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 - RoxTheGeologist

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11
451
Arctic sea ice / Re: Northwest Passage thread
« on: July 16, 2016, 11:42:11 PM »

So... any odds on this being open before the end of July?

452

I don't really understand when you talk about the flow of "rock" - isostatic rebound is caused by magma in the mantle shifting about.  "Continental rock" presumably means continental crust, and "oceanic rock" ocean crust. Neither sees any volume change due to isostatic pressure changes. The density of the mantle is thought to be 3.3 in the top layers, probably slightly higher below the continental crust than under the oceanic crust.


Rock does flow: Mantle convection is not from movement of magma, you only get melt where the solidus of the rock approaches the geotherm, such as mid ocean ridges, underneath hotspots, in thinning events or where fluids are injected, such as subduction zones. There is unlikely to be any partial melt underneath Greenland. Much of Greenland is (we believe) ancient shield rock.

453

Globally, isostatic rebound does not affect sea levels. Locally, sea levels may well fall along the Greenland coast, at least in the short run, both from isostatic rebound and from gravitational effects (the mass of the ice sheet pulls the surrounding ocean towards it).


Wow.. that raise a really interesting isostatic problem (Finally a post in my field).

Lets assume that the mass change in a column of the ocean with added water has to be isostatically balanced by a mass change in a column of continental rock (otherwise rock will flow from the high to low pressure as evidenced by post glacial rebound).

Adding 1m of water, density 1, with the density of ocean floor to be 2.9, and the density of continents to be  2.7 gives us

1+2.9Ho = 2.7Hl

Hl = height change of continent, Ho being height change of ocean floor.

However, a second assumptions is that the volume of rock does not change globally.
Ho = -0.3/0.7Hl (the continents occupy 3/7 of the globe) volume change of oceanic rock matches continental rock.

Solving these gives us that 1m of water added to the oceans causes the continents to raise 0.254m, and that the oceans floors drop by 0.109m, giving a net sea level increase of 0.637m

Of course, finding that perfect isostatic balance is going to take a lot longer than it takes the melt water to flow around the globe.






Thing of it as squeezing on a spot.. you apply pressure on a broad area to have high pressure in one spot. Yes. We are living on the spot.

 

454
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 15, 2016, 11:14:48 PM »

It looks like the area between Victoria and the Prince of Wales islands has broken up, well ahead of the last 3 years. The ice looks like it is in pretty bad shape after the elevated temperatures in the CAA over the last week or so.

http://go.nasa.gov/29NNW2o


455
Consequences / Re: Widespread Ocean Anoxia to be Noticeable by 2030
« on: July 13, 2016, 06:17:38 PM »

If you look at stratified seas, such as the Black Sea, then the lower layers are anoxic, they don't mix with the surface waters that are replenished with runoff.

I fear the same can happen to the worlds oceans. I was taught that one of the features of, say, the AMOC is that the very cold briny water contains a high proportion of dissolved gas, including oxygen. This oxygenated water  is circulated through the entire ocean.

As the AMOC decreases in strength, the supply of oxygen to the lower parts of the Atlantic will diminish. Without the AMOC, or some form of vertical mixing I fear there will be extensive extinctions within deep ocean ecosystems, ecosystems that we are only now discovering.

456
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: July 12, 2016, 07:02:42 AM »
Dr. Slater's probabilistic model (based on ice concentration AFAIK) is giving this projection for the last days of August :



Couple of interesting observations from this projection based on this model :
- There is about 50% chance that the North-West passage will open up at the end of August
- There is less than 20% chance that the North-East passage will open up at the end of August
- There appears to be about 70% chance that a large chunk of ice in the ESS may be cut off from the main pack
- Looks like we are going into September with 4.3 M km^2 ice left, which hints at a September minimum of about 4.1 or 4.2.
- And really cool : That little red spot in the Beaufort is A-team's "Big Block" and Slater's model gives it 50% of surviving August  :)

Of course, this is a model and, to quote Nils Bohr, predictions are hard to make, especially when pertaining to the future.
But Dr. Slater's model was spot-on last year.

P.S. Newbee question : How do I upload a picture in a forum post (rather than inserting it as a link) ?

It seems that in parts of the CAA predictions have already been exceeded. The temperature anomalies over the last week or so over Banks island are causing fairly rapid melt of the ice. On Worldview it looks like the land and shallows are heating up quickly and causing the adjacent ice to
melt.

457
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2016, 02:14:02 AM »
Since 2016 is a leap year, it depends on whether you're comparing by date, or by day of the year.

2007.4795  -1.5666438   7.5740676   9.1407118 (same date)
2007.4822  -1.5840672   7.4571447   9.0412121 (same day number)

Neither method is 100% "fair" . . .

Ideally the azimuth to the sun from the pole at midday would be the most "correct" method.. perhaps a small adjustment up or down of daily data would give a more accurate comparison; essentially mapping the discrete data to the continuous.

459
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 17, 2016, 10:46:32 PM »
Yes, Eureka has some impressive weather. But it is quite land-locked in the centre of Ellesmere with all of Axel Heiberg Island to the West. It warms easily for its latitude. Don't give it too much importance.

But the ice there is looking very blue and shonky. The ice all along the edge CAB of the CAA seems to be pretty blue and broken up (from my limited experience). It's in worse shape than the last two years at the very least.

http://go.nasa.gov/1XunaxU

460
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 15, 2016, 07:45:47 AM »
These are three sequences, spanning 8 days, where a big floe just makes poof. The waters north of Svalbard seem to stay pretty warm, all that ice is going to melt very quickly.

I was looking at that same big floe, it seems that that 1000km stretch of ocean bordering the Atlantic has reached the point where it will melt out as fast as ice is moved. The ice was (is?) moving at around 20km a day, it would suggest a 20000 square km loss of area per day, simply from the ice being pushed into warmer waters on this boundary, but with no loss of extent.

461
To fuel the 1.2-billion vehicles, consider growing algae from sewage effluent locally at treatment plants. It takes photo-bioreactors to keep up and supplies a high volume of fuel more than burned per-person daily for all transportation in the USA.

An example of one treatment plant in Phoenix, AZ, takes in 10-million gallons of effluent, about 21,000-tons of algae food per day with water to grow it in and can produce 3-million gallons of biodiesel.

Don't tell, pre-WW2 algae research had 50% oil species that's a 1/2 century before GMOs, keep it secret please.

P.S. My photo-bioreactors are made for home-ranch-farm scale use, don't tell please they might catch on.

This isn't going to happen. See the recent NREL report on how much it costs to make fuel from Algea. http://www.nrel.gov/news/press/2016/21641. Notice also that it can only make 1.26 m gallons of fuel a day if all the mass were converted. That's using both lipid extraction and fermentation. You only lose $8.4m per day making fuel according to the report. If you can't get the economics to work, it's not going to happen.

Biodigest the biomass and convert it to natural gas. It's really cheap and efficient. Our local treatment plant does this. It makes enough gas to be self-sufficient in energy.

462

Renewable diesel can be made by co-processing in a refinery or by a hydro-treating and isomerisation process such as Neste uses. Algal oil may or may not be triglyceride that is suitable for transesterification. As Sidd says, it often has high sulphur that has to be removed using (rather nasty) HF; don't do that at home kids.

Anyway, the chances of commercial scale liquid biofuel production using algal oil are distant; biodigest effluent and make RNG. The process and equipment are simple and work really well, you produce a gas that can be cleaned up and put into a pipeline or you can turn it into power locally and fuel electric cars. You can even use it to heat your plant like Biodico: Algal oil really is dead in the water (excuse the pun).


Biodiesel does not invalidate a warranty up to B20. It is actually illegal to claim that a spec fuel invalidates your warranty. If you use a fuel that isn't suitable for use it's at your own risk and you may have to replace the parts that break but IT DOES NOT invalidate any other part of your warranty. If you ever find yourself in that situation it is also extremely difficult to prove that you are at fault.

Anything over B20 is not a fuel according to ASTM, and as there is no specification for it then there is nothing to work towards. It's unlikely that any OEM will make an engine for anything above B20 until that is in place. I'm currently working on this :)


463

It's about time Mercedes got with the plot. They used to run 100% biodiesel in their diesel engines, now it's not advised to put in more than 5%. 

Note that diesel engines do not have zero tailpipe emissions, but at B100 they can generate significantly less GHG emissions than electric drive. That is, if you are not using 1st generation biodiesel.

464
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 07, 2016, 10:34:59 PM »
Over on the Atlantic side the icecookiemonster can't keep up either. Up to now, we had spectacular ice edge retreat on both sides of the Arctic. Now we have expansion on both sides of the Arctic, causing sea ice extent to stall completely. What an awesome place.

It does seem to me that there has been more melting in 2016 than the previous two years between Svalbard and Franz Josef lands (perusing worldview). Isn't CAB ice being spread out and pushed over warmer Atlantic water? From my Negroni making experience, this is going to melt the ice a lot faster than not mixing, despite the extent increasing. What surprises is that there isn't a coincidental area loss. Will that take a few days to show up?

465
Norway reportedly agrees on banning new sales of gas-powered cars by 2025
Quote
Norway’s four main political parties have been talking about a possible ban on new gasoline-powered car sales (diesel or petrol) for a while now, but they were not able to come to an understanding until now, according to a new report.

The new report comes from Dagens Næringsliv (Paywall), an important newspaper in Norway, claiming that the four main political parties, both from the right and the left, have agreed on a new energy policy that will include a ban on new gasoline-powered car sales as soon as 2025 – making it one of the most aggressive timeline of its kind for such a policy.

India confirmed that it is evaluating a scheme for all its fleet to be electric by 2030 and the Dutch government is discussing the possibility to ban gas-powered car sales and only allow electric vehicle sales starting also by 2025, but the idea divides the parliament.
...
While representatives from the Democratic Party and the liberal Party have corroborated Dagens Næringsliv’s story, representatives from the two parties on the right have told the aftenposten.no that they have not yet agreed on the rule.

It looks like Norway is getting closer to its fossil fuel ban, but a little more work will be needed before the country can say goodbye to gas.
http://electrek.co/2016/06/03/norway-gasoline-powered-car-ban-2025/

I was at the Clean Energy ministerial Conference on Wednesday, and for the first time there seemed to be real urgency in the need to cut Carbon emissions. Whatever information has been released about climate change, either publicly or behind closed doors, seems to have scared the hell out of our governments.

466
Stipulated, for the moment, the fossil carbon displacement advantage for corn to ethanol.

Nevertheless, I submit that lifecycle analyses have attended to
 
1) horrible impacts of fertilized corn monoculture
2) carbon sequestration in appropriate soils if restored to prairie
3) equivalent investment in transmission for solar farms on favorable sites


Most farmer i know dont understand why not just burn the corn ? They understand all about road fuels, and they go " ... or just drive less"

i kinda agree with them.

sidd
   


There are better ways, corn ethanol is just a stop gap until we get better solutions (Cellulosic ethanol and electric cars have been very slow in their take up). Drive less, use self drive cars that can be very close together. Rail, Bikes etc. It just takes too much time to change the mindset. In some transportation uses liquid fuels are going to be around for a long time; Our aim has to be to have those have the least possible environmental impact, both in criteria emissions and in GHG pollutants.

467
The biggest reduction of GHG is still ethanol

I strongly disagree.  I live in Minnesota where we grow corn, most of it for ethanol.  Corn ethanol is basically a roundabout way to turn natural gas into liquid fuel.  Without all the natural gas going into the haber-bosch process to create the ammonia fertilizer dumped on the fields every year, those fields wouldn't produce.  Not to mention all the petrochemical herbicides and pesticides sprayed.  Even if strictly in terms of carbon it's of benefit, the environmental destruction that takes place where the corn is grown is absolutely not worth it.  All of our rivers and lakes are disgusting now because of fertilizer and pesticide runoff.  Forty years ago you could take your family swimming in any lake, and eat fish from any river to your heart's content.  Not anymore.  Now only in the northern half of our beautiful state do we have pristine waters, and even there, only where mining hasn't polluted them.  Maybe ethanol from other sources makes sense but corn ethanol is a giant scam and subsidy to big ag interests, appeasing environmentalists who don't know better but actually destroying the environment.

I wont go into the life cycle analysis and indirect land use change modelling. The life cycle analysis is VERY extensive, impartial, and includes the carbon cost of growing the corn, transportation and refinement.

Here is the model that is being used to work our the carbon intensity of Corn ethanol.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/ca-greet/ca-greet.htm

In terms of GHG emission reduction of transportation fuels in California ethanol is the biggest contributor, you can disagree all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

468
California awards $23.6 million for electrified drayage trucks at seaports
Quote
Drayage trucks, which move freight around inside and between port facilities, are a major source of air pollution, and an excellent candidate for electrification. The twin ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach have been testing various electrified options for several years.

Now the state of California has awarded $23.6 million to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for a statewide drayage truck development and demonstration project that will involve BYD, Kenworth, Peterbilt and Volvo.

The project will demonstrate 43 Class 8 trucks in three “zero-emission-capable” propulsion configurations. BYD, Peterbilt and California start-up TransPower will collaborate to develop a battery-electric truck. Volvo will deploy a plug-in hybrid diesel truck under the Mack brand. Peterbilt, Kenworth and BAE Systems will work together on a natural gas plug-in hybrid truck.

“This project will help put the very cleanest short-haul trucks to work where they are needed most, moving cargo from the state’s biggest ports to distribution centers and rail yards,” said ARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “This is good news – and cleaner air – for all Californians, but especially those who live in neighborhoods next to these industrial facilities or along some of our state’s busiest trade corridors.”
https://chargedevs.com/newswire/california-awards-23-6-million-for-electrified-drayage-trucks-at-seaports/

Short distance = good candidate for electrification.

SCAQMD has very serious issues trying to get the port of Longbeach into NOx attainment. Anything that can give zero emissions in ports is a good thing. Particularly since there are hotspots of 1/10000 cancer risk per year because of air pollution in the area around the port.


469
Electric vehicles are only part of the solution to reducing GHG in Calfironia. They are not still not suitable for many uses: The biggest reduction of GHG is still ethanol, the most carbon efficient fuel is biodiesel made from waste oils.

See:

http://its.ucdavis.edu/californias-low-carbon-fuel-standard/

CARB is under fire for spending a disproportionate amount of funding on electric vehicles for VERY little payback. Notice that about 8% of the fuel in California was supplied by alternative fuels (about 1.4 billion GGE). Electric vehicles contributed only 13 million of that, so a tiny 1% of all the alternative fuel used, but it has consumed a huge proportion of CARBs funding.

Unfortunately electric vehicles are an entirely unsuitable alternative for at least 40% of the fuel consumed in California and that is not going to change over  the next 2 to 3 decades. If you want rapid GHG reduction in transportation there are better ways to go.

470
1) the algal biodiesel i have experience with is hi sulfur, needs sulfur removed.  One agal biodiesel manufacturer i am familiar with blends the lipids directly into feedtock for a  petro refinery (this manufacture is sometimes called "green diesel") which is equipped to remove the sulfur.

2)Most biodiesel produced in the USA is blended into road fuel, not heating oil.

3)amounts of biodiesel used in aviation fuel is tiny compared to road use.

Agreed on 1 and 2. There is a nomenclature issue with biodiesel though, it's being confused with renewable diesel/Jet; Two very different beasts.

Biodiesel is not used in aviation.  <snipt>

I'll just say the ice has been broken on all-algae biodiesel aviation fuel and that's my point, it's on the way now: http://www.diamondaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/IW_ILA_Biofuel_eng.pdf

For home heating oils this a recent move to 20% mix so it's also being moved toward pure algae: http://biodiesel.org/news/news-display/2014/12/15/astm-vote-opens-door-for-biodiesel-innovation-in-heating-oil.

The main reason is this and why to consider that there's no reason to use arable land for biodiesel when we can grow it from a truly renewable resource, wastewater, then beyond that purify the water:

"Algae are a logical source from which to make biodiesel, as the oil found inside algal cells is similar to other vegetable oils like rapeseed, soy, and canola, and can easily be transformed into biodiesel."; http://allaboutalgae.com/biodiesel/

Biodiesel is not used in aviation. Biofuel is. Please read my explanation above for why that is.

On the change to 20% biodiesel in heating oil. Biodiesel used in heating is made largely from Soy for it's cold flow properties. It's not made from algea oil.

There are far better alternatives to displacing food crops as a source of oil, and that is reflected in the Carbon credits you can get when there is no ILUC carbon cost. (Indirect Land Use Change). I do hope someone comes up with a viable way to make algal blooms into fuel, however, as it stands, it is just a rather wet source of carbon. Pyrolosis of woody waste is perhaps a better way to go.


471
1) the algal biodiesel i have experience with is hi sulfur, needs sulfur removed.  One agal biodiesel manufacturer i am familiar with blends the lipids directly into feedtock for a  petro refinery (this manufacture is sometimes called "green diesel") which is equipped to remove the sulfur.

2)Most biodiesel produced in the USA is blended into road fuel, not heating oil.

3)amounts of biodiesel used in aviation fuel is tiny compared to road use.

Agreed on 1 and 2. There is a nomenclature issue with biodiesel though, it's being confused with renewable diesel/Jet; Two very different beasts.

Biodiesel is not used in aviation. Renewable jet fuel is. Biodiesel contains fatty acid methyl esters (FAME) and the ASTM spec for Jet fuel only allows <70ppm FAME in aviation fuel (iirc). The number of companies producing renewable Jet fuel is tiny because it doesn't get the >$3.00 per gallon of credits that producing renewable diesel substitutes gets.

Renewable jet is produced by companies (e.g. Altair) that hydro-treat fatty acids to remove the caroboxylate group. If they left it at that the hydrogenated fuel would have a terrible cloud point (look at hexadecane), so there is a isomerisation step to produce branched hydrocarbons, and reduce the cloud to around -30°C.

472
Re: biodiesel feedstock USA

EPA figures for feb 2016:

105 million gallons biodiesel produced

fresh soy oil : 51%
yellow grease (includes used cooking oil): 14%
distillers orn oil (most from corn to ethanol production) : 11%
white grease: 7%
fresh canola oil : 6%
Tallow: 3%

etc.

Sounds about right.

Biodiesel is NOT used as a Jet fuel. It is regarded as a pollutant in Jet. I sit on the ASTM committee that just (last year) increased the allowable ppm of biodiesel in Jet from 10ppm. It was consider the cause of an airline crash because of its poor low temperature properties. We wanted to increase the allowable PPM because of pipeline issues as the same pipelines are used to move diesel blended with biodiesel and Jet. It's not cost effective to flush the pipeline down to 10ppm FAME.

You are probably thinking of renewable Jet fuel, that is being made by a few companies from waste fats, and a couple of headline grabbing algal oil companies. Renewable Jet from fat is far cheaper to produce than that from algal oils, and the latter is at least 10 years out from commercialization, and probably unlikely to happen. There is MUCH better use for biodigesting waste to make RNG.

There is no real commercial incentives to produce renewable jet as the oil companies like a outlet for their high sulphur fuels, their lobbyist are very well funded, and its extraordinarily hard to pass ISO regulations as each country has one vote. That's why marine fuels are so damn polluting. Its FAR easier to regulate a transportation fuel in a country or state than internationally.

473
Arctic sea ice / Re: IJIS
« on: May 25, 2016, 06:23:33 AM »
IJIS:

10,792,665 km2(May 24, 2016)



10,880,319 yesterday, fall of 87,654.

474
Locally Produced Transportation Biofuels: Biodiesel from Sewage Effluent.

First designed at home-farm-ranch scale a photo-bioreactor cube 1/2m on a side full of glass plates with light, air, temp control that stack to conserve heat takes 4-6 units per adult to handle capacity. Algae take 2.5-days to clean water with these growing is 24x7 it scales to big city.

Test case Phoenix, AZ, 10M-gallons/day of secondary effluent normally the treatment plant uses floccing chemicals to remove the dissolved solids, aka algae food as treatment plants are there to prevent algae blooms, eh?

This is a lot of nutrients worth about 2-gallons/person/day on the system for Phoenix some 3M-gallons/day of biodiesel at one of three plants in the basin 9M-gal/day.

For atmospherics this removes CO2 adds O2 and the reverse when burned low in the atmosphere and on a continuing roll-over so should slow down migration of the gases to the troposphere where they do the damage.

Soot is the biggie to remove to scale, consider using a low-power, high-frequency plasma for that by mfg's.

The biodiesel industry is robust yet lacks an outlet to transportation being mainly small operators so no gas-stations, they usually have pumps around $2/gal at the plant, most of the biodiesel used for home heating oils; about 1/3 of producers use wastewater for a feedstock.

Consider running any IC-engine this way for the zillions of them, and for much of the world a heating & cooking oil and because algae clean so well easy to fully purify and recycle the water.

I don't understand this: So they are making biodiesel from waster by growing algae? The math simply does not add up. It's 125 lt of volume. the algae does not live typically past 1%, so you are looking at 1.25 liters of algae per 2.5 days. Extracting the oil is probably going to require a hand press, and you will get maybe 20% of that mass as oil. That's going to be 0.25 liters of oil every 2.5 days, so 0.1 liters. That has to be converted to biodiesel, requiring collection, Every year you can make perhaps 35 liters of fuel, if there are no other loses in the system. Sorry for the back of the envelope math.. I am using 1g/cm3 for water/oil mass. Oil is typically 0.85 g/cm3.

Solyazme are the most advanced of trying to make fuel from algea, and they have concluded that it's best to have a main product (such as proteins) rather than grow for food Their stock price is a good indicator of their success.

The comment on biodiesel is actually completely wrong. The biodiesel market is huge and is LARGELY used for transportation. ADM is the largest in America, with 450m gallons or so of capacity. Note also that the outlet is in diesel wholesale rack which is often blended at 5% with biodiesel. Pretty much every gallon of diesel fuel bought in California has been blended with biodiesel. The total production in the US is 2 billion gallons or so, with 3.5 billion gallons of total capacity. Biodiesel is small compared to the petroleum industry, but the industry itself has close to 8b in gross revenue. Only a small fraction goes to heating oil as you cannot claim RIN or LCFS credits if it does. You can claim a D5 RIN for home heating but you have to jump through hoops with the EPA to make sure you are auditable.

SOOT is not an issue with burning biodiesel, it actually reduces PM emissions over ULSD. As it is burnt as transportation fuel it is typically passed through a DPF before release, to reduce particle emissions to a minimum.

475
Well if you were serious about doing something banning jet travel would be a good start.


https://www.flightradar24.com/57.04,-32.9/3


Only 1,500 of ~10,000 in flight usually displayed.

Yes, 0.2% standard for sulfur in Jet too.
1kg of CO2 for every 20km per person... Jet travel releases a huge amount of CO2.


476

Okay, Okay. Anyone in a position of power publicly takes a stance on global warming that suits their needs. They are also the people who's advisers are selling beach front estates because of the risk of devaluation over the next 50 years. People with money and power are not stupid. They are already divesting themselves of long term risky assets.

477

Being involved in lobbying/regulatory work. I can safely say that this project has not got a cats chance in hell of progressing. Governments will only intervene if the payback is obvious and the catastrophe (loss of life, money) is imminent. Losing Arctic sea ice does not constitute either. It actually provides money making opportunities. Serious money is already anticipating and measuring their risks and modifying investments.

If you wanted this to happen (in the US) you need to get some wealthy campaign contributors, show them how much money they will make, and then get them to twist the arms of the people in power so they can make said money. Of course, they will be fighting the investors who see money in the loss of sea ice, who are doing exactly the same thing.



478
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 20, 2016, 09:53:00 PM »
The 5 day NSIDC extent now the lowest ever recorded for May, at 11.787 million km2. This beats the value set on May 31st, last year, of 11.816 million km2


And the record is set 12 days earlier; it gives a good indication of just how much farther ahead the melting is this year, even compared to 2015.

479
Wow... that would be the most massive engineering project in human history.

A Tailings dam seems like a comparable structure.  The largest of these seems like it would have roughly the correct height, but be about one-fifth of the necessary length of a dam across the Bering strait.

Other large structures, not necessarily a single project, include:

Dubai islands

More Dubai islands.

Bridges

Dams

Tunnels

The US interstate system or even just I-5 seem like they would easily be more massive, although not a single project.

No mention of Suez Canal or Panama Canal? They seem like more obvious larger scale engineering projects.

Those projects had very obvious ROIs.

I'm not sure spending billions of putting a barrier across the strait is going to be top of anyone's list when it becomes clear the extent of coastal defenses that are going to be built around some VERY expensive real estate. There is no monetary gain, no political will. Perhaps if you could soften the political landscape with some sweet contracts to the engineers and construction companies you have a chance in hell of this ever happening.

The carbon cost of the project (and it's maintenance) would be enormous as well.

480
Policy and solutions / Re: Carbon Fee & Dividend Plan
« on: May 18, 2016, 09:01:08 PM »

I support the Fee/Dividend but it also has to be coupled with a way to take money from polluters and transfer it to non-polluters.

Unfortunately investment in renewables will not happen without the extra incentive. Cap and Trade is working effectively in California, as is the LCFS. However, it's still almost impossible to sell renewable transportation fuel into the California market place, because, frankly, the oil companies who hold the market power do not want it to be sold; and that's with tax regulatory credits worth $3.40 a gallon. The LCFS credits alone are running at $110 a metric ton.

Fee and Dividend is useful, but there has to be targeted programs that go along with it.

481
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: May 18, 2016, 08:51:45 PM »

CARB is addressing methane emissions. They are a serious handicap to claims that CNG or LNG transportation is carbon efficient. You can sign up onto the CARB list server to get e-mails on what we are trying to achieve here.


The California Air Resources Board, California Energy Commission, and California Public Utilities Commission invite you to a Joint Agency Symposium:.

Methane Emissions from California’s Natural Gas System:
Challenges and Solutions

California is establishing a framework to reduce in-state emissions from oil and gas infrastructure by 40-45% in 2025.  The Symposium will include an examination of the science regarding methane emissions from natural gas systems.  It will also include a discussion of the options supported by current science and technology to reduce emissions related to the natural gas used by California consumers in consideration of new State and Federal methane regulations introduced in 2015 and California-based initiatives to reduce methane emissions. 

June 6-7, 2016
CalEPA Headquarters Building, Sacramento

The Symposium will be webcast (no registration required if
webcasting):
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/broadcast/?BDO=1
For more information and registration, please go to the Symposium
website:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/oil-gas/symp.htm
For additional information, contact Kathleen Kozawa (916)
327-5599 or Carolyn Lozo (916) 445-1104.

482
Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: May 18, 2016, 03:45:53 PM »
It's very important that you are doing an AMA! Reddit is a great place to communicate.

I'll give you an upvote!

483
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 18, 2016, 04:31:40 AM »
Meanwhile, in the Beaufort; do those dark brown/green plumes and the reduction in pooled water over the ice indicate the Mackenzie flood waters are flowing en mass into the sea?

484
Arctic sea ice / Re: Home brew AMSR2 extent & area calculation
« on: May 16, 2016, 10:48:30 PM »
°C

Use 'alt 0176' to get the degree symbol!

485
The lowest carbon fuel is diesel electric running biodiesel

You have near zero carbon compared with NG which runs about 70-80% of diesel carbon

I do a lot of low carbon fuel pathway modelling. NG leakage is a hugely serious problem. Methane is a nasty short term GHG as we all know, and production companies do not care about leakage unless it gets to explosive levels. Electric trains running on solar would be idle but not entirely within reach

486
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 12, 2016, 05:29:24 PM »
I had a couple of question about the ice extent in the Fram/Greenland sea:

It seems to me that the extent of that ice in the sea would give a reasonable indication of the rate of export of ice through the Fram straight. That extent declines though the melting season, but would an extent increase or drop compared to a baseline basically indicate a prior increase or decrease in ice export?

Looking at the extent date there has been a lack of sea ice in the Bearing Sea, and the slightly above average extent in the Greenland sea and Off Labrador for the last few months. This would seem to me that there is more moving the Ice through the Fram straight than just weather patterns. If more warm water is being pushed into the Arctic, wouldn't the AMOC drive ice towards the Fram straight as the cold water sinks and moves south?

Is there simply more energy in the oceans and atmosphere driving the Atlantic and the Arctic oceans to mix at a higher rate?
1. It wouldn't "indicate" that, because there are mighty other things which decrease and increase extent other than export. At best it could "hint" at that, given everything else being the same - but then of course, everything else is the same not too often.

2. Plausible, but i have no idea how significant this mechanic could be.

3. Definitely so. At the absolute zero Kelvin, no mixing occurs (hehe). On the other hand, close to 370 degrees Kelvin, lots of mixing occurs (as evident from boiling any container of water). Can't see why this trend could be polynomial-like. So in general, yep, it's one significant factor. And then we see Jet Stream illustrating your point very well last several years, going wavy, breaking up, creating extremes all around upper NH like never before.

So basically; 1) too much noise. 2), 3) possible hypothesis but difficult to model.

I like your use of end points! 

487
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 12, 2016, 04:16:13 PM »
I had a couple of question about the ice extent in the Fram/Greenland sea:

It seems to me that the extent of that ice in the sea would give a reasonable indication of the rate of export of ice through the Fram straight. That extent declines though the melting season, but would an extent increase or drop compared to a baseline basically indicate a prior increase or decrease in ice export?

Looking at the extent date there has been a lack of sea ice in the Bearing Sea, and the slightly above average extent in the Greenland sea and Off Labrador for the last few months. This would seem to me that there is more moving the Ice through the Fram straight than just weather patterns. If more warm water is being pushed into the Arctic, wouldn't the AMOC drive ice towards the Fram straight as the cold water sinks and moves south?

Is there simply more energy in the oceans and atmosphere driving the Atlantic and the Arctic oceans to mix at a higher rate?

488
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 12, 2016, 02:02:20 AM »

It looks like there is a lot of open water in the MacKenzie delta.

link: http://go.nasa.gov/1TAqT68


489
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: May 09, 2016, 10:29:02 PM »
Notes on black carbon as a short lived GHG.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/shortlived/shortlived.htm

Also if you want ot read more:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/single-project.php?row_id=65207


"Black carbon is a component of fine particulate matter, which has been identified as a leading environmental risk factor for premature death. It is produced from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass burning, particularly from older diesel engines and forest fires. Black carbon warms the atmosphere by absorbing solar radiation, influences cloud formation, and darkens the surface of snow and ice, which accelerates heat absorption and melting. Diesel particulate matter emissions are a major source of black carbon and are also toxic air contaminants that have been regulated and controlled in California for several decades in order to protect public health"

490
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 06, 2016, 11:47:43 PM »
Too impatient to wait for full day's satellite load. Compare May 1 vs May 6. The cracks from the Beaufort mess have now reached the cracks from the ATL side. Insane!


And recent cracks seem to extend from the Beaufort west, joining those around Wrangle Island across the Chukchi Sea and then across the Laptev sea. Pretty much circling the whole of the CAB from 50° West to 150°E. 

491

Electrification of transport is a great way forward, but it only works for certain segments of the population and for certain classes of vehicle.

In California a significant amount of both GHG and criteria emissions are caused by HDVs and those will certainly not be electrified for a couple of decades or more.

Another issue in California is distribution of electric cars. One of the reasons why SB350 did not pass (Senate Bill 350, for a 50% reduction in petroleum usage by 2030) was that CARB (California Air Resources Board) has been pushing an electrification agenda and it simply is not a viable solution for many areas of California. A number of politicians in the central valley voted the bill down as they want CARB to have more transparency and accountability, to show metrics on carbon reduction. The money put into Electric cars dwarfs spending on renewable fuels and yet renewable fuels accounts for about 90% of the GHG reductions in the Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Electric cars suit the wealthy cities. They do not work (yet) in disadvantage rural communities, and they are the ones that suffer from NOx and PM health issues.

The title of this thread should also include Planes..

492
Consequences / Re: Wildfires
« on: May 05, 2016, 08:07:16 PM »

"At least 640,000 barrels per day of crude output is offline, according to Reuters calculations, roughly 16 percent of Canada's crude production. The outage is expected to climb as major players in the region cut production. [O/R]"

Well, I didn't expect the feedback loop of climate change to reduced carbon production to be quite so direct. Anybody else see the Irony in this?

493
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 04, 2016, 03:01:31 AM »
Okay.. from a quick look at EOSDIS. I warn you I am an amateur on ice and satellite images.

I was looking at the images of the Beaufort and noticed that there are big curved cracks extending towards Wrangle Island from the Anzhu islands that propagated roughly 1000km across the East Siberian sea towards Alaska from around the 29th April to today. The direction of separation is along the coast of Russian. Basically East to West (examining the cracks in detail give a good indication of the movement). It implies that these were opened by clockwise rotation.  There are chunks of ice in the cracks that are being rotated. There is one below, that was rotated through 10-15km by the motion on 2nd may, and moved about 15km in the last 24 hours, or around 17cm/s.

I'm a new observer.. Is my interpretation reasonable and would this support detachment seen above?

if i'm not mistaken what you're talking about is the beaufort gyre which is one of the often discussed and mentioned topic in this thread, especially over the last 10-20 days. if you didn't do that already, reading back a bit will give you a quite complete picture as to what we're dealing with here.

I was looking at the area between Wrangle Island and the Anzhu Islands in the East Siberian Sea. It seems that the whole sea is moving clockwise North of the cracking. The movement is in the same direction as the Beaufort, but from what I have read is a much larger extent than would be expected from the Gyre.

Yay! Figured out how to link it.. If you cycle backwards and forwards on days you can see the break up pretty clearly.

http://go.nasa.gov/1W7O12D




494
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 04, 2016, 01:02:11 AM »
Okay.. from a quick look at EOSDIS. I warn you I am an amateur on ice and satellite images.

I was looking at the images of the Beaufort and noticed that there are big curved cracks extending towards Wrangle Island from the Anzhu islands that propagated roughly 1000km across the East Siberian sea towards Alaska from around the 29th April to today. The direction of separation is along the coast of Russian. Basically East to West (examining the cracks in detail give a good indication of the movement). It implies that these were opened by clockwise rotation.  There are chunks of ice in the cracks that are being rotated. There is one below, that was rotated through 10-15km by the motion on 2nd may, and moved about 15km in the last 24 hours, or around 17cm/s.

I'm a new observer.. Is my interpretation reasonable and would this support detachment seen above?



495
Arctic sea ice / Re: Arctic Image of the Day
« on: April 28, 2016, 09:01:44 PM »


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36162115

I thought it was worth posting as it looks like there will be more images to come :)

496
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 28, 2016, 01:53:48 AM »

Thanks Neven and Jim! So much to learn. There seems to be discrepancy in the timing between the flood of warm water into the Beaufort sea after June 14 2012, and the spike of flow at Red River (I believe at the head of the delta?), which is around the 30th May 2012. That's an awful lot of water to hold back for a few weeks! 

497
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 27, 2016, 10:25:21 PM »
As a beginner at this I was playing with climate reanalyzer and noticed that the whole of the Mackenzie river basin was going to have high heat anomalies for at least a couple of days, With the Great Slave lake seeing temperature highs of 25°C. Reading a review of 2012, the warm Mackenzie water is argued to have a big impact on the Beaufort Sea:
(http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL058956/full

Their analysis shows the landfast ice breaking up after the 14th of June, with what looks like a 'tiny' lead on the seaward side of the landfast ice, certainly compared to the images from this year.

I wondered if anybody had an idea of exactly how much heat and meltwater had to end up in the MacKenzie before it started flowing into the Beaufort sea and if there was any record of the dates in the past when it did so? Climate Reanalyzer also show that all the snow cover for much of the watershed melting by May 3rd.


498
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: April 19, 2016, 08:32:30 PM »

It looks like much of Western Siberia is going to have +10 to +20°C air temperature anomalies throughout this week. Much of the air above the Kara Sea will be persistently above 0°C from Saturday through Tuesday.




499
Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 11, 2016, 08:18:03 PM »
1)Propane has lower energy per g CO2 emitted, and has to be refined which adds to its gCO2 per Mj.
Methane has the disadvantage that it is a powerful short lived GHG, so any upstream leaks of methane add to the gCO2/Mj.

2)I'm not sure it would be a easy solution: switching over all burners to propane as they would have to be re-certified for NOx emissions. The infrastructure requirements and cost for switching between the two would, probably, hugely out weigh any potential emissions reductions (if there are any).

3)Propane is not as readily available, and passing any legislation that requires the switch would be extraordinarily difficult and take years to implement. As someone involved in advocating low carbon fuel usage, my experience has been that changing the status quo pits you against very able and well funded lobbyist from the entrenched industries.

500
Arctic sea ice / Re: Glossary ... for newbies and others
« on: April 09, 2016, 11:19:36 PM »
Thanks Neven! It did have me snookered.

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 11