whole theory in exobiology that postulates that it will be very hard for us to find any other technophilic life form in the cosmos because technological species likely wink out shortly after they develop technology, so the chance that one is "out there" overlapping in time with our (likely!) short run is very low.

I really like the semantic distinction between technological or technophilic species, versus "intelligent life."  This planet is teeming with intelligent species.  I don't rank H sapiens particularly high among them!

4
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: January 23, 2020, 12:36:43 PM »
No, Bintho, I'm pretty good with data and look closely at my output.  I have microinverters so I can look at per panel output in 5 minute increments.  One way I look at degradation is to look at peak panel production and I have noticed very little degradation at all.  I'll post how big this outlier was when I get a chance, but it was big.  It was VERY sunny (not very cloudy!) in Bawlmer in winter/spring 2012.  Sunny enough that I think it says something real about the winter storm track, prevailing winds and weather pattern during that time.

5
Arctic sea ice / Re: What's new in the Arctic ?
« on: January 22, 2020, 05:51:55 PM »
Ok, here's a very random observation.  I have a solar array on my house and was just playing around with some of my output data.  The array has been in place since 2011.  I just noticed that the first four months of 2012 are all the highest output for that month in the 9 year record. That is, January 2012 output was the highest of any of 9 Januaries since I had the array, February was the highest February, March was the highest March, and April was the highest April.  And the difference is not even close.  Here at 39.29° N, 76.61° W winter/early spring 2012 was VERY, unusually sunny.  Probably nothing, but struck me as interesting, given what happened in 2012!

6
What show will you be on VGV? Science Friday?

7
Consequences / Re: The Climatic Effects of a Blue Ocean Event
« on: January 19, 2020, 02:55:51 PM »
When using statistics to calculate sea ice trends, it is best to ignore that year, lest the data becomes skewed. 

No! An outlier can be excluded when there is a reason to question the validity of the data point. 2012's low minimum happened and will likely be exceeded before long. Obviously CHERRY PICKING 2012 in some way, like looking at a trend from 2013 so 2019 is wrong, but no long term analysis of arctic sea ice trends can just "ignore" 2012!

8
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 12, 2020, 04:29:14 PM »
...but don't count out humans just yet!

I absolutely agree. Would not be at all surprised if 1 billion humans make it through the great winnowing.

I generally agree SH. There is one wildcard out there that I can't quite wrap my head around.  (And this is probably the wrong thread for it). What is the likelihood that systems fail to the degree that we cannot maintain cooling and control at multiple (hundreds?) of nuclear reactor and waste storage sites and we have hundreds of simultaneous meltdowns? It's something I read about but don't have the expertise to assess.

9
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:55:40 PM »
For almost ALL of us, food is deeply entwined with our culture! Very disappointed in Monbiot. I get the general point that intensive ag is chewing up way too much land across the globe and that all else equal UNintensive ag has the potential to take even more land out of wild lands, but factory food paste as humanity's salvation. Yeah, no.

10
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: January 10, 2020, 12:47:52 PM »
Watching the animation, 2016 was a real CO2 bomb, and 2019 looks like a serious contender.

2019 with no El Nino. Next EN year will not be pretty.

11
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 09, 2020, 04:35:03 PM »
Lab-grown food needs a lab. A lab needs high technology. After social collapse the labs will fail. No lab-grown food. Then what?

This is just another techno-fix. To force and control living nature to do your bidding without returning anything. More supremacy. Supremacy is always destructive.

I agree nanning. I was surprised and disappointed to see Monbiot so bought in on what strikes me as a bizarre techno-fantasy.  Not only do we need to completely re-jigger the entire global energy economy and infrastructure to move from fossil fuels to "renewables" but now we need to add on completely replacing the entire global agricultural economy and infrastructure? It is absurd on its face. Perhaps the technology he describes can help on the margins to replace some intensive ag w relatively low impact calories from microbial fermentation, but I cannot imagine how we can displace a meaningful amount of humanity's caloric needs in this way.

12
Consequences / Re: Places becoming more livable
« on: January 09, 2020, 04:25:11 PM »
Comparing how a fully intact biosphere adapted to rapid climate change in the past with how the present, highly stressed, massively altered, depauperate, poisoned biosphere will respond to rapid AGW is meaningless. 

I have no doubt that enough genetic diversity will remain in the biosphere for it to recover over geologic time, but that is irrelevant to the reliance of 8+ billion humans on the biosphere over the coming decades.  Biosphere and ecosystem collapse will be a huge stressor on the ability of the earth to support the overlarge human population.

13
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: January 08, 2020, 01:56:25 PM »
Monbiot has column about this in the Guardian today and also a movie about it coming out tonight:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/08/lab-grown-food-destroy-farming-save-planet

Lab-grown food will soon destroy farming – and save the planet
Scientists are replacing crops and livestock with food made from microbes and water. It may save humanity’s bacon

14
Consequences / Re: Decline in insect populations
« on: January 07, 2020, 12:52:02 PM »
The roadmap to insect recovery is essentially the same roadmap to avoiding environmental calamity overall.

15
Consequences / Re: World of 2030
« on: December 30, 2019, 11:41:45 AM »
I find many if not most long term projections from the status quo favoring establishment to be rubbish.

16
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 30, 2019, 11:39:24 AM »
What a great example of how differences in native tongue, use of idiom, etc. can cause misunderstandings in our little international forum! I hope we can all try and assume the best motives of each other in the New Year.

Cheers!
dnem

17
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 23, 2019, 04:59:22 PM »
Not to put words in Bruce's mouth, but I think he is expressing how unbelievably sad it is that we are at this point. If I was young and contemplating starting a family today, I would absolutely, unambiguously decide not to, and I think young people should as well.  That does not negate how terrible this reality is. 

I am having dinner tonight with my nephew and his fabulous new wife.  My wife and I adore this couple and they are everything good.  I am trying to decide if I can muster the will to advise them that I think reproducing is the wrong choice.  Obviously our family would rather be looking forward to this great young couple starting a family, but that joy has been stolen from us.  That is a tragedy.

18
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: December 21, 2019, 11:48:42 PM »
I agree Nanning. But none of it would have been possible without mining out and using millennia of densely stored solar energy in one quick century - aka fossil fuels.

19
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 16, 2019, 01:26:09 PM »
I certainly did not mean to imply the SRM would EVER be a good idea or something I would remotely endorse.  But, given that COP25 just collapsed, I'm not feeling real confident about my fellow humans' ability to come together and do what needs to be done in time.  So, desperate times will demand desperate measures.  Obviously I have no idea if it will come to pass, but I do think geo-engineering talk will ramp up as things goes downhill.

20
Consequences / Re: Forests: An Endangered Resource
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:41:48 PM »
Nanning, understanding that pre-industrial civilizations were already imbued with the human tendency to control and manipulate their environment to help them thrive really has little to do with whether or not they are "better" than us.  They are us, just before industrial society.  No one disputes that smaller numbers of humans living in a pre-industrial manner had a lighter footprint on the planet. But they were  very smart animals looking to gain whatever advantage they could to thrive, grow and increase their numbers.  It's what animals do. 

21
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 15, 2019, 01:32:27 PM »
There is only one way human emissions will start to come down: an economic collapse. The only slight kink in the curve occurred during the 2008/9 crisis.  Other than that it's been up, up and away. Oren, 4% per year negative deserves the most skeptical emoji there is. 

A 10 or 12 C rise is not something that any human would be alive to contemplate.  The only way to avoid even a 3 C rise is solar radiation management which I'd be surprised we don't have to try at some point.

22
Science / Re: 2019 CO2 emissions
« on: December 14, 2019, 01:38:26 PM »
Er, not sure assuming an ECS of 3 will hold through SEVEN doublings of CO2 belongs in a science thread!

23
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 13, 2019, 08:42:35 PM »
Right, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying!!  GDP never should have any importance.  It does not measure anything that matters, yet it is how most large scale decisions are being made.  It is moronic.  It needs to be replaced.  That's what I've been saying.  We need to manage for meaningful outcomes, not "economic growth"!

24
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 13, 2019, 05:41:51 PM »
I think you are missing the point, nanning. Right now, governments across the globe are using GDP as the primary metric for policy: if it leads to "growth" it is good.  That is what is destroying the climate and the biosphere.  For the foreseeable future, governments will still be making major decisions about how to organize society.  These decisions should be made taking into consideration what makes humans truly thrive, which are things like connections to each other and to functioning nature.  Governments need a new way of thinking about and measuring progress that results in true human welfare, not more material growth. That is what underlies the movement to replace GDP with new metrics that policy makers can use to make decisions. GDP is a terrible metric yet is still incredibly important across the planet.  If you could retire GDP tomorrow and have public policy decisions made considering what truly matters, you would make a massive, massive impact on our trajectory.

25
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 13, 2019, 01:34:06 PM »
All this talk about GDP and happiness, versus the argument that problem is not so bad, seems so irrelevant.


Only it's not irrelevant.  GDP is perhaps the most important single metric for how countries track their "progress". The most important decisions across the planet for how we should manage our societies are very often based on the impact on GDP.  Many sustainability practitioners think that developing and adopting truer measures of human wellbeing is one of the most important projects in the fight against environmental destruction.

26
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 08, 2019, 01:53:08 PM »
If I want to know which countries are the happiest/best to live in I do not need to look at GDp or any other data, just one:

Where do people emigrate to and where do they emigrate from?

They leave places they don't like and go to places they like. That's it.

Not many emigrate to Russia or India, but many Russians an Indians emigrate to Europe and the US...wonder why

People generally emigrate to escape desperate circumstances, economic or otherwise.  They go to places that they believe they can get to, that will accept them, and where they will be safe and able to pursue a decent life.  Certainly the GDP per capita of most of the countries people flee is lower than the ones they flee to.  No one disputes that when people are in desperate straits, are not safe and cannot meet their basic needs, they would be better off with a higher per capita GDP.  But that says essentially nothing about the utility of managing almost all of our social and economic policy toward achieving ever higher GDP. It's pretty simple: Managing for GDP growth will NEVER acknowledge that enough might be enough when it comes to material consumption.

27
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 07, 2019, 02:22:39 PM »
Binntho, there will be no convincing you until events convince you, which IMO they will. But have you at least read or heard Bobby Kennedy's iconic GDP speech from 1968? GDP is now widely recognized as a deeply flawed measure that fails to capture much of what human beings actually value in life.  It's well worth a read. Here's an excerpt:

But even if we act to erase material poverty, there is another greater task, it is to confront the poverty of satisfaction - purpose and dignity - that afflicts us all.  Too much and for too long, we seemed to have surrendered personal excellence and community values in the mere accumulation of material things.  Our Gross National Product, now, is over $800 billion dollars a year, but that Gross National Product - if we judge the United States of America by that - that Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage.  It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them.  It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl.  It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities.  It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children.  Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play.  It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials.  It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.  And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/the-kennedy-family/robert-f-kennedy/robert-f-kennedy-speeches/remarks-at-the-university-of-kansas-march-18-1968

28
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 04, 2019, 03:55:07 PM »
Binntho if you woke up this morning feeling different and suddenly you know that you would live for a millenium instead of a century would you still use GDP to look at these things?
I'm not sure if it would make any difference. And GDP is a truly narrow measure, far from being the best. But it's the only one. Health, happiness and environmental protection follow GDP - the higher the better.

Yeesh!  There is abundant research showing that many measures of health, happiness and life satisfaction plateau after the basic needs of good nutrition and adequate housing are met.  Life satisfaction is most definitely NOT directly correlated with GDP at higher levels of GDP.  Your views are completely distressing to me, binntho.

29
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 07:35:38 PM »
Mining per se is not a "no go."  The simply gargantuan scale of replacing the global fossil fuel infrastructure while electrifying transportation is incredibly daunting.  It will be a gargantuan, global industrial enterprise that would need to be undertaken while simultaneously continuing to power everything else that a growing, power hungry global population will need.  So far, despite fast growth in "renewables" they aren't even keeping up with growth in the global appetite for energy, so while a good part of the global growth in energy supply is coming from renewables, fossil fuel use is STILL growing. It is very, very unlikely that we will turn this massive ocean liner around in time.

Again, Rees's first three steps to getting out of the human predicament:

1. Formal recognition of the end of material growth and the need to reduce the human ecological footprint;

2. Acknowledgement that, as long as we remain in overshoot — exploiting essential ecosystems faster than they can regenerate — sustainable production/consumption means less production/consumption;

3. Recognition of the theoretical and practical difficulties/impossibility of an all-green quantitatively equivalent energy transition;

30
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:16:38 PM »
Sorry blu, that's just a techno-optimistic, cornucopian fantasy.  Good for the economy? What does that even mean?  So we can have more "growth" and consumption, further consuming the biosphere?  But just from a practical standpoint, there ain't enough carbon budget left to build out all the solar and wind needed without starving the economy of the fossil fuels it needs to just keep everyone fed and warm and cool.

Read Rees:
https://thetyee.ca/Analysis/2019/11/11/Climate-Change-Realist-Face-Facts/

31
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: December 03, 2019, 05:10:37 PM »

The remaining area is also not really sticking to Greenland for safety as we had hoped for a long time so what is left might get really floaty at some point. Or just disintegrate and die in place.

A-Team used to say "we could have a total late summer blow out any year now". (I'm paraphrasing).  I agree.  One summer, any summer, the remaining ice will be thin and fragile enough to become a completely shattered, mobile mess by season's end.

32
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 03, 2019, 04:59:32 PM »
Well Tom, I'm afraid to say that they are, in a sense, correct.  Humanity is deep into overshoot.  There is no viable way to support modern, high consumption lifestyles for 7.6 billion people (and growing). Read the Bill Rees pieces recently posted.  There is no viable way to build out (and maintain and replace) a "renewable" solar and wind infrastructure to replace the fossil fuel infrastructure at scale, especially when you consider that doing that will starve the economy of the energy it needs to continue functioning ("bootstrap problem", EROEI).  The coming decades will be a very bumpy ride, with global death rates beginning to outpace birth rates, and a falling human population.  Perhaps we can bump our way down to a sustainable number of humans (2 billion?) and preserve enough of a functioning biosphere to let the healing begin. And perhaps we can't.

33
Consequences / Re: The Holocene Extinction
« on: December 02, 2019, 07:26:09 PM »
The chill of reality. UBC ecological economist William E. Rees, co-creator of the ecological footprint concept, has some bad news for techno-optimists.
 I find his views very realistic, as he wants to be:

https://stanford.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=88e1f9157b8a1070712b4dd12&id=54d87b4ae2&e=abc543e6fa

https://stanford.us4.list-manage.com/track/click?u=88e1f9157b8a1070712b4dd12&id=15590030f3&e=abc543e6fa

I was going to post these myself.  I find Rees to be one of the most rational communicators of our human predicament. I highly recommend everyone read these pieces.

34
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 18, 2019, 08:36:40 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.

35
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: November 18, 2019, 06:59:48 PM »
Hmm I don't know if that's nice of you Tom, that sounds like the rich country people (you) don't have 'mirrors' and knowledge of our current predicament's causes and global per capita carbon footprint.
Please have some empathy and generosity for the poor in the middle east when you're there.
Perhaps I misinterpret you Tom.

No, not explicitly.  The article is more about how even in places with what should be the best conditions supporting family life, increasingly people are turning away from it, for a range of reasons, causing below replacement rates all over the developed world. She attributes this to a range of failings of modernity.  I believe she makes mention of the desire to expand high-consumption lifestyles to the lesser developed world and how that might impact choices about procreation down the road.

36
Consequences / Re: Population: Public Enemy No. 1
« on: November 18, 2019, 04:38:06 PM »
I found this a thoughtful and interesting essay about falling fertility rates and "late capitalism."  Longish but well worth the time.  Her basic point is that late capitalism is increasingly failing to create the social context within which procreation makes sense.  And people around the world are recognizing that.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/11/16/opinion/sunday/capitalism-children.html

37
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 14, 2019, 06:36:47 PM »

"This means the effects of sea-ice loss are not limited to the ice-free regions themselves, but also lead to increased heat accumulation in the interior of the Arctic Ocean that can have climate effects well beyond the summer season," Timmermans said. "Presently this heat is trapped below the surface layer. Should it be mixed up to the surface, there is enough heat to entirely melt the sea-ice pack that covers this region for most of the year." "


What they don't tell you is

i) the most likely time of year for a mixing event to happen is when there is no ice and the heat would just get lost to space. (like happens with most of the excess heat that gets into the ocean during the summer already, it comes back out in the autumn)

Do we know this is correct? Let's say that after a (hypothetical) very low extent at the end of a strong melt season there is a big storm that strongly mixes the deep heat into the surface layers.  Will all this heat be "lost to space" or might it warm the atmosphere over the next freeze season, resulting in a warm, cloudy winter that retards the freeze enough to tip the system?

38
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 13, 2019, 03:53:08 PM »
Again, the Twitter post was a 384 (!) hour forecast. That's 16 days out.

39
Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: November 08, 2019, 03:57:31 PM »
There is a way to pull the predicted anomaly minus the realized anomaly at a given offset of days.  I don't recall how to do it, but it was posted here a few years back and the GFS has a pronounced warm bias in the long range forecasts in the arctic in the winter.  They rarely realize.

40
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 05, 2019, 01:11:18 PM »
I’m wondering if the very quick refreeze is actually a bad thing? I remember several people here stating there was a lot of snow on the ice pack in May. Which delayed melting (melt ponds didn’t form). I know the snow can come from other areas but the quicker the refreeze of the Arctic Ocean the less moisture would be available for snow to fall in the arctic.

Does this make sense?

While there are arguments pro and con - "sealing in heat", less venting to space, less snow vs more humidity and warmth in the lower atmosphere, more insulating snow, etc. etc. I have to defer to Occam's Razor: more and earlier freezing is good for the ice; less and later freezing is bad. This is probably overly simplistic and there are likely countervailing samples here and there across the arctic, but overall, that's my guess.

41
Consequences / Re: Climate change, the ocean, agriculture, and FOOD
« on: October 31, 2019, 03:13:49 PM »
^^
Any chance of this bug infecting long pig?


On a more positive note, Bruce may soon be wearing a top hat. ::)
Terry

FYI: "Long pig is an antiquated term for human flesh, eaten by cannibals. Purportedly, the term long pig is a translation of a phrase used in the Pacific Islands for human flesh intended for consumption."

I assumed that's what Terry meant but was not familiar with the term and looked it up.

42
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 27, 2019, 01:27:36 PM »
Stopping Global Warming Will Cost $50 Trillion: Morgan Stanley Report
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2019/10/24/stopping-global-warming-will-cost-50-trillion-morgan-stanley-report/#4293ed251e23
Quote
While estimates vary on the cost of halting global warming and reducing net carbon emissions to zero, a new report from Morgan Stanley analysts finds that to do so by 2050 the world will need to spend $50 trillion in five key areas of zero-carbon technology.
OK, this isn't even a ---- here and a ---- there...we are talking real money right now.

Real money right now? The global economy is US $84 T/yr. So this nonsense is suggesting we can "stop global warming" by spending $50 T over 30 years, or about 2% of global GDP over the period.  And the article even tosses in a few stock picks so you can make extra money along the way!  Yah, that's it, as long as the global industrial machine devotes a couple of percent of its investment to big "renewable energy" projects, everything will be fine, carry on folks, nothing to see here. Oh, and buy these stocks.

43
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 23, 2019, 06:03:21 PM »
My point exactly!

44
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: October 23, 2019, 05:49:49 PM »
Article in today's NYT:
Climate Change Will Cost Us Even More Than We Think
Economists greatly underestimate the price tag on harsher weather and higher seas. Why is that?

For some time now it has been clear that the effects of climate change are appearing faster than scientists anticipated. Now it turns out that there is another form of underestimation as bad or worse than the scientific one: the underestimating by economists of the costs.

The result of this failure by economists is that world leaders understand neither the magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods, nor the urgency of action. How and why this has occurred is explained in a recent report by scientists and economists at the London School of Economics and Political Science, the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/opinion/climate-change-costs.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Recently I saw an article that was supposed to be alarming that stated that climate change could reduce US GDP "by 10% by 2100" if urgent action is not taken.  How insane! The us economy is $20 T/yr.  Who honestly thinks that can peg the size it will be in 2100 within 10%, climate change or no?! A 10% reduction is the difference between a 2% growth rate and a 1.87% rate. Economists!!

45
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 15, 2019, 01:59:42 PM »
I had trouble adding a comment as well.  Just below the anomaly trend graph you say "This is where things get interesting. We've seen that PIOMAS has gone up steeply since the maximum."

Since the minimum?

46
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 07, 2019, 02:42:11 PM »
gerontocrat frequently posts a running 365 day average on the Area and Extent thread that somewhat captures what you're looking for.

47
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 04:10:56 PM »
Last one on this. I totally agree with your last statement El Cid, including about autocorrelation. (But still, you don't just count positive and negative residuals!).

I have frequently railed here against curve fitting in such a rapidly changing environment and I will continue to do so!

48
Arctic sea ice / Re: Latest PIOMAS update (October 2019)
« on: October 06, 2019, 02:51:41 PM »
The trendline on this chart is obviously faulty.
The displayed linear trend was created using the Excel "TREND" function. Surely you don't want to start a "debate" with Microsoft too?

I will not debate excel functions. I debate their use (or even usefulness). I did take quite a few statistics classes and if 15 datapoints in a row are above your trendline than it is obvious that you should not use that trendline (whatever the type of the trend), because it is not that sort of trend.
With all that said, I also want to thank Wipneus for his great work. May we never see his trendlines hitting that zero point! :)

Did they teach you that linear regression minimizes the sum of the SQUARE of the residuals? The raw count of residuals above/below the line is not a factor in fit.

Very useful stuff Wipneus and thank you for all your work.

49
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: October 04, 2019, 03:45:19 PM »
Def just a joke. A-Team always disparaged the usefulness of the DMI 80N temp data.

50
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: October 04, 2019, 01:06:29 PM »
For sure. The original post that started this used the phrase "black ash" which to me sounded like soot or black carbon.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8