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 - timallard

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Heat Transport Currents, the Pacific water moves eastward and flows through the archipelago with an influx from the Atlantic:

Then, compare to a color-replaced temperature from the same area today I used orange to highlight the slight difference to where temps were colder more toward the pole under thicker ice

This to me shows the areal extent of Pacific water that does stay near the surface with the warmth ending east of Baffin Island showing itself with a temperature signature through the thinning ice.

That looks like where open water exists early and stays late so a result of albedo-loss creating a thermal-mass of the ocean that degrades the ice. It also points to a rapid retreat to the demarcation when conditions are ripe for the entire basin.

[source nullschool screenshots]

Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: June 21, 2016, 11:36:11 AM »
Europe's Favorite Online Bike Seller Comes to the Land of Bike Shops
Remember the last time you bought a bike? Doesn't matter if that happened last week or for your 10th birthday, the experience in the U.S. hasn't changed all that much since the days of the Wright brothers: Walk into your nearest shop, test ride one of the few options in stock, walk out an hour later with a new bike and perhaps a helmet. The role of dealers, much as in the auto industry, hasn't been affected by the explosion of online shopping.

In Europe, however, one company has been doing things differently. Canyon has ditched the dealer model, in which a local bike shop commits to a mass order from a manufacturer and spends the rest of the year desperately trying to sell them all, in favor of selling to consumers over the internet. The company's performance-oriented bikes, sold at relatively low prices, aren't available anywhere else.

Bikes shops, good ones are there to fit the right bike to the person's abilities, what they want to use it for & budget, if you buy it online you don't have a person sizing it all up asking questions and doing on-the-bike fitting, maybe switch-outs of stem, basics like saddle-height & important things such as adjusting cleats on pedals for how they pedal bio-mechanically or inserts for people with unequal legs and so on.

That's how you sell local and endure as a bike shop not big box, the good ones do provide a service, if you know what fits & all online is fine, I can say getting fit properly is worth more to a rider than lighter stuff, and, custom frames are needed by many riders the off-the-shelf proportions don't always work.

My body doesn't fit OTS frames, short torso, long arms I suffered stiff necks and all for many years until my first custom frame ended that, I need a lot of pedal overlap on the front wheel that OTS frame mfg's don't want to do for general ridership can't blame them, yet, I rode track so willing to have it built and it was magic !

Also, there's a lot of mfg considerations for what is a seasonal industry now doing in-season releases that are really follow-ups of what becomes popular that year. Still, it's based upon the bike shows getting pre-orders to make initial supply-chain order volumes with lead-time to make them to arrive in spring, if you're doing low-volume high-priced bikes that's not the same business plan as small biz retail-service brick-n-mortar.

Sent an email to NSIDC requesting info on albedo and they sent a nice paper with a wide variety, more than posted above, sharing; 16-page pdf: JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 109, C08007, doi:10.1029/2003JC001989, 2004, "Hydraulic controls of summer Arctic pack ice albedo", H. Eicken et al.

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: June 20, 2016, 02:26:10 AM »
I really dont think that NASA idea will fly.
Getting the airlines to use bio generated fuels or a mixture will be much more probable and cost effective. 
Also there are much bigger fish to fry than the airline industry.....

Actually aircraft are horrible direct polluters of the stratosphere injecting CO2 there is instant forcing, if you burn something on the ground it has to migrate up that takes a while.

Also, shipping and aircraft weren't regulated by Paris being needed by the cross-borders-for-slave-labor system of profit-making, so we blow by 2C/3.6F like a glance out the window on the freeway.

Aircraft should be limited to low-elevation flying only, biodiesel from algae made from wastewater effluent humanity has megatons of it not cooking oil thank you, passenger onlym emergency freight & medical flights.

Or is getting that gizmo in overnight delivery too compelling and just forget the gesture why bother it's another false-flag feel-good does-nothing stall is all?

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: June 20, 2016, 02:14:01 AM »
Several commenters here (me included) have noted that warm conditions which lead to melting are often observed at Obuoys when the images show cloud or fog.
We should try to make these observations more systematic than a hunch based on anectotal memory.
I will try to post images  coinciding with satellite overpasses to also relate observations on the ground with the view from MODIS.

A reaction, the fog & clouds make sense they capture LWIR, add in that much moisture it'll hold heat to make it more effective at melting.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: June 19, 2016, 05:42:32 AM »
Solar panels more efficient on water in Japan
Developers first placed solar panels on water years ago to address land-based space constraints. Now, they’re finding floating plants may be more efficient.

In a year-long study in Hyogo prefecture north of Osaka, solar panels installed on a reservoir generated 14 percent more power than those set up on the rooftop of an office building, according to the local authorities who conducted the review.

“Water keeps panels cool,” said Hajime Mori, the head of operations in Japan for Ciel et Terre International SAS, a French company involved in many floating-solar projects around the world. That cooling effect allows the units to work more efficiently than modules on traditional mounts, which tend to heat up in the sun.
In China, the developer Xinyi Solar Holdings Ltd. has completed a 20-megawatt solar farm in Huainan City about 300 miles northwest of Shanghai the Anhui Province. That project, which Xinyi calls the world’s largest floating PV plant, is located on a body of water created from subsided land over a coal mine.
To cool the panels if one installs them in an air-tight shallow box to move air for that and use the heat a thermal-mass to supply space-heating [and cooling to collect at night].

One company has panels that use a thermal-fluid pricey yet feeds a heat-pump so an integrated system my idea works for any new install and uses standard 3-1/4x10 ducting.

The point is direct-thermal collection & storage are missing from architecture, the Hogan is 10-times more thermally efficient than a modern home similar for the Great Prairie sod house.

If you add a layer of soil-contact foam it isolates the dirt contained as thermal-mass instead of slowly conducting heat all the time. Insulating from the outside is 3-4 times less heat-loss than a standard wood frame construction from greatly reducing conduction.

This is the heat-transfer model run 6.67-hrs standard wall above additional 1-1/2" insulation board under the siding with furring strips to let condensation drip away on top of the sheathing, white 20C/68F, blue 0C/32F, this cuts losses to 1/3 original.

Think what that does to heating & AC grid loads no longer needing to supply that energy when scaled up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Gambling on The Ice
« on: June 18, 2016, 02:36:33 PM »
Oh, we gotta' agree that 5-years in a row of rotten ice left above some ridiculously low number vs 1980 is not "gone" yet.

Fine, what about albedo-loss taking over global-warming from the tiny humans, it's already 1/4th our forcing gain in CO2 emissions and that doesn't include Arctic CO2 & methane from permafrost & clathrates?

Let's take bets on how long it'll be before the two out-pace our forcing gains after bluewater in the Beaufort, eh?

Like California growers drilling for the bottom of aquifers to suck the Pleistocene water dry facing a long-term drought getting their money's worth before it's all gone ... makes perfect sense.

Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: June 17, 2016, 06:20:57 PM »
I wore this out riding it all weathers & winds, they are for long TT's so a regular spoked wheel with a bonded face to the carbon.

It adds about 1-mph to switch wheels in front over distance, in windy it improves flow in crosswinds better than disk rear only.

So, think of those big plastic platters with veggies for a party, by the millions so cheap, molded for common wheels instead of having to buy the wheel ...

For most racers & normal humans, the food-platter idea fits the budget, I really like this wheel, dinged the rim didn't even flat and had to retire it, sanded thin from rain riding.

Support for intentionally creating a blocking eddy to help prevent inflow: "The trajectories (Fig. 7) reveal the presence of two eddies that inhibited much of the flow through the pass. The northern drifter remained in the cyclonic eddy for 22 days, making 2.5 circuits around the northern eddy. The other drifter made four circuits of the southern eddy before malfunctioning. Typical speeds of rotation were the same for each eddy, 30 cm/s. Flow of significant amounts of Alaskan Stream water was thus blocked from the pass."; from "The physical oceanography of the Bering Sea: A summary of physical, chemical, and biological characteristics, and a synopsis of research on the Bering Sea"; Phyllis J. Stabeno,1 James D. Schumacher; NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Lab, Seattle, WA;  and Kiyotaka Ohtani; Laboratory of Physical Oceanography, Hokkaido University, Hokkaido, Japan.


Consider now reducing Pacific flow by redirecting the Alaska Stream backflow using artificial shoals.

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.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: June 13, 2016, 03:18:47 PM »
Throughout the Andes, there is becoming no water ... today. Snow-capped peaks no longer, all their snowfields are gone. Seasonal variations are off and crops can't be grown anymore not even potatoes, fields for animals dry with no water for them to drink.

It's global warming altering jetstreams when an entire mountain range stops getting water from the Atlantic.

This is also happening in the Himalaya, it's just taking longer to melt away, farmers there are freezing water for use from the lack of spring meltwater no longer flowing because the glaciers have retreated to higher altitudes and don't melt as early in artificial "glaciers" and "stupas" both allowing cold fall air to freeze water for spring.

California will follow this pattern it seems with a permanent drought from The Blob which likely will never go away now.

Americans will be the last to do something wise, most were dreaming a single El Niño would fix it ... nope, next dream or will reality force them to redo their water-rights?

Not likely, they are drilling for the bottom of aquifer water to grow high water-use crops for profit as we watch them ignore what they need to do for money & politics creating a far larger disaster when it hits the fan, already the state is depopulating, keep an eye on that form of "becoming less livable".

"A climate journey - The Andes: The farmers' struggle "; 2:53;

"Artificial Glaciers in the Himalayas | Global 3000 "; 3:39;

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 13, 2016, 04:57:43 AM »

>> To add to this the ice type is new to the Inuit, new to science they both call it "rotten ice",

That is incorrect. The term has been around for a long time.

Maybe 'New' to the basin in the amounts we are finding up there then?

Before the 07' crash I had concerns about changing ice in that floes can nearly melt out over a season but then 're-grow' from below and be capped with snow. At the time folk would still see robust , older ice whereas I was supposing it was a 'Wolf in Sheep's clothing' having near identical melt out potential to FY ice?

Since 07' we must have seen an expansion in this 'false age ice' as peripheral melt out allows floes to drift into high melt areas prior to refreeze? Even if the footprint remains the same the depth of ice must lessen weakening the floe and allowing us to see 'old ice' involved in 'Crackopalypse events?
>> Maybe I took what is said on these videos by a int'l team last fall in a biased way, I don't think so, if it was a known type why all this work?

"Characterization of the physical, biological, and chemical nature of rotting first-year ice continues"; part of this research; "Assessing the Habitability and Physical Structure of Rotting First-year Arctic Sea Ice"; Applied Physics Lab-Unv. of Washington; 6:38;

Related work discovering a warm layer 20m down and commenting on that it was all pancake ice during freeze-up in the Beaufort last fall: "ARCTIC SEA STATE; Sea State and Boundary Layer Physics of the Emerging Arctic Ocean"; APL-UW; 5:12;

Discussed in this up to date long talk by Dr. Barber; "Arctic Sea Ice: A Slippery Slope?"; 1:32:26;

The Inuit for sure know it's a new type, ask any of them, it's dangerous they can't hunt on it, recall they went from dogsleds to fishing boats in winter already so know the progression best and it killed them by the new situation, this a short video "Marine scientist Ken Dunton talks about what the disappearing ice means for humans and animals in the "new" Arctic."; 9:57;

It's the last vestige of sea-ice before a bluewater event my interpretation, when the leftovers of the multi-year ice within the rotten ice diminishes more it'll just all be gone in a day suddenly, the blobs of multi-year ice left are all that prevents that.


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 12, 2016, 04:05:47 PM »
The Laptev part has lost integrity, it is now rubbles !

I think there is more of that THROUGHOUT the Arctic....but to differing degrees.  The ice is in bad shape.....and getting worse.  Moving towards that day when a LOT of it disintegrates in a short time period.
>> To add to this the ice type is new to the Inuit, new to science they both call it "rotten ice", Applied Physics Lab, Unv WA, part of voyages last spring & fall, fall ice was rotten last year over most of the Beaufort they cruised on. Videos of related topics researched, big team 21 org's:

"Sea State and Boundary Layer Physics of the Emerging Arctic Ocean", showing expedition work and some of the "rotten ice"; evidence of warm water only 20m down this late October; "ARCTIC SEA STATE"; APL-UW; 5:13;

"Assessing the Habitability and Physical Structure of Rotting First-year Arctic Sea Ice"; "...  to find and categorize “rotten” sea ice"; APL-UW; 6:38;

They  took cores on ice barely strong enough to stand on!!! ... it can disappear anytime from circumstance now late season their take.

Consider this is mainly from basal melting, and a growing addition the clathrate plumes likely cause the large polynyas in the Laptev & Barents Seas, where a new vent is called a megaplume, pretty bad news, hard to fix, eh?

This documented with good slides; May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"; Dr. Peter Wadhams speaking; 1:43:27;

Arctic sea ice / Re: Gambling on The Ice
« on: June 12, 2016, 12:26:28 AM »
Based on technical analysis only, I'd pick coffee as it's very close to multi-decade lows:

As a crop, coffee is tropical, and thus the furthest away from the ice.  (Same with Sugar, but at least sugar substitutes with corn syrup; coffee doesn't)

Actually, based on my own experience, I'd pick something like snap peas... they get clobbered by early heat waves.  Are there other crops that really go off the rails when say, winter doesn't happen? I know somebody mentioned needing cold periods for germination, what crops are impacted by that?

In my mind, the crux of the trade is when the "information" of arctic ice loss gets spread to a wider audience - what do they do? It's sort of like - if you know there was going to be a western Gulf of Mexico hurricane a few weeks in advance, you'd buy oil futures, since even if the infrastructure is not really affected, that's where the horde stampedes.

Anyway, even if I wanted to trade those things (Agriculture futures), where would I?
>> All major food crops go below 40% today's yields at 4C/7.2F avg-global, the Arctic then above 10C/18F.

Did you know after the 2007 event there was a bloom of jellyfish, never seen before and not much else there, don't assume it'll turn into a fishery.

Another aspect is did anyone ever study cryogenic soils & all? ... the first thing people do to build a road is put down a ballast rock pad, those melt permafrost, it's a standard all over and becomes a quagmire, making ships the primary functionality and today that's mainly fossil fuels, get it?

Thinking about this, ask who will benefit and by how much over keeping the ice and not letting runaway albedo-loss take over along with methane emissions those the prime suspect for the rise in CH4 emissions after almost a decade of less gain.

A good video with all these concerns; May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"; 1:43:26;

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 12, 2016, 12:05:35 AM »
Yes that is what I wanted to say ! Nearly the tenth of the power needed to unbalance the earth, that is not something that we should dismiss totally.
>> Consider direct heating of the oceans is Joules, 4.2 per calorie, radiative forcing is a secondary process of reflected energy so comparing those is a bit confusing seeing terawatts used for heat-flux in an ocean current to me, aside from the confusion on insolation vs human.

It's easier to use the 0.21w/m² for albedo-loss to compare yet for sea-ice the water temperature matters as the thermal-mass to melt it from below with a current, that's usually done in calories ... to correlate them is important for models.

Anyway, add in now that the clathrate emissions can be the cause of the polynyas on the Eurasian side, not warm Atlantic water mixing up, something to consider as these plumes are creating local air heating that effects land snowpack melt along with melting sea-ice from above.

Last year's FEEM talk has details & slides of the general plume locations & extent on all major shallow areas in 50m-70m water with deeper plumes, one described as an "Arctic methane megaflare".

[May 12, 2015 - FEEM Lecture: "Arctic Amplification, Climate Change, Global Warming"; albedo about 50-min into 1:43:26; ]

The gas is captured by the ice until released at breakup then it's into the sky with a punch, these are what the construction technique learned closing Bering Strait is for, artificial atolls to create still-water conditions to refreeze them, there is no other feasible way to close them back down and they must be dealt with, emissions don't matter now to this process only how cold the water on the bottom is.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 11, 2016, 04:48:49 PM »
Sidd, you say that the earth receive 80 Terawatts at the surface and compare it to our total emission. That's wrong to do that because we need this 80 Tw to have the temperature we require, as you say 1/300 th is enough to unbalance so we need to compare with that amount. 80/300 = 0,27 Tw now we can compare to our emission... 20 Tw oh gosh off course it does have an impact, Timallard does not say that the radiative forcing is not a problem, he is saying (if understand that right) the quantity of energy we are releasing is not insignificant as many engineers do claim until now (mainly pro nuclear).
>> To tie in why to dam Bering Straits to these numbers 10-terawatts/winter, 20-terawatts/summer move through there annually ... most of that current drifts east to cause sea-ice loss in the Beaufort, it's a lot of heat and while colder than the Atlantic warm layer it still melts ice.

Something to consider as the Pacific water flows into the basin and that pulls in an equal amount with freshwater mixed in of Atlantic water to compensate the head-height of 1/2-meter, this on top of albedo-loss.

That's a direct heating and greenhousing is indirect being reflected LWIR, Prof. Wadhams uses the 20-year CO2 forcing metrics, it's from other studies I couldn't read the citation I found it in, those are like the result of such a difference in heat-transfer.

The other thing is melting ice takes energy that when gone is now heating the water, it's like 80:1 another aspect of runaway albedo-loss being now the critical jump to a heating world not emissions gains in the short-term.

With the Atlantic warmer than the Pacific water the total is more than double, it's a lot of heat being moved.

In the 2015 FEEM talk Wadhams states clearly with graphs that albedo-loss is the main reason the Arctic is heating so fast, it's the key issue.

Out of about 1.2 billion vehicles globally.

Still, it's a start.

>> Yeah, why we have to fuel them all w/o fossil and for economics using sewage effluent to grow algae for biodiesel purifies the water at the same time, nothing will beat it more efficiency the wastewater feedstock comes at you at 10M-gal/day half in weight dissolved solids, aka algae food.

Oh no we gotta' do something else ... that makes energy barons more cash.

Arctic sea ice / Re: Gambling on The Ice
« on: June 09, 2016, 09:22:46 PM »
Let's say that you expect this year will set an extent record (some of us do, some of us don't).

Let's say you're also a rather speculative investor...  What would you put money on? Shipping companies? Agriculture futures? Alternative energy? Arctic property?

I imagine that when(if) we set the all time low sea ice extent , it'll bubble up through the media consciousness from "completely out of mind" to "might merit a brief mention in a presidential debate". 

Any investments you think would be favored by a lower-than-expected extent?
>> The main item shipping is almost all fossil fuel at this time, not retail goods those go by air, this the highest carbon-footprint possible so the Arctic dies as we know it from speeding its death, so far beyond Greek Tragedy.

Then, sea-level rise answers the question of where to build your new ports & towns expecting a rapid rise in there somewhere, that is if there is a global economy left to build for.

The reason is that today (albedo-loss heat-gain) = (20-years of CO2 forcing) = (0.21-watts/m²).

That implies Paris needs 2-3 times more reductions to meet goals if albedo-loss wasn't a dynamic property or it's not in the models.

Geophysically, albedo-loss will rule further heating there's so much CO2 tonnage in the air we're in a 200,000-year geologic excursion now where tweaking emissions incrementally matters not, CO2 will out-gas to counter reductions for several centuries is how the planet works.

The future of any economy is saving what sea-ice is there, now, the ante is it'll be gone for about 180,000-years when it goes.

Perhaps you like the space umbrella idea my choice cheery bamboo ones made-in-china and shipped to ---> Orbit, it makes star-gazing more fun for the kids.

any use of terms that are not straight forward is wrong IMO. in this case we are dealing with the useless term "nearly icefree" and it's  meaningless definition. facts do not have to be defined. as long as we have ice we measure as it is in km2 and km3, extent, area and volume. the only meaningful term that matters is "ice free" and that does speak for itself, icefree is no ice at all.

for any other scenario it's absolutely sufficient to deal with common numbers like for example 100'000km2 of ice, that's telling the entire story without need for a new term and new definition that has to be defined and hence will be defined in different manners and hence will lead to back and forth debates about the term itself and absorb time and energy that would be better used to debate solutions.
>> Reacting to, "the useless term "nearly icefree" and it's meaningless definition", along with if it is defined you get mess.

The thought is using the remote-sensing data now available with an albedo-loss quotient tied to the current conditions of the ice, immediate recognition of the change to "rotten ice" new to the Inuit, new to science indicating a change of state.

Barber reports open-area increasing in all months of the year. My take is that the change to rotten ice is the last penultimate state before bluewater [There are very deep stacks of wind-driven slabs now, yet, it's not multi-year ice in properties, not a replacement that way & the process making it not the same].

Albedo-loss is today= 20-years of CO2 forcing = 0.21-watts/m² ... at the FEEM talk last spring was stated that albedo-loss is the greatest source of warming in the Arctic by far, it's a specific-heat water vs reflected LWIR difference so a huge input.

The implications of not knowing this are big-deals in trying to use emissions to control global-warming, doesn't look good, far better to preserve sea-ice or bust.

Afaik albedo-loss heat-gain is not in models as a dynamic property if at all.

We have such good info already to not use it dynamically to me as a software architect is like unreal archaic thinking before API's.

The consequential condition is when large areas turn to rotten ice, not how much area is left, this can be done from satellite with recent voyages ground-proofing the satellite interpretation & last fall's voyage by APL, that involved a lot of institutions processing aspects now.

My vote really is for neither and use the data as outlined, neither are recognizing a pivotal new form of sea-ice and the relationship to albedo-loss to runaway heating of the Arctic to show the seriousness of losing the ice to total bluewater input in one season vs now.

We need to vizualize these relationships tied to what ice is there, to an old local there for the big melt of 2007 jellyfish thrive in the exposed sea, not more fish, the biological changes tied as well, eh?


" ... people have used cooking oil and most biodiesel you can buy is from that commercially ... "

This is incorrect. Most biodiesel today is produced from fresh vegetable oil.

" ... it'll run any engine ... "

No. Manufacturers are up to B20 right now, trying for B30 but have no plans to go to B100. I have run B100 in summer in a Navistar 6.3L engine, for a couple years with no apparent ill effects, but i voided the warranty doing so. Larger engines are more expensive, and none of the longhaul or shorthaul trucking companies i know will run anything except manufacturer recommended fuel blends in them.

Your mileage may vary.
Sir, I have no qualm with your statements except to say United is flying 70-30, Boeing has flight tested 50-50 and where it's going is a small airline flying 100% algae biodiesel, not cooking oil.

Do what you like with your investments once there's a level playing field the economics will take over and food-crop oil won't be subsidized by chemical-ag, energy & automaking companies using the well-worn backdoor deals.

Consider this, your feedstock at a treatment plant arrives with water at 7,000-gallons/minute, 3000-lbs of algae food with it.

Consider that all the expenses of food-crop growing must compete, again, once the veil of corruption money-games is gone.

With a bro that has run on free cooking oil since the 70's and friends that run biodiesel in a variety of engines, if you want to do it you can no problem.

Let DARPA & others work out the aviation & specialty fuels, someone already has an answer, yet, is that like a better carburetor?

Just sayin', some older block engines run better, biodiesel is self-lubricating it's plastics and seals that matter and there are ways to convert those and why engines can't "just run it" changing plugs & timing; biodiesel holds 10% more energy per gallon a bonus, ymmv.

heeheehee. Peanut oil as i recall.

Lot of times, neighbors on 1963 Massey-Ferguson combine or 1957 International  Harvester tractor will pull up and say, can you fill me up ? Those guys don't even need biodiesel. They can decant straight veg oil outta the seed press into the engine. (They shut down and start up on straight diesel, tho). They figure, if they needed, they could run their whole operation on the oil from soy on one third of their land.

They be old and crazy tho. And their kids are all leavin for gay Paree.


>> From the late 60's people have used cooking oil and most biodiesel you can buy is from that commercially so it's not a sustainable process it's part of a food-crop supply-chain using petrol-ag to grow

Consider your local sewage treatment plant uses chemicals to clean the water enough to let it go into a waterway and algae photo-bioreactors can grow 24x7, insulated, aeration & power piped in to have biodiesel from algae at high-volume.

My research was in Phoenix, AZ, visiting the labs that developed the aviation biodiesel algae that flew commercially along with ASU's libraries & local treatment plant managers where volume was 10-million gal/day in effluent, about 1/2 by weight in dissolved solids, aka algae food, & is worth about 3-million gal/day in biodiesel.

This process will remove CO2 and emit oxygen BEFORE you burn it is the diff to fossil fuels, this will create a much slower migration process of excess greenhouse gases at the local level. Know that pre-WW2 algae biodiesel was researched by the War Department and 50%-oil species had been hybridized, about 50-years prior to GMOs so they are not needed for this.

Biodiesel is refined to not dissolve seals in engines, it'll run any engine, for the picky algae-to-crude is $7.50/gal so bio-gasoline is possible, the oil barons have to keep their refineries working, eh?

The oil barons have kept this industry away from the public with the gas-station game, biodiesel-from-algae growers are small operators so can't afford that except for a dozen large-scale bio-reactor style, most large-scale use raceway ponds so can't grow in high-latitudes.

My focus was purifying the water, algae do a better job than floccing chemicals cleaning water so make tertiary treatment cheaper than what N Lake Tahoe's plant has been doing since the late 70's, then add in a revenue stream from the biodiesel and the treatment plant becomes the biofuel supply for the town.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 09, 2016, 03:41:46 PM »
Watching the FEEM lecture from 2015 last night and even Wadhams thinks carbon sequester when we end emissions is needed, space mirrors are still being promoted !!! ... he points out the maintenance problem, to me why not just order the colorful tiny bamboo umbrellas from china and ship to ---> Orbit  ;)

To be real, aircraft need to be passenger & emergency only that fly in the stratosphere a rule and Paris didn't regulate aircraft or shipping for the obvious reason to keep the "get it tomorrow" retail and cheap-labor routine going to make phantom assets crossing borders at a huge carbon-footprint.

Seeing that direct-heating is so big compared to greenhousing shown by albedo-loss, since the 70's everyone has known we must capture waste-heat from cars, power plants any strong heat source and now that must be on the table of immediate improvements that can be done w/o being tied to emissions reductions.

To me eliminating waste-heat looks far more promising than emissions controls right now to do effective cooling far better on a global scale than emissions and far easier to do politically as it just creates jobs.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 08, 2016, 08:18:00 PM »
With a hat tip to Richard Rathbone for his post in the Antarctic folder with a link to the following April 2016 EGU General Assembly press conference 8 video clip roughly focused on the implications of the Paris Pact:

While the entire video is worth watching I provide the four attached screenshots from the video.  The first two images are from the second (MIT EGU) speaker with:
(a) The first image showing the impact of the faux hiatus on both effective ECS (top panel) and effective oceanic diffusion (bottom panel), and the blue lines showing PDF values using observations until 2000 and the black lines showing PDF values using observations until 2010 (including part of the faux hiatus).  Further the lower panel clearly indicates that the faux hiatus (in GMST departures) was due to more heat content temporarily being sequestered into the oceans during the faux hiatus (some of which heat is now being released from the oceans).  Thus I believe that the blue line climate parameter distributions (with observations to 2000) is more "Realistic" (and indicates a mean ECS value of about 4C) and the black line climate parameter distributions is more "Pollyannaish" (and is best ignored).
(b) The second image shows the implications of both MIT's more "Realistic" climate parameters (left panel, which is good to consider) and "Pollyannaish" climate parameters (right panel, which is best ignored) for different carbon emission scenarios described in the video but with the current Paris pledges indicated by the red lines for which the more "Realistic" climate parameters indicate that we will reach 2C by about 2050 and 2.7C by about 2060.
The last two images are from the DeConto & Pollard EGU presentation with:
(c) The third image showing different carbon concentration pathways with the upper left panel showing the RCP scenarios used by DeConto & Pollard (2016) for their SLR projections; and the bottom left panel showing three new pathways postulated by DeConto where we follow the RCP 8.5 50%CL scenario until we reach 2C (by about 2040), 2.7C (by about 2065) and 3.6C (by about 2090), respectively for the blue, green and red lines.
(d) The fourth image shows DeConto & Pollard's (2016 EGU) projections of Antarctic contributions to changes in global mean sea level, GMSL, by the 2C (blue line), 2.7C (green line) and 3.6C (red line) forcing scenarios.  I believe that DeConto & Pollard's 2C scenario is not achievable in the real world (as confirmed by the second attached MIT analysis), and that by 2100 the 2.7C and the 3.6C forcing scenario produce essentially the same amount of increase in GMSL.  Taken together with the more "Realistic" MIT analysis the DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings indicate it likely that the WAIS collapse will begin about 2050 following the current Paris Pact pledges (and also ignoring the increase in carbon emissions associated with increasing agricultural growth).

Also I note that the indicated DeConto & Pollard (2016 EGU) findings do not include Hansen et al (2016)'s ice-climate feedback and thus errs on the side of least drama.

In Reply #49, I noted that following the Paris Pact assuming ECS is 4C we will exceed 2.7C by 2060, and that by following RCP 8.5 50%CL assuming ECS is 3C we will exceed 2.7C by 2065.

However, the second linked reference indicates that the remaining carbon budget from 2015 may be as low as 590 GtCO2; and as CO₂-e emissions are around 50GtCO2 (which exceeds RCP 8.5 50%CL), it is easy to see that assuming ECS is 3C we could readily exceed the 2C limit by around 2030, or if ECS is 4C then we could exceed 2.7C by around 2032 to 2035, if we continue on our current BAU pathway for another 16 to 19 years. 
Joeri Rogelj, Michiel Schaeffer, Pierre Friedlingstein, Nathan P. Gillett, Detlef P. van Vuuren, Keywan Riahi, Myles Allen & Reto Knutti (2016) "Differences between carbon budget estimates unravelled", Nature Climate Change, Volume: 6, Pages: 245–252, doi:10.1038/nclimate2868

Edit: I note that the estimate of exceeding 2.7C by 2032 to 2035, does consider lag-time after the carbon budget has been exceeded, but does not consider the risk of accelerating Arctic Amplification due the potential early seasonal loss of Arctic Sea Ice Extent as implied by the attached NSIDC May extent plot through 2016:

Consider this thesis: We are now in a geologic excursion-climate-path and can no longer assume carbon reductions matter to human timescales as the start-to-finish is some 200,000-years for the planet to return from an excursion, our closest analogy of such a carbon perturbation is the PETM.

That implies, heavily, that zeroing emissions while great as it fixes where sea-level will stop rising centuries from now, and also how hot it gets short-term and that heating lasts 180k+ years is now the ante on the table to do something that matters to preserving the sea-ice.

To watch it go means ethically it's ok to allow runaway albedo-loss assuming all know what that means till it's gone & stay gone for 180k+ years the point being there are no miracles once in an excursion, which we are.

That's the essential thesis, emissions are rather meaningless to when the sea-ice goes now, we can quit today, CO2 will not drop it'll continue going up for a while then stabilize and hold it for many millennia while out-gassing oceans keep it there.

Is there agreement with this thesis?

Reference: Specific info on what an "excursion" is to paleontology & carbon metrics on recovery, main part well into the talk worth watching it all; Emiliani Lecture: AGU 2012 Fall Mtg; "No Future Without a Past 'or' History will Teach us Nothing"; Dr. Richard Zeebe, Univ.of Hawaii; 52:57;

Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015
« on: June 06, 2016, 03:40:54 PM »
Consider emissions matter not right now as a priority, a heresy to state.

It's based on a realization of the geologic context everyone is aware of, that is we're now in a paleontological "excursion" caused by a large carbon "perturbation" the effects of which last 200,000-years start-to-finish.

We obviously need to zero emissions asap yet after we do so nothing happens, this is proof we exited normal climatic controls by storing too much too fast into the oceans and atmosphere, a 10-petagram bomb last year alone.

Try to consider the volcanic equivalent, to heat the planet during the PETM took ~50,000-years before the oceans went anoxic and HS was produced to cause the mass-extinction; we put up more carbon already.

So, CO2 remains the same for a couple of centuries after emissions drop while excess oceanic CO2 out-gasses and the heating, wherever it stopped at most think 4-5C continues at that level for many thousands of years then slowly drops.

That's "where we are", so Paris while nice is meaningless to actually stop anything that's going to happen, legally binding or not it's too little by many orders of magnitude.

My take is that saving what sea-ice is left needs to be the global priority right now, (albedo-loss heat-gain) = (20-years of CO2 heat-gain) = (0.21-watts/m²), it's a direct heating, it's more efficient than trapping LWIR.

Then add in that we're gaining 3-ppm/year and the big jump at the end of the ice-age was 1-ppm/180-years for context.

The rule is if you bomb this planet with enough CO2 it does its own thing, that's called an excursion, we caused one and now must live out the consequences, the rich are insane, they blew a chance we had in the late 70's when passive-solar homes were built & panels mfg began in earnest.

At that time CO2 was ~335-ppm, only 10-ppm above the maximum reached in the Pleistocene so still within "natural variation" and sea-level commitment only 10-15m at 405-ppm we're committed to 25m/82ft of sea-level rise.

Now the dream is to piddle around with the evil eye on cashing out fossil investments, Paris is a trap, a delay, it means nothing to slowing down what's going on, the priority right now should be retaining what sea-ice exists.

The only ships using the Arctic Ocean are shipping fuels, then, aircraft and shipping afaik were NOT regulated in Paris, they are needed to keep moving fossil fuels around, proving the intent of the agreement behind closed doors.

My question is, did Paris include consideration of albedo-loss accelerating, with estimates of this direct heating?

Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: June 06, 2016, 02:27:46 PM »
Velomobile fans could soon have a real Ego
How cute looking!! ... this is a fb group that does coroplast velomobiles that are more serious speed machines for people making their own on a frame:


Yet are you sure we won't end up with assembler and 164k again?

Abacus with hand carved beads?

I actually learned & used an abacus in grade school for a while ... being curious, I liked it, slide-rule era so before hand calculators.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: June 05, 2016, 04:39:12 PM »
The linked LBNL report discusses technological means to reduce climate impact of the projected installation of 700 million new air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion new air conditioners by 2050 (see the attached associated image).  While smart scientists can imagine such "Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", I wonder whether the government officials and the global socio-economic system is smart enough to implement such technologies in a timely manner.

Nihar Shah, Max Wei, Virginie Letschert, Amol Phadke (October 2015), "Benefits of Leapfrogging to Superefficiency and Low Global Warming Potential Refrigerants in Room Air Conditioning", LBNL-1003671

See also:
Consider it's rather easy to not need AC in modern buildings if they have thermal collection-storage added into the ductwork of an existing home. The trick on this to make that easy from used aluminum 3" irrigation pipe in the dirt fits into standard rectangular ducting.

These store cold at night in summer, heat in winter for northern climes using concentrating collectors cut the number of days to fire up the heater to 2-3 at most a winter once it's balanced to needs.

So all that power disappears using standard materials & methods and if passive-solar and I use active as more practical to remodel there is no comparing the way thermal energy is handled.

For industrial applications using solar-direct to supply heat for ammonia systems does the trick, again thermal-storage is part of such a system so has a thermal-mass to cool to use later.

Sustainable design must learn thermal collection-storage, this is a visio of a thermal-storage stack for the crawl space in a home with all the metrics to design one:


Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: June 05, 2016, 04:14:28 PM »
It's a bit cloudy there today but the latest JAXA/ADS map reveals that surface melting has increased, particularly over the Chukchi Sea:
I note that the entire Bering Strait area is free of ice and eastward along the shore almost free to the MacKenzie, this is from Pacific water flow and increases flow from the Atlantic into the basin by causing a large-scale circulation.

Imagine that still being ice right now what that would mean over the next week as that shoreline opens entirely then usually a rapid retreat seaward with now rotten ice the main type of ice.

You know, I once read a document by someone who wanted to recruit an expert programming team in order to create a friendly, superintelligent AI.  This being the only way to prevent us all being killed by _hostile_ superintelligent AIs.  Somewhere in the laundry list of requirements was the line, “Java programming (that’s probably what we’ll end up doing it in).”

No idea why that suddenly sprung to mind. At all.
My flash on that is I hate any language with (curly braces {these cause errors} ... ooops missed one, that does fit the current mentality of tradition instead of something more functional & lean, for .Net F# was my fav never learned Haskell or such.

Yet are you sure we won't end up with assembler and 164k again?

Construction methods changes: Foundations will use pipe & pilings to fix to the bottom the upper part will use I-beams of a sort these much easier to rig dollies to raise the wire-rope net and less drag in the current.

Consequences / Re: Places becoming less livable
« on: May 31, 2016, 08:22:51 AM »
Just to mention the Altithermal period coined by archeologists for a 1C warming over ~1200-years from 8k-4k ybp and seems related to the same astronomical forcing that dried out the Sahara.

In the USA it moved tribes to water refuges for most of the midwest & west to such an extent empty to get attention.

Over this period the Mohaves of 3-corners along the Lower Colorado River changed from hunter-gather to flood agriculture by 4k-ybp which they carried forward due to the loss of local forests and the change to what is yet semi-arid to arid lands.

There was a strip of desert from West Texas almost to the Canadian border ... we'll outdo this event by far when things catch up.

Arctic sea ice / Re: What the Buoys are telling
« on: May 31, 2016, 08:11:26 AM »
So it would require a substantial response from a large part of this forums membership to fund one Obuoy - I would contribute.
 But another avenue might be to talk to groups which are putting buoys into the arctic which don't have the cameras we like to watch and offer to fund the addition of a webcam to their buoys - that should be more economical?
<snip> Good idea .. </snip>

In the view from the camera there has been a persistent dark stretch at the horizon. I wonder whether that indicates an open lead in that vicinity, in the way that low clouds are darker when open water underneath does not reflect light onto their underside. (I have read that the Inuit use(d) this for navigation)
Yes, and and the Inuit knew the shape of their islands from it projected into the sky at times.

They consider the ice state rotten and dangerous now, hunting days greatly reduced from things I've read.

Respectfully to this kind of thinking from IPCC and others, there is a time and a place for catagorising data, and there is a time and a place to state the obvious in clear and blunt terms for those who would otherwise just juggle with the definitions.  It would not harm any scientist to be so blunt - it might even be a valid measure of how serious the situation is.
There is much evidence that the sea-ice we see is a remnant at this time of the Holocene, a new form of ice to the Inuit and scientific community, "rotten", over most of the Beaufort unknowing the rest.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: May 29, 2016, 05:46:54 PM »
Consider that.

Your line of "technological fix"  thinking is exactly how we got into our current situation; and I do not believe that geo-engineering is any more cost effective than limiting GHG emissions at reducing future climate change impacts.

In general terms, I opened this thread based on the position that one cann't fix a problem until one admits that it is real, as this is the first step in almost all addiction treatments; and this world is currently addicted to cheap fossil fuels.  Currently, we do not impose any carbon pricing on the pollution of GHG emissions which if done knowingly is a criminal act as may fossil fuel companies are likely to find-out in the next few decades.

I will continue to post about what I believe to be important, as I imagine you will also continue to do.

Edit: Separately, I note that the Paris Pact does not include a carbon pricing plan, and if such a plan were to be sufficiently progressive, it would have an impact.  Also, I reiterate that knowingly polluting without compensating for it is a criminal act.
Well, for going off the addiction I have fundamental designs for living systems dealing with those to be off-grid for food, water & fuel with the same materials & methods, no nano.

For transportation fuels using photo-bioreactors these insulated cubes 1/2m on a side they stack, full of glass plates light, air & power piped in and grow algae for biodiesel at home-farm-ranch scale the intent of the system is to purify the water so the fuel was an intended consequence not the priority.

This gives anyone the ability to have those needs from living in the place and scales, my studies in Phoenix, AZ, most plants 10-million/gal/day that's over 20,000 tons of algae food, aka dissolved solids, and if you bought it as fertilizer worth $8bn/day to grow algae and worth about 3-million gal/day in biodiesel.

For architecture it's more simple, insulate only on the outside of buildings, do the heat-transfer modeling, it's 3-4 times more efficient.

Also for architecture if you don't collect-n-store energy you have to buy it, thermal-storage for each buildings is absent, if you add in solar-thermal collection-n-storage in northern climes use concentrating collectors on the daily cycle, yeah, you may fire up the heater three times a winter and the AC the same.

As for economics if you own the system it's a monthly payment, a fixed budget not pay by-the-watt, this is a huge savings & reduction in stress to not have mammoth winter or summer bills, solar-thermal uses night coolness to store in summer and radiative loss if a clear night.

End airline travel if you feel so strongly about the addiction to fossil, emergencies only, create an auxiliary-sail merchant marine, keep the emissions only at ground level.

Aircraft and shipping were not regulated by Paris they are needed by the "growth economy" to deliver cheap-labor goods across borders or "get it tomorrow" marketing for profit a key issue and giant carbon-footprint.

So if you like that great, I'm not a millionaire I'm a climber, did a lot of solo climbs and to relate that if you don't know the risk you think you're safe.

I know the risk of losing the sea-ice, period, the thought of losing it must be like the thought by the Dutch to give up on the battle.

My issue with your focus is to broaden it to realize if we don't stop the loss of sea-ice, as a geologist I'm telling you game-over and the ice is functionally gone already and your solution takes too much time to save it.

We have passed a geophysical tipping point that can't be returned to using emissions reductions they are like nature's way over time is the geophysical reality to now be aware of, natural systems will take 200,000-years to "fix" what we've already done.

We're at the Last Hurrah of sea-ice for thousands of years if we lose what's left the oceans are the thermal-mass of the planet, not the air or land concerning climate, one must deal with them.

The reason is excess heat captured by the water and not returned to the atmosphere in fall, that's it, this has created a Beaufort Blob, now a significant thermal-mass that must be dealt with or game-over for the ice.

Those are the rules, you can't make up your own rules, it's physics, heat-transfer & mass-transport of fluids these are the metrics and why you can't fix it with emissions quickly:

(albedo-loss heat-gain) = (20-years of CO2 forcing).

[Figures used by Prof. Wadhams for cred, it's a direct heating by albedo-loss, greenhousing isn't direct, that's LWIR emissions back to earth]

This wasn't accounted for per se at Paris afaik, that implies to reach those same goals you want will take reductions in CO2 equal to the growing input from albedo-loss plus the reduction goal.

The equation above with our rate of 3-ppm/year gained means we must reduce CO2 at that rate 20-years to match the gain from albedo-loss today, it was easier a decade ago, eh?

That's a reduction of 60-ppm+.

To me that's totally impossible in today's political-economic climate, ymmv.

As stated what we've done already is a geologic "excursion", we are no longer doing normal geologic climate processes, we passed into another more radical climate path proven by the oceans acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM.

Meanwhile albedo-loss plus a new feature being reported of basal ice melting in new areas by Atlantic water to help remove what ice is left, these are creating polynyas all over the place, open ice percentages are increasing in ALL months of the year.

Another evidence the ice is going-going ... this a recent talk by Dr. Barber that's longer so most complete with very up-to-date information; "Arctic Ice: A Slippery Slope?"; 1:32:26;

With 10-20 terawatts entering from the Pacific plus albedo-loss heat-gain the Beaufort Blob grows every year, the new polynyas growing from Atlantic water being sucked in by having the Pacific water adding more volume causing a circulation, without the Pacific water this should stop.

It's not a pretty picture.

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 29, 2016, 04:05:00 PM »
It is normal, the Beaufort gyre is attracting the whole Arctic ice, that does happen in cycle, some release, some stall (depends of the winds also). if we want the ice to be preserved, it'd better stay there, once passed the Fram, it is chao bye bye the ice... well that was before when the Atlantic wasn't in the Arctic. Now that it is in, I think the melting is going on, we are not seeing it yet clearly at Svalbard level but it is. Let's look at it !
A bit off topic, the Atlantic flow circulation is abetted by having Bering Strait open.

The bathtub test: You have a hose, the Pacific is adding water and if you place the hose off center it causes a circulation. Turn off the hose, the circulation fades to nothing.

That's the analog, 1-sverdrup of current causes more inflow by the Atlantic from the circulation it causes thus to deal with the Atlantic water upwelling consider this.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: May 28, 2016, 09:10:37 PM »
Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.


While I appreciate the "can-do" tone of your posts, I would like to point-out that you are underestimate the severity of our current situation in that:<snip>

With this in mind, the most effective actions are to reduce carbon emissions rapidly via a combination of both high progressively increasing revenue neutral carbon pricing together with aggressive emission regulation and promoting investment in sustainable energy research.

I challenge the assumption that in the case of the Beaufort Sea-ice that emission reductions as outlined in Paris or the 80% reductions science suggests by 2030 will have any effect on sustaining sea-ice in a timely manner.

The rotten ice is demanding proof of a new regime in-force at this time
that will not go away due to a thermal-mass of water, The Beaufort Blob has grown from the seasonal cycle of albedo-loss adding a heat pulse incrementally each season to now having destroyed all the old ice for some millions of km² that now worth 0.21-watts/m² of increase globally in forcing.

That forcing alone constrains Paris goals needing to be 2-3 times what they are in reductions, a huge economic impact.

So, it's very critical to control albedo-loss as a global effort more than emissions right now it's 1/5-watt/m².

This is in respect to any method proposed to restore the ice as integral to any solution, (albedo-loss forcing) = (20-years worth of forcing by CO2 emissions), the published ratio.

That's a fairly large piece of evidence to ignore of a changed state and with climate-hysteresis via natural systems no way back via CO2 we're at 3-ppm/year, as you point out to paleontologists that's an "excursion" via ocean acidification rate being 10-times faster than the PETM & the carbon input similar that heating lasted 200,000-years so the ante is high.

This is to say all that's well known and the political situation has CO2 at 3-ppm/year., intentionally delayed action for 30-years now, we need a physical solution to try was the conclusion that's global in effect to preserve Arctic ice as the highest priority of action.

Can you now consider some other way to restore sea-ice at 405-ppm gaining 3-ppm/year not effected by emissions it using what's here-now as the priority to provide intentional refuge that values sustaining the ice in Bering Strait as the sole geographic switch able to affect the thermal regime in the Beaufort.

Consider we are at over 9-petagrams of total carbon annually, that's the excursion, nature can't do that.

The removal of 10-terawatts/winter, 20-terawatts/summer of heat-flow into the Arctic basin at a volume-rate of 1-sverdrup, 5-Amazons on the face of it is mandatory, a very significant source of heat right at the surface being relatively colder and fresher than the Atlantic water below, with a Catch-22 of melting out the straits reinforcing a loss of ice.

This current melts out Bering Strait early and stalls it freezing in fall
and you can see the breakout north into the Beaufort leading the way with that ice to be gone, that must be stopped or it's game-over and the "bluewater event" is on the way.

Paris didn't restrict shipping & aircraft,
they alone counteract a lot of reductions then add in albedo loss and it's a fantasy to think runaway feedbacks in the Arctic can be avoided without a sea-ice cover.

I always liked the space umbrella idea to fix it, colorful bamboo ones from China shipped to: Orbit ... oh yeah.

Seeing the heat-flow & rotten ice new to science, the Pacific must be dammed for most of it's flow or the multi-year sea-ice in the Beaufort Blob will never return in anyone's lifetime the reality.

Consider that.

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: May 28, 2016, 02:41:56 PM »
Noting from a recent paper and now at 3-ppm/year we hit 600-ppm in 67-years where Antarctica begins to go fast and by 800-ppm it's dedicated to all melt within 130-years thus AbruptSLR's post shows a situation where 3-5C in 85-years is quite reasonable along with 2m of SLR.

It won't stop there.

The albedo gains with an open Arctic Ocean make Paris goals a fantasy, it's adding 1/5-w/m² alone and equal to the accumulated CO2 forcing for 20-years.

This process has become what I call the Beaufort Blob, a thermal-mass that is permanent, year-round and being added to every season to where it's basal melted the entire area down from a large amount of 4-9 year ice to fast-ice today.

It's game-over to lose the sea-ice due to albedo loss creating heat gains that can't be countered in a practical way without a global political will that rather a long shot, regardless, it means the Paris goals need upping to equal these gains or you lose the game.

The Beaufort Blob is our score card now.

If it grows we fail, the need is to restore the ice not calculate how fast it disappears, once it's gone that 1/5th-watt turns into 2-3 watts/m^2 pretty fast as the area heated expands to the entire Arctic Ocean and it will.

Thus a new calculation is needed, the extent & volume of these layers and the calculated albedo-loss heat-gains for assorted scenarios to estimate the timelines to estimate the near future. There is some buoy data for currents, temps & salinity. There's a list for albedo-loss yet it's not tied to the direct effect of the loss on the Blob.

A newbie here, I grew up on geomorphology more my long-term studies began with glaciology, oceanography then later more general like planetary atmospheres, as a kid it was Continental Drift so into tectonics.

I'm watching all glaciers melt and the sea-ice disappear, these thoughts never occurring growing up the conditions today considered impossible to happen so fast, Antarctica is fine for at least a 1000-years.


Now we're are behind a big 8-ball without a clue to solve it, my strong suggestion is simply to stop allowing heat-flux from the Pacific into Bering Straits, that's the move to play nothing else matters to dealing with the Blob, it's growing as-is with no chance of receding w/o that gap closed space sun-brellas or not.

The consequences are critical for this one move to the early melting and late forming caused by the Pacific water, this leads seasonal melting into the Beaufort earlier than the rest of the mass, there are no other moves like it to make.

Can anyone see another move to make globally with the possibility to have such an effect on the Arctic sea-ice in a positive way?

We can't control this via incremental reductions in emissions, too much latent heat is stored per season and CO2 is 3-ppm/year, Pleistocene average 1-ppm/1000-years, big jump after the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-years it's called an "excursion" by paleontologists what we're doing.

Consider that ours is a geologic excursion directly comparable to the PETM, it's a big ask to fight to save the sea-ice, what other options are there, chemtrails are already being used, aerosols didn't do the job and never will because the oceans move the heat that matters to sustaining the ice.

"The Last Hurrah for Sea-ice | Construction Details"

Consider (albedo-loss) = (20-years of CO2 heat-gains from emissions), this only gets worse.

The mechanism to do this has two parts
and end by heating the water directly, CO2 captures heat by reflection yet albedo-loss is direct thus understated if included in the models, most don't, no mention in Paris [not in on breakout work it may have been, stated by Prof. Wadhams & others].

Globally this now is 0.21-watts/m², locally it can be much more in the sea-ice due to methane clathrate releases happening all over in various emission rates, even if covered by ice it has CO2 transfer ability, a recent finding so ice doesn't cap releases.

Thus the Beaufort Sea has become the Beaufort Blob, the basal melting has taken its main area from 4-9 year-old multi-year ice to fast-ice, first year ice that's weak and salty with very little old ice left.

What's left is "rotten ice" a new form of sea-ice
that was cored last fall, it's created by basal melting from the heat pool not able to release the gained heat back in fall. ["Assessing the Habitability and Physical Structure of Rotting First-year Arctic Sea Ice"; 6:39; ]

That the context this the solution
doesn't depend upon emissions control or carbon-taxes, it's a coastal civil geo-technical engineering to restrict the flow of Pacific water entering the Eastern Arctic Basin worth 10-TeraJoules in winter and double that in summer in heat-flux in.

This water remains on the surface and is colder-fresher
from extensive runoff that creating a 1/2m of height in favor of the Pacific resulting in a 10^6m²/sec, 1-sverdrup of flow, and reduce that to about 2-Yukon River's worth from 4-5 Amazons in volume using a weir section with most of the closure a dam.

At first the route was Wales to Fairway Rock and across then studied it, current was too fast so it became closing at St. Lawrence Island as a far better situation to alter the mesoscale flow to reduce overall flow.

At the straits the velocity increase is too much, having the island is easy to build in spite of more distance, the benefit of the more southerly closing outweigh the gain in distance when the weir is added, that became a hydro-electric asset.

The evolving method of construction combines facets of the Dutch expertise along with Inca awareness of porosity and the American use of pipe pilings at an angle.

The Dutch were in shallow water to apply them more deeply the wicker weave that became plastic in rolls now is a wire-rope net of varying weave that unrolls bottom-up.

This becomes in a few hours a porous "dam" by raising the net on angled pipes quickly to shift the momentum of the inflow to the SE by creating an "equalization wave".

The drag from the net raises the height of the water on the Pacific side this restricts flow volume, that makes construction far easier all around.

Using the Dutch closure of the river for surges into Rotterdam by placing foundations with lower pipe & structure then adding upper sections after it's ready those tied with the winches to raise the net. ["Holland's Barriers to the Sea"; 44:20; ]

The pipes need packing with sand & extra bracing for the closure, much of this can be removed after the change in impulse for the water-mass to the SE, the one north attenuated, for most of the mass it's "easier" for it to continue southeast:

Image of mesoscale current changes
from only the Northwest Cape closure in place a critical first step to reduce flow to closing the southern part:

Thus with that in place the circular weir section of the dam is built and when ready the dam sections left closed, the weir or sieve dam part is a hydro-electric bonus of the design concept along with sustaining marine migration & nutrient flow north.

Consider that as a plan to restore sea-ice by creating a refuge for it to form earlier and melt later instead of leading the melt path every year up into the Beaufort so it's first out, last in.

The feedback math demands a try to me, no way is incremental reduction of emissions going to do anything to stop sea-ice albedo increases, game-over my take what's yours?

Therefore, consider this "The Last Hurrah for Sea-ice".
How will the movie end?
Will the Beaufort Blob be chilled into defeat by a longer ice season?
Stay tuned ...

People on betting on the Bluewater Event, this would alter the odds a bet.

It's important to know that not EVERYONE will come around to seeing AND speaking the truth about global warming (anthropogenic climate change as opposed to natural climate change). Joe Bastardi and many others, and PAID to deliver a certain message for the fossil fuel industry.

When I correct Joe....or point out some of his lies....or point out where he uses photoshopped images, I'm not trying to convince Joe.  Joe gets PAID to say what he says....he will never change.  The people I am trying to communicate with are the people who are on the website READING what Joe has said.

Here's an important article that discusses what I am TRYING to say above:

"What’s critical to addressing climate change right now is not dislodging the obstinate minority, who will likely never come around. Progress will only be made when the broad segment of the population that gets it makes its voice heard."

So when you are communication with Joe Bastardi, Anthony Watts, Steven Goddard......remember who your real audience is.  The last thing that Watts/Bastardi/Goddard et want is for people to know the truth.  And that is why they cut folks off who are trying to tell that truth.
Kudos to post the truth against the lie online, it's needed, there are denialista trolls on all social media.

We hit 3-ppm gained last year, the Pleistocene average 1-ppm/1000-years, big jump up at the end of the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-years, this forcing is so strong the oceans are acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM, that a mass-extinction the only geologic analog.

A recent finding that Antarctica really starts to melt fast at 600-ppm, it all melts at 800-ppm we'll be there within 130-years and the bonus is that all meaningful coral reefs are dead at 750-ppm.

At 405-ppm we are legally married to 25m/82ft of sea-level, the bride is got fatter to over 70m/230ft for all of Antarctica no sane scientist expects to stop at 600-ppm that's the latest fantasy hope.

Hope that helps frame the geologic context of why do something.

Relating to that, my project & purpose here is to restore sea-ice in the eastern basin at first thinking Bering Straits for a dam it evolved to farther south using St. Lawrence Island having less flow velocity there and enclosing an important area away from the Pacific to hold ice longer in spite of the CO2 emissions.

Analyzing why to do it, Prof. Wadhams uses it, (albedo-loss) = (20yrs CO2 radiative forcing gain).

What this says is if we stop emissions today albedo-loss supplies that same energy, 0.21-watts/m^2 over the whole planet after we stop.

So to cool the planet as planned takes removing the extra albedo and methane increases from thawing permafrost & clathrates. That implies Paris goals are 1/2 to 1/3 what they need to be of what's stated, this never came up as a public issue afaik.

The economic screaming just got louder, emission goals need to be 2-3 times higher reductions to make stated goals of "2C", what a joke expect 3-5C with or without the CO2-Removal Saint to come along and save us.

Wall Street is a racket, if it was worried about the global economy it would not allow this situation, it's not, it sees blood money more important for the world-domination game trying to prevent an economic collapse before the elections.

I started a thread on building the dam, as a coastal geotechnical viewpoint of construction methods, concerns on marine life, nutrient transport and be there for over a century:,1545.0.html

The rest / Re: Human Stupidity
« on: May 27, 2016, 08:55:11 PM »
Experts have a lot of doubts about the feasibility of implementing negative emissions technology, NET, any time soon:

I note that achieving the goals of the Paris Pact is highly dependent on the successful implementation of NET on large scales.
While feasible to some it's not very promising to play as your ace with no cards ?!?

We need to end the Steam Age for electricity on all counts, the other strong player is shipping & aircraft which weren't regulated in Paris so bye-bye 2C for sure, eh?

We're putting out over 9-petagrams of carbon a year so these miracle methods must remove that then remove all the rest? This sounds like cleaning the oceans of plastic without stopping the supply.

Sea-level rises for several centuries or more AFTER CO2 turns around, it we just level off it means nothing sea-level continues to rise to 25m/82ft higher than today, we can't continue to fire coal plants, duh, is "clean coal" a "manifest destiny"-like term, coined to sound ok as a method of theft by burning fossil fuels?

Is it time to quit the psychotic addictions to bad-debts being paid off from their investing intentionally into a dying industry for 30-years knowing it was wrong just because they are international bullies with fancy-clothes lawyers?

After I found out how to use gridded data, the basic model can be used for the entire surface of earth. The problem is to get reliable data. Especially the land surface has numerous different  surfaces  (forest, field, desert, cities,...)

If there is a site that publishes surface albedo, then I guess we can could get a reasonable result. At mid latitudes the albedo vs angle isn't as important as in the arctic.
On this consider open-water albedo vs snow is one value the 0.9 vs less that is now shades of gray, like a melt-pool has another, yet the heat-transfer coefficient is much different to the water below for this variation thus it's an integration.

Integrations require identities to validate actual sea-ice conditions for the variance there being a new one called "rotten" with unique structural & thermal properties.

From my research basal melting is the main factor as it reduces multi-year ice from a thermal-mass acquired for the length of the open-water gain, that is the main concern as this can be more heat than can be released in fall, that's the switch thermally.

My take from this that thickness is no longer very consistent anymore thus needs a empirically correlated equation vs albedo with the rotten ice that got cored last fall at freeze-up. It's really junky with a lot of tubes & hollows, dirty and doesn't transmit light well.

APL-UW may have datasets they did the voyages. Algorithms for this perhaps non-existent? Another view remote sensing resolution to identify the old-ice inclusions in the fast-ice thus "rotten" sections and other strategies to identify significant factors to use.

Tesla did the math long ago and realized existing battery factories could not supply the amounts needed for their electric cars.

VW is reportedly about to reveal plans for its own battery ‘Gigafactory’
The battery cell supply chain is close to the number one priority of any automaker looking to manufacture electric vehicles in high volume. Ever since the ‘Dieselgate’ scandal, VW has been under pressure to introduce more electric vehicles to its lineup and earlier this year, it announced plans to introduce 20 new electric vehicles through the group’s brands by the end of the decade.
Just mentioning in-the-works the Stanford aluminum-ion battery, all-around faster, doesn't catch fire:

The other is a recent development in magnesium-ion types, also a good step up from lithium:

Last one the best news, a way to get lithium from brines that's 99.9% pure:

I have a ImpactHub bro with a 400-mile range for a tadpole 3-wheel car at 70-mph irrc, it's very aero.

Why is it taking so long to market these ideas, is this like a better carburetor?

Arctic sea ice / Re: 2016 sea ice area and extent data
« on: May 26, 2016, 02:31:46 PM »
Newbie questions & such, is there buoy data at depths for water temps & ‰ with location to use with the colored thickness maps?

Is it considered needed to have a new official category of ice, "rotten"? Some was cored last fall, the multi-year ice part of rafts left in fall looked rotten like parts of a glacier melting down get.

And noting that freeze-up is now pancake ice everywhere a change from prior eras what does that mean?

Last fall an expedition in the Beaufort found a warm layer 20m down, a storm caused ice to form and the next day it all melted in spite of low air temps from mixing that up, that to me was latent heat and that layer is there all winter.

So isn't this a new property of the fresher-colder Pacific water to the prior condition, that above warmer much deeper Atlantic water?

Thus my wonder is that it may thicken the surface heated layer to where it can transfer heat between the more saline layer deeper down an evolution of this?

Late April the Beaufort opened up radically, thinner than usual ice by 18% via a talk with NSIDC person posted online. An observation is that it can break up in days with a big storm any time from now on being this new type of ice, there was no big storm for the early opening this year by that talk, sequence shots:

Couple more points:

1) the problem of stratospheric water and N-oxide injection from airplanes does not go away if you use renewable diesel, but such use does decrease fossil carbon into the atmosphere.

2) I do not agree with using fresh veg oil for biodiesel, all those acres of soy and canola might be better off in pasture or solar PV. Pasture (depending on location,) could sequester more carbon than the avoided fossil emission from using biodiesel from the soy/canola grown on that same acreage.

I say this as someone who grows canola/soy, crushes into meal and oil, meal into livestock, oil into foodservice, recollected and turned into biodiesel ... your mileage may vary.

1) Exactly thus an overall reduction not perfect on-the-ground is a big battle, direct infusion via aviation fuel to me a "very special" class that must step up to the bar and pay the tab to solve that, as a geologist if you put it up there you have to take the steps to attenuate all practical improvements over "business as usual" and take it as whatever can be done at-the-moment not waiting.

The reason simply is we hit 3-ppm last year, Pleistocene avg 1-ppm/1000-yrs, big jump after last ice-age 1-ppm/180-yrs the oceans acidifying from such a strong forcing acidifying 10-times faster than the PETM the context for action.

2) Totally support your production of biodiesel as part of an integration, that's my view as well to use sewage wastewater to grow the algae, they world-class water cleaners make full recycling practical with existing under-the-counter home water filtration systems.

This is to deal with the CO2 on the ground, consider a dairy wash-down is primo algae food and they get the water back, enough to fuel the whole operation for heating & field equipment.

You point out distinctly where the chemists need to focus, soot also beyond my means not a player a sustainable designer.

That's the solution to look for in species hybridization, forget GMO's please 50% oil species had been done pre-WW2, my preference using low oil-content species suggests it may be better for aviation fuel not volume species and that using "plankton" not a single-species approach viable.

My fav Spirogyra found anywhere on the planet only 11% oil there's no end to the supply and you have to battle rotifers more with specialty species afaik, consider that.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016 melting season
« on: May 26, 2016, 05:48:33 AM »
Previous years commenters found thermal inversion protective for the snow; inversion still air not carrying away vapor and blocking sun (although right now this doesn't make much difference given CAB albedo and low temps... in July it would be really favorable for ice).
Buoy 2015F reports steady snow cover, thickening ongoing, and temps well below zero.

However at this stage it is clear the action is at the periphery, as described above.

One thing I've mused about in a couple of posts is the relative impact of the different heat sources - albedo, vs atmospheric/convective transfer, vs ocean currents vs river inputs.  So in the case of fog you're getting heat from the atmosphere but less from the sun.

Granted fog/clouds does insulate it from radiative heat loss, but when the sun never sets the black body temperature of the atmosphere is probably consistently too high for that to matter.

And as a San Franciscan I can assure you that the sun can burn off fog clouds produced over cold ocean waters.  Depends on the thickness of the marine layer, of course!
Just posted a new topic on "Spring 2016" with related links on last fall's freeze and earthobservatory series of early breakup in the Beaufort with an audio-only from NSIDC ...
"Albedo loss = 20yrs of CO2 gains at 0.21-watts/m² = big trouble in Peoria.";,1561.0.html

Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: May 26, 2016, 03:05:08 AM »
Aircraft & shipping weren't regulated in Paris and that blows us by 2C on the face of it.

I found this today of Boeing's test flight of 50-50 biodiesel, that's good news is some ways yet doesn't relieve the industry of putting greenhouse gases directly into the stratosphere, sources on the ground take time to drift up & of course plants & soils absorb it.

That's a big deal, we're at 3-ppm/year, Pleistocene average 1-ppm/1000-years, big jump up end of the last ice-age 1-ppm/180-years, it's acidifying the oceans 10-times faster than the PETM time to wake up.

At 405-ppm we're committed to 25m/82ft of sea-level rise it's only how fast, recall that sea-level doesn't stop until centuries after CO2 turns around, consider that.

Do you really need to fly?

The metrics prove the situation is indelible geologically speaking, consider leaving the Steam Age for electricity a good move as well.

Policy and solutions / Re: Renewables Reach a Tipping Point...
« on: May 26, 2016, 02:46:42 AM »
This is an important opening of the door to biodiesel in home heating oils; 20% biodiesel and United Airlines is flying 70-30:

More out-of-sight the fact a 100% algae biodiesel aviation fuel is flying ...

This is a Boeing test flight of 50-50 ...

It's been a long battle to get it into both of those product categories well over a decade of resistance, the only problem is their supply-chain is really crop-based or petroleum-based thus not sustainable.

Outdoor plants need air-water-weather that fits and light, algae only use 6w/m² of sunshine using red-blue LED's is 1/4 that in electricity and grows better, if one puts a bunch of glass plates in a box they make the volume like the top 1/4" of a pond, stack them the pond is fully lighted, insulated and growing 24x7x365.

It's the same idea as a commercial greenhouse versus the field yields the advantage is to scale up from home or farm use to big city, this will be leveraged soon.

Policy and solutions / Re: Bikes, bikes, bikes and more...bikes
« on: May 26, 2016, 02:17:24 AM »
This is my easiest to make aero frame, 4130 straight-gage fairings are carbon it's next on the list when I get a shop, my profile pic is my first frame design, to me a breakthrough in concepts and rides better than anything I've ridden, very fast descender ....

For powered assist I have a biodiesel turbine in the rear hub concept going, about 2hp the design spec. So, you just change wheels to get assist!

This requires a torque arm, uses a clutch, speed isn't the idea, lightweight & effects as few other things on the bike is the priority so most of the time it's still a bike and 2-hp is a lot of power to get a load of groceries up a hill.

Trying to combine an internal rear brake with it last round.

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:

For home heating oils this a recent move to 20% mix so it's also being moved toward pure algae:

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.";

Pages: 1 [2] 3