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 - nicibiene

Pages: 1 [2] 3
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: April 13, 2017, 12:14:27 PM »
Quite impressive that blue spot at West Antarctica.  :o

Interesting also if you watch the massloss of the Western Antarctica Icesheet-especially in winter mass loss continues... and it would have been interesting to have more datas from July 2016 on.

But they stopped with public datas...why?  >:(

Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: April 13, 2017, 09:29:34 AM »
I'm curious as to whether that indicates ongoing basal melt and the spread of easy to freeze fresh water and if that's the case what implications it has for future ice loss.

I assume it could be caused by more meltwater available. Just wanted to check the massloss and wonder again why some official available datas quit at a certain point... here datas from

Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: April 07, 2017, 01:43:48 PM »
No good time for and brownbears too:

Dr Kolchin said: 'Factors like weather and natural fruiting cycles influenced what happened. Extensive logging added to it. Summer 2016 was very cold and rainy and while oak trees had good blossoming time, acorns didn't form due to abundant moisture and cold.

'Primorsky region also had a bad harvest in northern and central districts, but it was not as severe as Khabarovsk region. Extensive logging added to problems for the Himalayan bears in surviving the hungry season.'

Significantly, in Bikin national park - protected from logging - the most numerous population of black bears is thriving. There was a reduced harvest of nuts and acorns, but sufficient for survival, say experts.

'The bears  hibernated in time,' he said. 'We did not observe here animals that failed to hibernate, or were exhausted, or died of hunger during the winter.'

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 06, 2017, 02:15:48 PM »
Maybe they are talking about that lack of ozone over Altlantic/Great Britain?

Just read a german article here about last year

it tells about extreme low pressure area in Feb. 2016 with extreme low temperatures in the upper athmosphere that would lead to stratosphere clouds, that cause a ozone destroying reaction in the upper latitudes. Assume this winter had not been better... :o

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 02, 2017, 09:57:15 AM »
I also clicked through the dates like a mad dog in the beginning, until I had a look at the bowser adress.  😁
At the moment there is no enormous cold there. Don't know if they are heating with coal, but I guess there are only very few people living there, and there are no other hard winter pictures to find with that SO2 spots.... really strange. I also watch the volcanism and earthquake activity... so we will see, if it is only some cheap coal fired there. 😁,62.06,1354/loc=172.309,64.267

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: April 01, 2017, 07:10:50 AM »
@Pmt111500 date the same like 2017, I just use the URL in my browser and alter the date/year. 😊,67.12,1821/loc=173.676,65.578

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: March 31, 2017, 02:45:57 PM »
Just an observation to discuss here-where might that spots of SO2 come from, last year weren´t there? Volcanism, other sources? Anaerobic microbes CH4 reactions in warming permafrost ground? Combination of both?,67.12,1821/loc=173.676,65.578

Eastern Australia faces a pretty huge cyclone, maybe of worst category five:

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: March 26, 2017, 04:54:40 PM »
Yes, @Andrew.  Also thought about the possible warming feedback of decomposition of the huge organic material reserve stored in the thawing permafrost. Maybe the growing siberian snowpack adds an effect more, to isolate the ground against the arctic winter cold and to make the process even continue during winter? I saw some graphics in the snowpack feedback thread here, showing a growing autumn and winter snowpack and lower spring snow amount. The question is, what makes the snow go earlier?  Only sun heat from above?

If I just think about the effects we use in our garden, to put wood on the ground of our raised beds to get that effect of warming reaction....found e.g. that article, that mentioned exactly both effects:

Consequences / Re: Ocean Temps
« on: March 20, 2017, 07:51:59 AM »  :'(

The satellite technology has enabled scientists to link the algae to higher levels of air and water pollution in recent decades, but Bontempi said questions remain. "We know that our Earth is changing," she said. "It may be in a direction we might not like."

Scientists based at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University trace Oman's blooms to melting ice in the Himalayas. Less ice has raised temperatures in South Asia and strengthened the Indian Ocean's southwest monsoon. As this weather front moves across the Arabian Sea every year, it churned up oxygen-poor water thick with nutrients that have fueled the rise of a 1.2-billion-year old algae called noctiluca scintillans.  [\quote]

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: March 16, 2017, 09:00:40 AM »
As I thought a little about the effects of deeper thawing of permafrost, more decomposition and the warming effect of that processes, combined with the fact that siberia gets more snow than before. Here a nice article about a team of scientists that went out to have a look at that effects.

Our experiment was unusual in that it was intended to be a summer warming experiment only, but it turned into a summer and winter warming experiment in the end. Researchers who have done winter warming experiments see that there is much stronger decomposition going on during winter compared to summer. The reason for this is that when the soils are just below freezing, even relatively small increases in temperature strongly stimulates decomposers into action.

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: March 15, 2017, 02:59:26 PM »

 I have to wonder if we are underestimating the ability of the planet to heal itself through natural processes. ...

I'm grasping for straws here.  :-[

Somehow the planet is healing itself, from a desease called human. I like the idea of the Gaia theory-the earth itself as a living thing. Earth will not die, only the harmfull vermins, thinking they are gods and could rule the world, a hybris no other living thing on earth seems to have.  :'(

Plants will not heal the higher CO2 level. Never. But there will be life that loves the state we will get in.

Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: March 11, 2017, 10:46:00 AM »
And as I personally already thought about the idea of a biomass powered compost heating...when biomass decays the microbes emit a lot of energy...heat. The effect is used in high beds. I ask myself if that could also cause the heating up of Northern permafrost hemispheres? An additional ground heating? And is that energy emission payed attention to?

I'm afraid not. Too hard to calculate..not man made...not to influence at all.  :-X

Consequences / Re: Ocean Temps
« on: March 11, 2017, 09:29:25 AM »
Thank you, @Tigertown. The Guardian seems to be the only journal where to find news of that kind... Yesterday evening I found that only a few german papers picked the incredible CO2 denial of Priutt, and none of the few publications offered the opportunity to leave a comment or start a discussion.

Usually I like to grab into that discussions. Always nice to get some other hints when reading comments:
`In fact, the climate models underestimated the rate of sea level rise because the rapid melting of the ice sheets and glaciers was not incorporated in the last IPCC report. (It was left out because the data were not considered sufficiently robust).`
Astonishing !

Consequences / Re: Effects of Climate Change on the biosphere
« on: March 10, 2017, 02:43:56 PM »
... The scientists discovered that warming both the surface and deeper soil layers at three experimental plots increased the plots' annual release of CO2 by 34 to 37 percent over non-warmed soil. ....

"nice" and I assume that 34% more decay of organic material is NOT included in climate models!? Just like the thawing permafrost soils organic material?  :o Normally I only have to take a look at the idea of the thermo composter in my garden?! Faster decay caused by warmer temperatures...

Consequences / Re: Conservative Scientists & its Consequences
« on: March 10, 2017, 11:30:18 AM »
Just read a little about the obviously in the models included hopefully presumption more CO2 means more biomass growth and the chance for more food (as a lot of people mean).

"Computer models that predict how climate change will play out assume that as greenhouse gas concentrations go up, forests will take advantage of the additional carbon dioxide and grow a bit more, increasing their capacity to mitigate global warming...."

I found pretty interesting details about the photosyntesis of C3 and C4 plants, I wasn't aware by now. C3 (most are that type) plants adapted to a lower athmospheric CO2 level, they need to breath more air to get their energy, their photosynthesis is not that efficient. The problem is, for more gas exchange they have to open their stomata longer. With open stomata they loose watervapour, they need enough water for growth, they are hurtable when drought an heat appears. More athmospheric CO2 would first mean, they have to breath less, shut their stomata longer. You could mean, so they could deal better with drought, but less evaporation means a loss of the cooling effect for their leaves. The leaves loose their air condition and get dry. Not a real good thing for more growth as the leaves are their engine  :o ...

As scientists looked for the growth of tree rings in the tropics-where water sets no limits, they found that there is no effect of more growth. They assume that more starch, sugar could be transported to the ground/roots or soil minerals/nutricious borders set limits. Why should trees grow more then the soil gives them? I think they have a root powered sense for what is good for them, a balance system. They simply shut their stomata, they hold their breath somehow, to survive. Just like an starving animal stops moving to keep the energy balanced. But what will be, if the heat increases? Will they use the water to cool down? The behaviour of the northern trees seems to tell, they will not. I think they have no choice. Breathing means metabolism.

And what would it mean if water & CO2 overfed tropical trees hold their breath? Maybe that could also cause the little negative feedback of more athmospheric water vapour, atmospheric rivers, or tropical wetlands?

Also very big source discussing the question - with a lot of other cross references seems to be that:!po=2.00000
(maybe I will dig through it, but not now)

Also remarkable: Wheat e.g.seem to get less nutricious.

The rest / Re: Deniers Vs Science
« on: March 09, 2017, 08:20:27 AM »
In my opinion models are a two sided sword. They are a tool for scientist, but you always have to know about the inputs, not to get them wrong. Its the scientits baby somehow, he knows what the baby is made for, what was it made from. The problem is-climate models are getting named and they get a kind of own life-to doubt in them seems not popular. (I e.g. was thrilled when I read the model for AMOC included no meltwater from Greenland...)

It is a problem that most people and decision makers in politics are not scientists. They take the models as a serious prediction, not a science tool. I always have to laugh when I still hear politicians talk about the 2C aim... politicians are not used to think further than the time they got elected for. Facing climate change would need strong decisions (carbon taxes, strong economical changes). Unpopular decisions.

Somehow I feel, the tendency of denialism, nationalism and antidemocracy belong together.  It is the dark cloud of survival of the strongest that is coming over us...   scientists are only human, they have families, they know about the path we walk on, they face the thoughtless masses, borderless consumption, selfish politicians, they get disgusted and join the dark forces. That's it.  :-X

Arctic sea ice / Re: NSIDC Arctic sea ice news
« on: March 09, 2017, 07:43:52 AM »
are you serious

really ridiculous to read...coincidence or strategy? we seem to enter a postfactual time- in every level...quit measuring, observation, start struggling. to survive. continent against continent. country against country. area against area.  :o

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: March 08, 2017, 12:00:22 PM »
Just played a little with some graphics to visualise the differences from year to year...

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2017 melting season
« on: March 07, 2017, 08:08:50 AM »
Sorry for being off topic  (a little) but do you already know this website of Ole Humlum? - maybe there is a thread for such links too?

It is full of VERY impressive graphics (includes all of shown here, compressed in impressive annual comparsion modes) and actual datas. A real treasure I will dive in today... 😊

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: March 03, 2017, 07:48:50 AM »
So far it has been measured that > 90% of released subsea methane is converted by micro organisms and never reaches the surface. So increase of Methane is not from either natural gas or clathrates.

I only ask myself: what will be the product of that micro organisms? Especially the anaerobic version would be not so nice...

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 07:30:53 PM »
I think a lot of the current turn toward insularity and xenophobia is in fact a response to a looming sense of resource scarcity and competition.  Naomi Klein has characterized the future as a battle between "disaster capitalism" and communalism.  It appears for now that the battle lines are being drawn and our better angels are losing. 

I find myself coming back to a sort of old-fashioned word for what I think we need: "conviviality". We need a rise in neighbors working with neighbors within a relocalized and vastly constrained economic model.  To do that, we need to learn to get along and appreciate one another.  While I try and surround myself with people that appreciate that view, I find the world around me increasingly hostile to it.
A very intelligent comment.

So TRUE! Sometimes I hope that "oldfashioned" kind of conviviality would revive here. We had it here in Eastern Germany. People were inventive, there was an exchange of neighbors help. Things I still remember - there was exactly that kind of happy cooperation before the new brutal capitalistic way started.

Not to say that GDR had been perfect - but there WAS what we would need soon. I know, it is possible.  :) (And somehow it´s the reason for my love to challenges) And as I recently read about Naomi Kleins "Shock strategy", I would say-that is exactly the kind of (gentle form of) desaster happened here.

Now we live here in a state of splitted, jealous communities, with strange xenophobia (Saxony, you know Pegida?)- out of any cooperation, full of hate, we have lost a lot of young people during that process-they all went to western Germany, where wages are so much higher.

Thanks you all for your thoughts. Really hopeful thoughts!  8)

The rest / Re: 2017 open thread
« on: March 02, 2017, 04:13:47 PM »
Want to put my marmelade on that baking bread here too.  8)

I totally agree to Josh-I´m also willing to do my best-despite I know somehow it will be useless-I will try to do all I could as a single human being.

I simply need it, to continue my life as a mother. Maybe it is selfish&naive-but what would be the alternative? I told my kids about the mess a little, I told them about our tries to make it better (our energy efficient home, our electric car, our garden with eatable stuff and the plan of a own PV powerplant...)

It is hard to keep the balance, not to get depressed about the entire desaster.

But I have to put my energy together, to build the piece of world I wish to live in.

I just ask myself: How would kids feel if you tell them to live a joyful YOLO-life and they get aware about the true mess one day?! I wouldn´t be blamed as a thoughtless liar. My way is to face the truth and to try my best.  ;D

Permafrost / Re: Arctic Methane Release
« on: March 02, 2017, 09:27:33 AM »
just bringing this to everyone's, who is interested and did not know yet,

no need for translation here - interesting to read (not to write scary again)
those graphics of arcticnews- blog are impressive too

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: March 02, 2017, 09:15:44 AM »
Maybe I should go for some mining rights here in old Saxony, where cobalt had been found some centuries ago....  😅

Consequences / Re: Weird Weather and anecdotal stories about climate change
« on: February 28, 2017, 10:24:52 AM »
Just some graphics about the current winter drought we have here in Germany (of course nobody seems to get aware of and talks about).

Pretty scary those dark red colours-even in Februar. Just wonder what this summer would bring. Fortunately I live in a bright white area where some clouds are catched by the mountains...

Here is a link to the database-all seems to be under construction-the download options are pretty bad, had to cheat with some screenshots and to add the dates to the older images. :)

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 31, 2017, 06:45:12 PM »
The desire for ultra-fast charging is to remove one of the last "inconveniences" of EV versus ICE cars:  a quick fill-up during a long trip.

Already realized Sigmetnow that you are a believer in Tesla cars.  ;D I just had a look at the new Bolt (not so bad that car-could be an option for us  :P) - they write about a range of 238 miles/charge and a charging speed of 90 miles/30 min - that would make appr. 80 min for a full charge.

Generally I would say that mobility has to be rethought completely. Your arguments might be relevant for long travelling business men in a hurry, demanding a personal car  but not for ordinary people, working, shopping and some daily leisure activities-not here in Europe (might be US is different with distances to go). By the way there could be other ways to do business meetings-there is so much progress in our way to communicate-a lot of business trips could soon be obsolent, replaced by video conferences (3D-holographic or that stuff)?

Why should I own a car with a range I only use on a longer holiday trip with the entire family? Paying higher taxes, insurances, space to park it, energy to move it? Why not baking smaller breads and rent a car if you want it-change the entire car when the battery is low and continue the trip with the next waiting full charged car? 

It is all thought traditionally -to avoid "inconviniencies"- , without any willingness to ask different questions, to reduce our demands, to show some more modesty. To get aware of the real costs of luxury and convienence.

Teslas way might be impressive, but as I arlready pointed out-it is hard to desribe my scepticism... ;D

In the end that high speed charging is also a matter of the national grid capacity. I think it is no coincidence that Renault sells their new 40 kWh ZOE with a slow charging unit here in Germany.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 31, 2017, 11:16:14 AM »
I really don' t like that desire to that superduperfasterstrongerbetter- disruptive-charging. Who the hell would need that? Not to be aware as sexistic  ;D,  but it is a kind of male competition with a lack of sight on the real things that matter, that are needed. Just recently looked at a German statistic about the daily driven average distance of all cars: 40 kilometers 14.000 km/a, the average of all! Normally a car could be loaded comfortable over night, for the range you want to drive the next day. Those Tesla chargers as a whole carry the danger to destroy the grid infrastructure. Just park them all at the chargers and let them suck energy. I'm not sure if the current german grid infrastructure would like it. 8) I don't feel comfortable with that unhealthy competition.... and I still doubt about the humanistic intentions and financial supporters that drive Musk. Enviromental heroism or the aim of disruption?

Very interesting view on Musks changing mood abot DT:
The Marsmission project could also be used as a nice revival of Bioshere 2, Bannon tried to enter, as a climate change believer:
Survival rooms for the upper class of winners might be useful after erasing the world's entire mess...

Science / Re: Carbon emissions, totals, trends, etc
« on: January 27, 2017, 09:55:44 AM »
Just had a look at the measured here in Germany:

 :o ??? anyone with other database than Hawaii?

The rest / Re: The Trump Presidency (was "Presidential Poll")
« on: January 26, 2017, 03:28:10 PM »
Just a thought regarding the wall as a former citizen from GDR. Our wall was built to prevent the flight of eastern German working people towards the Western part of Germany. It protected the West too -they sure had no interest in a flood of work demanding people - GDR produced a lot for Western markets: mainly things with a lot of manual, expensive work.

I think Mexico and it's so called Maquila industry could be seen in that way too. They depend on -exploitable- workers, for all the goods that are produced for US market. And with the attack of Trump against car producers, and the reaction of Ford, I could imagine Mexico is in trouble about the power of one tweet, as well as the European car producers. He could have also attacked Coca Cola, Walmart, Nestle or others, but he took cars. It seems to be all about the mood you produce in your country about "unpatriotic" companies, taking a status symbol,  that affects a huge industry.

And somehow the US side could be seen different too: What if they criminalise all illegals, arrest them and use them as cheap workers for the home coming industrie like Ford? There are already hard cuts in civil rights for people from abroad in US, private prisons, private secret services . All could be a seed for a new system of make America great again.  :-X

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 24, 2017, 03:44:15 PM »
I found a very interesting article about Polar Stratospheric Clouds and their impact on Polar Temperatures. It is about study regarding equable climates athmosphere. (Please ignore it, if it is already known  ;D - I´m not an expert in that, and yes, it is a kind of OT)

The study of Peters and Sloan compared two scenarios (ECOCONTROL+PCCLOUD):

CO2 both at 560 ppm
- ECOCONTROL with methane rates at 0,7 ppm
- PCCLOUD with 10 ppm (what is the actual concentration at northern hemisphere?-sure it is higher than the global average of 1,7 ppm (?) and we do have quite more of nice gases...

Methane is taken because of its oxidization to form water vapor.

PCCLOUD led to a increase of winter temperatures of 25 °C in Northern Hemisphere (average? or North Pole ? -  isn´t that clear)

Peters and Sloan in 2000 presented another paper that investigated the impact of large amounts of greenhouse gases combined with PSCs. In this study, they performed two model experiments, just as Sloan and Pollard did. Both scenarios had carbon dioxide levels set at 560 ppm, which is 2 times the preindustrial level. The first situation, ECONTROL, had an atmospheric methane concentration of 0.700 ppm, the preindustrial amount, and did not have any PSCs. In the second case, named PCLOUD, methane levels were 10 ppm, which is 14 times the amount of preindustrial levels, and PSCs were prescribed as in the Sloan and Pollard study. The results showed a globally averaged mean annual temperature (MAT) increase of 3.4°C, and MATs in PCLOUD were warmer than ECONTROL by 12°C in the Northern Hemisphere and by 9°C in the Southern Hemisphere. However, in the Tropics, the MATs of PCLOUD was only warmer than that of ECONTROL by 2°C. Additionally, the cold-month mean temperature increased by 25°C in the Northern Hemisphere and by 18°C in the Southern Hemisphere. As a result, the study shows that the combined effects of PSCs and higher levels of greenhouse gases could raise polar temperatures while not affecting the Tropics substantially. Specifically, it reveals the impact of more methane and more PSCs on the climate and demonstrates that these two factors could have caused equable climates

One question they rise is how the methane could be there over the entire Eocene of 10 million years:

"Although the study produced results supporting the idea that higher methane concentrations and more PSCs could have caused equable climates, there are two major problems with this idea. First of all, in the modern atmosphere, methane has a lifetime of roughly 7 years, while the Eocene polar warmth existed for about 10 million years (Kirk-Davidoff, Schrag, and Anderson, 2002). This fact makes it seem unlikely that methane could have persisted long enough to have caused an equable climate. Even if methane's lifetime increased during the Eocene, it is doubtful that methane levels were sustained at concentrations suggested in the Peters and Sloan study throughout the duration of the Eocene."

But what if there was a BIG circle of methane, we now miss because of the freezed poles? - Methane is stored in the hydrates, we now loose... and there is already found methane based live on the former dead seafloor. Methane is built if organic material decays under anaerobic conditions. Warm water in a world full of flooded wetland would be not a problem if we look at the current tendencies...

I also ask myself if the building up of methane hydrates couldn´t be a result of binacles, underwater icicles, that grow under sea ice during a normal -cold and silent- polar winter. They could have been a engine for cold, salty water reaching deeper waters. Now, if the weather is getting stormy and warmer they will also disappear. (And that could have effects on thermoholine circulation a well...)

Just some thought of a lurker watching a lot of material at the moment.  :P

Arctic sea ice / Re: Stupid Questions :o
« on: January 21, 2017, 08:06:15 PM »
Found yesterday in my newspaper an article regarding icicles which mentioned an underwater salty version, brinicles. Got curious if it could be also an effect on oceanic life and thermohaline circulation in the arctic as it is getting warmer and more stormy.

Brinicles are transporting a lot of iones and iciness down to lower levels. They need silent waters and certain gradients in temperature. If there is more stormy and warmer water the system is getting disrupted.

Maybe it is one thing that made methane hydrates and it already affects the gulfstream from North?
 In the linked article is to find a hint towards that thought:

"The exchange of salt between sea ice and the ocean influences ocean circulation across hundreds of kilometers. "

Consequences / Re: Global Surface Air Temperatures
« on: January 19, 2017, 01:40:55 PM »
Found a nice 3-D animation of global temperatures:

Maybe also interesting regarding increase of energy input:

detailed datasource and backgrounds for calculations here:

Science / Re: 2017 Mauna Loa CO2
« on: January 17, 2017, 09:49:06 AM »
I know here is a threat about CO2, but I found a interesting site, showing the influence of the other greenhouse gases too. I recently saw on TV that there is an increasing use of FCs in air-condition as the temperatures are getting hotter...another "nice" longlasting heat trap-much more effective than CO2...  :-[


The AGGI is a measure of the warming influence of long-lived trace gases and how that influence is changing each year. The index was designed to enhance the connection between scientists and society by providing a normalized standard that can be easily understood and followed. The warming influence of long-lived greenhouse gases is well understood by scientists and has been reported by NOAA through a range of national and international assessments. Nevertheless, the language of scientists often eludes policy makers, educators, and the general public. This index is designed to help bridge that gap. The AGGI provides a way for this warming influence to be presented as a simple index.

Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2016/2017 freezing season
« on: January 12, 2017, 12:48:30 PM »
Very interesting to follow your discussions.  8)

I´m also watching the developements with earthview. And the
calculation for 16th Jan. is looking really impressive. What a
meandering wave pushing into the North...,44.36,303/loc=70.878,89.846

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 11, 2017, 09:10:08 PM »
Cue the phrase, "Getting the future we deserve."

Good or bad.  :o


Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 11, 2017, 07:03:24 PM »
@Buddy I´m basically not concerned about the person Musk himself. Not to be missunderstood. He IS a visionere-no question. And yes, he forces the car industry to awake form sleep.

But a Tesla with its computer is a thing that could force a kind of consumption that is not connected with the basic sense of a car. Tablet PCs and smartphones are a nice comparism. Android e.g. - if the device is too old it comes the day you will be disabled to get a new software version. It is out of maintenance. The device itself could still do its work - but it is not able to work without the software. It is the same that will happen to the cars. Will there be 15 year old cars in the future? Will the close connection of computer and car be substainable, would it make REAL sense? A car in my mind has to move people from A to B, dry, warm, comfortable. Not more.

Musk is not Tesla- Musk is human - he could be substituted. Tesla is a company, owned by changing investors. (My hushand worked at KUKA - THE german robotic firm, just overtaken by Chinese investors) And thats the thing I feel not comfortable about somehow. Driving computers could be perfect weapons, tools for an absolute monitoring. The car looses its native sense of freedom-that´s it.

As Jaron Lanier also has his doubts about Google & Co.  8)

But originally the thread should go about batteries.  ;D

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 11, 2017, 05:58:10 PM »
Believe me - I´m in a hard inner struggle what to think about Musk and his money giving compagnions. On the one hand I feel VERY attracted by his open shown idealism, his ideas and the intensity and speed he goes the way. But somehow it is that kind of offensive presented honesty and idealism that is hardly to believe.

The vision of a huge automatic factories, selfdriving cars, the will to create a right disruption of markets. There is a smell of some unhealthyness. It is hard to describe, but after I got totally fascinated I am also a little frightened where a domination could lead to. It all has the components of absolute control that could be abused too. It all depends on who is the owner of that companies, who has the financial power to influence the aims.

I have a husband in automotive industry and just read a very good and actual book of Dudenhöfer about the theme. Beside I do study the strategies of globalization and monopolization, reading a book of Nancy Klein. And that combination makes me also think in some critical ways...

If Tesla was trying to rule the world of EV then they would not have made their patents public documents.  ???

Elon Musk Clarifies That Tesla's Patents Really Are Free; Investor Absolutely Freaks Out

EV are in principle not that complicated to build - Musk started also by combinating some available components. The biggest thing of a Tesla would be its computer, sensors and that electronical stuff-he is surely not having the patents for, but his Silicon Valley friends.  :P I do really appreciate his way-but without some wealthy friends he never could start that way. And it will be a really fascinating thing to watch where it all would lead to.

I do actually plan a own private PV with storage-and I would prefer the new system of Kreisel batteries from Austria. Why should Musk take it all? There are more ideas, companies and countries that could take a piece of the cake too. And there would be enough left for Tesla.  :P

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 11, 2017, 11:06:26 AM »
I think batteries could be a part of the change. That change is not only a matter of climate, also a matter of personal freedom, of economical independence. Batteries come with the potential to get independent as a consumer from monopolized market prices. The fight is also global energy companies against small people.

Here in Germany all had been done to let only the small people pay for the costs of renewables. Energy market had been liberated, splitted into energy producers, grid providers, a stock market for traders, even metering point operators. A lot more of struggling interests and demanding profits was built by that. The lowest risks do have the traders. Industry had been freed from the EEG costs that are calculated between market prices and guaranteed prices for renewables. The cost are carried by small people. The energy producers that work with sluggish coal power plants are struggling with decay of market prices, I don' t think they will survive. The grid providers are splitted into 4 big ones and they are struggling with the demand to modernise the grid and the border of how much they could invoice to the small people. Both things could be candidates for the overtake by someone financial powerful, a seed for energetic monopols. 

In addition to that we have the surreal situation that renewables made energy stock prices falling (profits of traders are growing), but the selling companies are not obligated to let that pass through to the small people. As a costumer you pay for the difference between stockprices and guaranteed price for renewables and you have to pay the not sinking energy prices. There is also a strong movement of small people to get independent. Of course all is done by the splitted sectors on energy market to undermine that process, but it will come. All in one it is a sad, but willing, running battle, that costs so much energy and that slows the urgent demanding process of turn to renewables.

At the moment batteries give the only chance to built a counterweight against the monopolistic overtaking process on energy market. Food market is already overtaken and dominated by global will be next. And honestly I don't feel that comfortable with Musks billioniare powered movement of leading the future market of carproduction,  storage, solar and computertechnology... :-\

Just streamed a speech of Al Gore at YouTube  ;D. It is not brand-new but it was new to me. A real great, impressive presentation. I didn't knew by now about exact developement of renewables in the graphics he showed. Didn't knew about the number of stopped coal plants in US by now-just read about China. It leaves me with some more optimism. 😊 

Walking the walk / Re: Heating with wood or pellets ? and air heat pump ?
« on: January 10, 2017, 08:56:23 PM »
I wish we would have prepared for a tiled stove.  :'( The principle is to lead the hot air through channels to catch the heat in the stone masses that are in the rooms-not to leave it through the chimney. It is a pleasant heat coming from that kind of ovens. The principle of floor heating system is the same and you need much less energy to get a comfortable warmth.

Policy and solutions / Re: Batteries: Today's Energy Solution
« on: January 10, 2017, 08:34:18 PM »
Of course it is an important question, if there would be enough ressources. I´m sure there aren´t. And the sources where the minerals come from are critical too. I just read about the "nice" history of companies that were overtaking the mineral wealth of Chile and Bolivia by supporting Pinochet and undermining the democracy in Bolivia. It´s just a shame-people there wouldn´t even have any positive effects from that booming lithium demand. 

We have at least to look for options to recycle the rare material the batteries are built from.

I think there must be other storing technologies beside batteries. Making H2 by electrolys e.g. H2 could be "made" to CH4 using CO2 and CH4 could be stored and transported better than H2.

I think batteries are not the non plus ultra for the future. But they could be an important milestone to change our energy source to renewables. Beside that we have to reduce our demand. (but we couldn´t move all to warmer places-as magnamentis meant in another threat about heating with wood ;)

Consequences / Re: "Chasing Ice" on youtube
« on: January 07, 2017, 10:05:57 AM »
Only as a hint: "Chasing ice" is available at arte mediathek, in French and German language, for the next 2 days only.

I watched this amazing film yesterday with my husband. Really a great work!

Walking the walk / Re: Heating with wood or pellets ? and air heat pump ?
« on: January 05, 2017, 04:25:12 PM »
My feeling is that in a large scale wood burning is not sustainable. Too many people - on an industrial scale if demand becomes too great, wood pellets will be made from native wood (trees) instead of wood use byproducts (scrap) like the ones that are sent to UK from US to power big "biofuel" burning power stations.

I agree - if anyone would heat with wood, there wouldn´t be enough wood to live the way we do. With well heated buildings, all winter long. If it should be substainable, we could only burn the wood that is grown during the summer before-not more. And that would propably mean ONE warm room in a house-as it had been for centuries for the majority of people. We only started with central heating after fossil oil, gas and coal made this luxury affordable. 

As we planned our house I fell in love with the idea of a heatpump-to invest 1 and to get 4 is unbeatable.  ;D But unfortunately I didn´t think about the option of getting some serious trouble with electricity supply in the future. If I would build the house again, I would have a nice little oven in my kitchen to heat and cook with, or a tiled stove with a baking function, in addition to the heatpump system. Just to be more flexible and independent.

To get an oven in now is pretty difficult-as we have a ventilation system like Neven has and no easy option to get air for a fire from outside. But we think strongly how to integrate an oven-not to be totally dependent on electricity. At least we already have a chimney in our house-it was an old one and we left the chimney in. We have enough wood around here and it would be easy to get some. The wooden heating would be only to be prepared for emergency cases like a blackout.

Let me leave our datas of our current system here:

We need 5000 kWh/year for a well heated 200 m² house in a relatively cold area here in Germany, for heating and warm water for six persons. Our heatpump has a COP of  appr. 4 and it is supplied by sole, running through a ground collector in our garden. 

We invested a lot into insulation as well (with cellulose) although we didn´t reach passive house standard. The heatpump is powered completely by renewable (wind) energy, since some time we are able to choose a supplier here in Germany. In the beginning we had no option for that.

Additionally we are planning a PV with storage to get our own energy and to use it as effectively as possible.

Policy and solutions / Re: Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....
« on: December 19, 2016, 10:17:36 AM »
I absolutely agree with you in the fact of the useless software in EV-and the danger of getting more and more dependent on some firms wellfare. We recently bought a second hand ZOE. Alone the feeling to drive it, to feel the instantly available power -compared with normal cars- no need to shift, and the chance to drive with zero emission: it is FUN. I think it has the potential to convince people, if they get the chance to realize the need to drive that way. But most people do carry that fear to change, scepsis...a wrong, misguided fear.

We do not need that electronic stuff in vehicles, software. Cars should bring us from A to B. We should stay dry and comfortable. That is enough. If I look at a VW Golf EV there is so much much space. It costs, but do we really need that kind of perfection?! We are a family of six and we only need a six seated car when we go to our summer holidays. Wouldn't it be an alternative to rent one and to take two small EVs for normal life?

We have the power as costumers to ask for the right solutions. For us and earth as well.
There are chances to elect them.

Nobody needs a self driving car with the potential power to fly to the moon! Fuck perfection and the stupid PS-competition!  8)

Policy and solutions / Re: Formal Declaration of War
« on: December 19, 2016, 08:34:07 AM »
I believe it's time to use both love and war.

Yesterday I spoke with my mum. I explicitly stated several times that I live in a caravan with unheated water currently at 2 to 8 degrees celsius. Previously her subconscious only half knew about a caravan. I forced it into her conscious mind. To stop her thinking I'm penniless, I pushed hard to make her know I have money, it's just not used. So she asked, why not build a house.
2 reasons:
Initially due to Greek bureaucracy. She had no problem with that.
Now, because it would cause a huge amount of CO2. Silence. Total and utter silence.
Is that love or war? Both.
Is that needed? It could be interpreted as cruel as it's the antithesis of what she has lived for 70 years and an absolute categorical rejection of some of the values I was thought. Irish people generally 'hate' tinkers and their caravans. In my mum's eyes I'm living the worst possible path, worse than homeless under a bridge.
Yes it's needed. Honesty with oneself, then with one's parents, then with one's nearest and dearest, then everyone and everything. Love and war simultaneously.

I also feel absolutely urged to do further steps, not to get crazy about the situation to come. Energy would be the only point to harm that fossil fuel energy. Save it and produce own renewable. I must admit, I' m not perfect-living in Germany in a well heated home ( with geothermal heating, powered by renewable)- but I'm aware of the whole drama... :'(

Spoke to my mum too. But she wouldn't hear anything about it. She is old (64) and hasn't to care about it anymore. She meant she is living a modest life- in a warm heated house of 100 m2 for two, with the only joy to do her nice little shopping tours. And my father always talks about the hopelessness of amortisation of investion in renewable energy, waste prevention wouldn't be his turn. "They" should care, not me. "They" is the government.  And if " they" allow all the consumption and packaging waste, it is their job to get along with. Believe me-if I could turn the rage I have into energy, I wouldn'the need any fuel anymore. They have six grandchildren but they don'the feel any responsibility for their future and they are laughing about my hopeless tries to do my small steps I can afford.

I'm nearly urged to reduce heating at Christmas eve down to comfortable 13 degrees, to make them feel that it is not a game!  ;D 

There is where the fight should begin. The most wealthy and thoughtless generation is still on earth. We should not allow them to steal away like a thief in the night! The seeing blinds are closer than we think. But it hurts...we should ask for their real LOVE!

Here in Germany e.g is easy to select renewable energy supplier.
There are a lot of used, affordable electric vehicles on the market. I took the chance to replace a car, but made the mistake not to crash the old one...

We have the power as consumers. Every day. And we should start evangelization at the nearest enviroment. That could save energy too. Mental energy- I would need for my kids, beside some hope.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 15, 2016, 09:02:16 PM »

The victor in the U.S. election isn't Trump (plus Putin), but the global oilygarchy. Their money determines their facts. Screw science. Screw human rights. Screw the planet.

There is only a nice little horror cabinet left in my head. I also think it is only a game of the oligarchs. Only power, sway, prevelance matters-not money. Who of them would really care about the fucking money?! They have all instruments in their hands to rule the world, all things for a perfect dictature. Energy, technics, land, weapons-they even wouldn´t need soldiers. They also could manipulate the market of money, the stock exchanges. (Just look at the strange behaviour of the courses-they are rise upwards and the two incidents with Trumps tweeds.)

Who of them would care about the wellfare of mankind?! And how they should be stopped? They would only laugh about the stupid idea of democracy. Democracy obviously doesnt´work, it leads to a corrupt system, wherever you look - science as a neutral servant of the truth failed too.

I´m afraid they will try to wipe away all scientists. They could only ask them what all their knowledge was worth all the years long-had it any effect to prevent/stop the climate change?...and I´m sure it would be terrible easy to generate public anger against them.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 15, 2016, 04:19:12 PM »

Here in Germany we had some rather eye-opening floods in the last years, from Dresden 2002 to Simbach/Inn 2016.


I know about the floods, Martin. I live here in Saxony-next to a brandnew flood warning station down in our valley, we already had that flood.

We have coal and a government that denies the climate change, that calls the descision to finish with coal a "distaster". And I ask myself, if they are all blind?!

We have a newspaper - obviously powered by energy concern ENVIA - a crashed windmill got a BIG photo that week - the ice at the north pole a small article at a nonpopular site. (and they wrote WEATHER - not climate)

We have "nice" Pegida with a dening leadership. I also ask myself if Ms. Petry as a chemist doesn´t know more?-she always argues the ocean will thake the CO2 and gives the example of a warm soda bottle-not false, but it has to be thought further. Couldn´t she? Or is she hiding as Trump could hide his knowledge?

The entire "Klimawende" is a struggle of lobbyists. There is nothing really done-all is so completely slowed down. Whereever you watch there are groups of interests-financial interests.

I´m afraid we will get the bill next year. I think Angela Merkel has squandered a lot of trust. In combination with some fakenews manipulations - or maybe the entire truth it will become a disaster too.

Consequences / Re: Trump to eliminate climate change research.
« on: December 15, 2016, 11:12:15 AM »
It is really confusing what the hell is going on there. Three weeks ago I kept myself pretty safe. I tried to manage my personal life as sustainable as possible. It was a coincidence that I got  curious about the actual facts.

I really feel disinformed, pranked - disappointed (better-furious) about all - science, journalists, teachers, governments. I actually read a book about oceans physics and chemistry and it is really no miracle to find the tipping points that matter. The tipping points are not new-they are wellknown, since decades! And it is scientists job to find the interesting points, to collect datas, to prove or disprove presumptions, discuss the results and to INFORM.

They are paid by public money-to serve the public. (Some write great books-I started my way after reading Flannery)

It is their job to explain science comprehensible-to bring it back to normal life-to make people able to do their own -right- decisions.  Also teachers have to stay in contact with science, to tell kids about the challenges of the future, to give them the knowledge to judge and to understand principles. But they also usally don't.

People have to feel free to do do their walk of life-they are not willing to feel reigned by laws, regulations and infantilizing. That makes them angry...

There are tons of datas, nice maps-they are free available-yes-but is the job scientists job done with making them available, discussing results within the scientists ivory tower!?!? Politicians are normally not scientists-but here in Germany we have one that should understand it all-Merkel is a doctor of Physics. Unfortunately she has no children...otherwise she couldn't stay that patient...

I´ve found a new document of scientists, asking some ethical question I´m struggling with-you find it in the attachement-unfortunately there no link.

Has anyone asked if Trump only >pretends< not to know about the facts? US people feel the drought, the hurricanes, the extremely cold-in contrast to most (media sedated) people here in Central Europe.

How to tell better about a lie than emphasizing its discrepancy with the truth people feel in their daily lifes? I think that is the cracking point of the postfactual times we live in. People feel the truth, the lies, they feel patronized. Tragically they seem to set their only hope into people they hope could help - those who have the power -- of money.

And we could only pray that these horrible rich people not only plan to build an Arche Noah for their own families-leaving the rest of us behind.... I personally do not think they are spurred by idealism.  :'(

Pages: 1 [2] 3