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 - gerontocrat

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31
51
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: December 01, 2019, 09:49:24 PM »
Another month has passed by.
Nearly half the days and more than half the extent and area gains of the 2019-20 freezing season are done.

So here are some graphs showing the freezing season to date.

Total Arctic Area & Extent
Show how late and how slow the freeze was especially in October.
Inevitably there has been a bit of a catch-up in November.
But compared with the 1980's, sea ice extent and area is still one month behind.

Pacific Gateway
Bering Sea Still far too early to tell what this season will bring.

Chukchi Sea Already one for the record books.
171 days at lowest daily sea ice area in the satellite record, and sea ice area currently around 275k less than the 2010's average.

Will December see the big catch-up or will the final freeze be delayed until the New Year?


52
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: December 01, 2019, 08:36:37 PM »
One thing they suggested is that you people come to them.

Tell them that AGW will come to them instead, or to their offspring, and they can then explain why they chose not to do anything but spread misinformation.

I think at least some of them don't care. I pointed out that AGW would likely make the world a lot worse by 2100 and the reply I got was that the poster would be dead by then.
Why did you say to him 2100? More like 2019 if you live in the Bahamas, 2018 if you live in Puerto Rico etc etc. And for everybody else the what or the when is merely a matter of chance with the probability rising year by year. The following link suggests there are at best 30 years left to go zero-carbon to avoid +2 and at best it will take at least 20 years to do it. Perhaps the writer had not read 55% emission reduction b+y 2030 needed for + 1.5.

________________________________________________________________
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/01/scientists-theory-of-climates-titanic-moment-the-tip-of-a-mathematical-iceberg
Scientist's theory of climate's Titanic moment the 'tip of a mathematical iceberg'
Formula for climate emergency shows if ‘reaction time is longer than intervention time left’ then ‘we have lost control’
Quote
Knowing how long societies have to react to pull the brake on the Earth’s climate and then how long it will take for the ship to slow down is the difference between a climate emergency and a manageable problem.

Rather than being something abstract and open to interpretation, Schellnhuber says the climate emergency is something with clear and calculable risks that you could put into a formula. And so he wrote one.

Quote
Emergency = R × U = p × D × τ / T
Borrowing from the insurance industry, the scientists define risk (R) as the probability of something happening (p) multiplied by damage (D).
Urgency (U) is the time it takes you to react to an issue (τ) “divided by the intervention time left to avoid a bad outcome (T)”, they wrote.

“As a matter of fact, the intervention time left for limiting global warming to less than 2C is about 30 [years] at best. The reaction time – time needed for full global decarbonisation - is at least 20 [years].”

As the scientists write in Nature, if the “reaction time is longer than the intervention time left” then “we have lost control”.[/size]

I love the way simple arithmetic can clear away the miasma surrounding a subject.
There are many places already beyond climate emergency, i.e. time available is already less than time required -the Louisiana Boot, The Florida Keys, the East Anglian Coast of England, California's Central Valley Aquifer.........
 

53
Arctic sea ice / Re: 365 day average extent poll
« on: December 01, 2019, 02:16:55 PM »
A new record low 365 day average extent in 2019 is in the range of highly unlikely to impossible
First 3 months in 2020 or even later seems a more likely time-frame.


JAXA Arctic Sea Ice Extent data as at 30 November 2019

There is 72 k to go to a new record 365 day low, (9,683,735 km2), with the daily reduction in the 365 day average down to just under 1,400 km2. So the date of a new record low is currently late January 2020.

On the 30th November 2019 the extent difference with 2018 has reduced to 499 k less  than 2018. The effect is a continuous reduction in the daily loss in the 365 day average, which in turn made the date for a new record low 365-day-average later. (See table attached).

And if you look at the plume of 2018 daily gains (attached) for the rest of the year, you will see that 2018 gains are mostly below average from now to the end of the year. So if 2019 extent gains are at average or above, the difference in extent between 2019 and 2018 could quickly reduce. Also, in general, variations in extent between years reduce as winter progresses. This will reduce the daily reduction in the 365 daily average and thus lengthen the time to reach a record low - or even prevent that record low from happening.

I still plump for an early 2020 record low - (Jan to March), but have no scientific basis for that guess

Data table & graphs attached
_________________________________________

54
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 05:23:30 PM »
Tom writes...
Quote
"I really like that forum except they call people who believe in AGW "idiots" or worse...it is a Furry Forum and I am a Furry"

Tom -who are "they"? Just a few people? The "owner" of the site? It is a bit odd that a forum dedicated to furry people has such a rabid attitude to AGW. It is possible that a group that funds Climate Science Denial have corrupted your favourite furry forum.
__________________________________________
ps:- I admit climate science deniers make me lose my cool.  Rather than engaging in debate with closed minds I would prefer to engage a denier with a slap round the face with a snow shovel.

Until a few months ago, the BBC always had a climate science denier/skeptic on the panel when climate discussions / debates took place. This was because, as a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC had to show impartiality.

But then the BBC changed its policy. AGW is now considered to be a fact. Climate Science Denial therefore occupies the same space as the Flat Earth Theory. It is not the job of a Public Service Broadcaster to give space to those who wish to deny a fact.

I think that change by the BBC influenced my attitude to the Climate Science Denial Industry (because an industry it certainly is) that will use every dirty trick in the book to plug their message.

pps:- Please can posts on climate change denial myths, if they are to continue, be placed on their own out of the way thread with posts not showing on the "Recent Posts" section.

55
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 30, 2019, 03:51:58 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 29 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,881,446  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,881,446    km2      
-332,847    km2   <   2010's average.
-731,696    km2   <   2018
-758,262    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    77    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    29    k   gain
Central Seas__    32    k   gain
Other Seas___    15    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    1    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    11    k   gain
Greenland____    1    k   gain
Barents ______    16    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -2    k   loss
CAA_________    4    k   gain
East Siberian__   -3    k   loss
Central Arctic_    13    k   gain
         
Kara_________    26    k   gain
Laptev_______    3    k   gain
Chukchi______   -10    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    16    k   gain

Daily gain 77 k, 5 k LESS than the 2010's average of 82 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 333 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 732 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 830 km2
- 2019 area 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.4  to +1.1 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front. (After 3 days now only a modest blast of warmth from the Atlantic side into the Arctic Ocean - while the surrounding shores stay cold - GFS forecast changes yet again) .

Winds highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front. Expect significant changes in sea ice gains (even losses) in the peripheral seas.
________________________________________________________________________
[/quote]

56
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 30, 2019, 02:44:36 PM »
The forum I am debating is that of a Furry Webcomic artist.
Here is something he posted on Facebook:


How do I reply?

EDIT:
Here is another article link from the forum:
Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels

Quote
It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

Tom, what are you playing at?

Your quote is from an extremely well-known denier website that is totally impervious to facts or reasoned thought.

Dr Vincent Gray is a pain in the butt who has made the list of shame known as "the Climate Denier List" - a list of scientists, real or imagined, pundits and loud mouths.
Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.

I for one, am not wasting any more of my energy on reading your posts from these assorted plonkers.

57
Consequences / Re: Hurricane Season 2019
« on: November 30, 2019, 02:31:02 PM »
The Philippines is bracing for floods and landslides from Typhoon Kammuri, potentially hitting the area where the Southeast Asian Games are being held
https://mobile.twitter.com/business/status/1200236198838583296

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-11-29/philippines-braces-for-storm-that-may-drench-sea-games-hosting
A very large number of people in Metro Manila live on very low ground. Floods are frequent.

58
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 30, 2019, 01:54:35 PM »
My snow shovel is still collecting dust in the garage. In my 12 years here (south BC interior), the previous record for "latest into the winter season I had to get the snow shovel out" was November 8th.
Looks like your snow-free patch is surrounded by the white stuff.

https://ccin.ca/home/sites/default/files/snow/snow_tracker/plot_anom_sdep.png

https://ccin.ca/ccw/snow/current

59
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: November 29, 2019, 09:11:24 PM »
The grid should be like roads.  You don’t pay the paving company which repairs the road near your home.  Taxes pay for road upkeep, because the road system is of benefit to everyone, so people can travel to work, and goods can be delivered, and emergency vehicles can reach you if needed.  The grid is of benefit to everyone — even if you are “off the grid,” the grid is keeping other services functional that you depend on.
In the US of A there is a gasoline tax that (until they stopped increasing it) was supposed to pay for maintenance of roads.
In the UK EV vehicles have no road tax.

So who will pay for maintaining the roads when ICE vehicles are history?

60
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 29, 2019, 03:38:36 PM »
Quote
The chaos you see ahead is far closer than it appears.

It appears so. Papua New Guinea is currently well and truly on fire. Is it not a country of rainforest?
PNG is the eastern half (plus some islands that were part of the German Empire until after WW1), and Indonesia has the Western half of New Guinea - Papua Province.

I did a contract in PNG many, many years ago. It was rough. If you want to end up dead go into the mountains and try to stop illegal logging. And that is neither a joke nor an exaggeration.
___________________________________________________________
Deforestation in Papua New Guinea has been extensive in recent decades and is continuing at an estimated rate of 1.4% of tropical forest being lost annually. Deforestation in Papua New Guinea is mainly a result of illegal logging, which contributed to 70-90% of all timber exports, one of the highest rates in the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Deforestation_in_Papua_New_Guinea

61
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 29, 2019, 03:25:26 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 28 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,804,783  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,804,783    km2      
-327,467    km2   <   2010's average.
-740,777    km2   <   2018
-768,779    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    64    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    23    k   gain
Central Seas__    28    k   gain
Other Seas___    13    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    1    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    1    k   gain
Greenland____    7    k   gain
Barents ______    15    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -2    k   loss
CAA_________    3    k   gain
East Siberian__   -2    k   loss
Central Arctic_    9    k   gain
         
Kara_________    24    k   gain
Laptev_______    3    k   gain
Chukchi______   -9    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    0    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    13    k   gain

Daily gain 64 k, 21 k LESS than the 2010's average of 85 k.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 327 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 741 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 872 km2
- 2019 area 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +1.8  to +1.1 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front. (After 3 days increasing chance of a big blast of warmth from the Atlantic side into the Arctic Ocean - while the surrounding shores stay really cold - WACC ?).

Winds highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front. Expect significant changes in sea ice gains (even losses) in the peripheral seas.
________________________________________________________________________

62
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 29, 2019, 02:09:30 PM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :-    23,087,306 km2(November 28, 2019)

- 2019 is 2nd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 39 k, 52 k less than the last 10 years' average of 91 k,
- Extent loss to date 1.51 million km2, 0.12 million (8.9 %) more than the 10 year average of 1.39 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1.51 million km2 greater than 2016,
- 15.2 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 78 days to the average minimum date of 13 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

Still extremely / ridiculously early to take this seriously. Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 15.37 million km2, 0.18 million less than the record low in early 2018.
_____________________________________________________________

63
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/ as at 27 November 2019


How average can you get?

Accumulated Data 1 Sept to 27 November

Melt From now of zero consequence until next April

and

PRECIPITATION up & down like a yo-yo as usual, result.....

SMB at average - with the average much less than average on the west and the average much above average in the East (especially SE), and a blob of above average SMB in the NW.
________________________________________________________________________
Quotes from DMI
Quote
The Greenland Ice Sheet evolves throughout the year as weather conditions change. Precipitation increases the mass of the ice sheet, whilst greater warmth leads to melting, which causes it to lose mass. The term surface mass balance (SMB) is used to describe the isolated gain and loss of mass of the surface of the ice sheet – excluding the mass that is lost when glaciers calve off icebergs and melt as they come into contact with warm seawater.

Melting does not in itself necessarily give rise to mass loss, however. Much of the meltwater will refreeze in the surface snow layers rather than running off the ice sheet, and this process is included in the calculations of surface mass balance which is why the melt area plot may differ from the areas of negative mass balance seen on the map “Daily change”. Likewise, sublimation does not count as melting and surface mass balance can therefore occur with the surface temperature being far below the melting point.
_______________________________________________________________--

64
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 28, 2019, 08:35:44 PM »
Wait a few days.  A big snowstorm is approaching.

Approaching where?

Western and central U.S.
Yep, it has snowed. (H2O, not the other sort of snow).

Qu1: Any more snow to come?
Qu2: Will it melt? Maybe in the Lower 48 next week.

65
Science / Re: 2019 Mauna Loa CO2 levels
« on: November 28, 2019, 04:19:20 PM »
I am reminded (from many years ago) of a politician in the UK saying "the rate of acceleration of the increase in unemployment has declined" - from which he justified seeing "the green shoots of growth".

We do not know
-  when / if the increase in renewable energy will be greater than the increase in energy demand,
-  if the decline in coal will be matched by increases in Natural Gas consumption,
-  how much CH4 fugitive emissions from Natural Gas production will increase,
-  the extent to which the carbon sinks will continue to decay,

We do not know many things, but we do know
- CO2 ppm will increase for at minimum for a few years more,
- if Governments and the industries that own them don't take action p.d.q. CO2 ppm will increase indefinitely,
- The carbon sinks will become less effective given current policies and trends,
- without major action and change it is likely increases in CO2 ppm will accelerate.




66
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 28, 2019, 04:01:01 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 27 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,740,489  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,740,489    km2      
-306,481    km2   <   2010's average.
-720,871    km2   <   2018
-768,283    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    50    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    17    k   gain
Central Seas__    21    k   gain
Other Seas___    12    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    0    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    0    k   gain
Greenland____    7    k   gain
Barents ______    9    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -5    k   loss
CAA_________    2    k   gain
East Siberian__   -3    k   loss
Central Arctic_    3    k   gain
         
Kara_________    23    k   gain
Laptev_______    5    k   gain
Chukchi______   -4    k   loss
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    1    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    11    k   gain

Daily gain 50 k, 41 k LESS than the 2010's average of 91 k.

Area gain very much below average after the previous week or so of above average gains.

- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 306 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 721 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 929 km2
- 2019 area 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says overall Arctic temperature anomalies (which includes land) in the range +2.4  to +1.2 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front. (After 3 days increasing chance of a big blast of warmth from the Atlantic side into the Arctic Ocean - while the surrounding shores stay really cold - WACC ?).

Winds highly variable in strength and direction- especially at the Pacific Gateway and Atlantic Front. Expect significant changes in sea ice gains (even losses) in the peripheral seas.
________________________________________________________________________

67
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 28, 2019, 03:02:17 PM »
May I ask what your error range is for the expected extent at the end of the freezing year?   

Thanks.
Error range? Not a clue. The table ARC1 has a minimum and a maximum from the last 10 years. This range shrinks as the season progresses.

Expected extent ? No it isn't. It is just an arithmetical projection of the result if remaining gain is at the remaining average gain of the last 10 years. It does show whether the season so far is looking sort-of at the average, or above or below.

But it is just data, not predictions.




68
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 27, 2019, 10:56:42 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 26 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,690,540  km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,690,540    km2      
-265,187    km2   <   2010's average.
-671,957    km2   <   2018
-755,147    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    96    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    26    k   gain
Central Seas__    58    k   gain
Other Seas___    11    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    3    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    2    k   gain
Greenland____    12    k   gain
Barents ______    10    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -2    k   loss
CAA_________    2    k   gain
East Siberian__    9    k   gain
Central Arctic_    7    k   gain
         
Kara_________    24    k   gain
Laptev_______    6    k   gain
Chukchi______    12    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    2    k   gain
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    10    k   gain

Daily gain 96 k, 6 k MORE than the 2010's average of 90 k.

Area gain above average but less than the previous 4 days.
_______________________________________________
Comments
- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 265 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 672 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,004 km2

2019 area 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.7  to +1.2 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front.

Winds highly variable in strength and direction.
________________________________________________________________________

69
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 27, 2019, 08:59:34 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 9,821,610 km2(November 26, 2019)

- Extent gain on this day 64 k, 24 k less than the average gain of 88 k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 5,857 k, 144 k (2.5%) MORE than the average gain to date of 5,714 k.
- Extent is 3rd lowest in the satellite record,
- Extent is 598 k more than 2016
- Extent is 150 k less than 2017
- Extent is 140 k more than 2006
- Extent is 98 k less than 2010.

- Extent is 589 k less than 2018
- Extent is 255 k (2.3%)  less than the 2010's average,

- on average 58.1 % of extent gain for the the season done, 106 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 13.95 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.07 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.7  to +1.2 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front.

Winds highly variable in strength and direction.
_____________________________________________________________

70
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 26, 2019, 10:01:33 PM »
Irrespective of ecological effects, based purely on geophysics, would a wall here help to preserve Arctic ice?

If you fancy a VERY LONG read, you can start here...

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1545.msg76945.html#msg76945

71
Policy and solutions / Re: Robots and AI: Our Immortality or Extinction
« on: November 26, 2019, 07:43:03 PM »
^^
I'm afraid I'd prefer a palanquin :)

Terry
the elephant for me, looking down with a derisive sneer at the posers in their Urban 4 wd Tractors.

72
The rest / Re: The problem of social media
« on: November 26, 2019, 05:40:12 PM »
Social media is doing a superb job in transmitting lies, falsehoods, prejudice, hate, human trafficking, sexual exploitation of children....

Social media is doing a lousy job in spreading reason, facts and countering the above.

Therefore, the major social media companies making loads-a-money from it by establishing what is essentially a Cartel, are on balance, evil.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/22/sacha-baron-cohen-facebook-propaganda
Read Sacha Baron Cohen's scathing attack on Facebook : 'greatest propaganda machine in history'
In a speech, the actor argued that Facebook would have run ads by Hitler.

Quote
In a speech last night at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the actor and comedian Sacha Baron Cohen attacked Facebook and other social media platforms for enabling the proliferation of hate speech and misinformation.

The speech was striking in its sincerity – Baron Cohen appeared as himself, rather than “in character” as one of his satirical personas – and its blistering tone.

Describing Facebook as “the greatest propaganda machine in history”, Baron Cohen argued that the company, which does not vet political ads for truthfulness, would have allowed Hitler to run propaganda on its platform.

Quote
Thank you, ADL, for this recognition and your work in fighting racism, hate and bigotry. And to be clear, when I say “racism, hate and bigotry” I’m not referring to the names of Stephen Miller’s Labradoodles.

Now, I realize that some of you may be thinking, what the hell is a comedian doing speaking at a conference like this! I certainly am. I’ve spent most of the past two decades in character. In fact, this is the first time that I have ever stood up and given a speech as my least popular character, Sacha Baron Cohen. And I have to confess, it is terrifying.

I realize that my presence here may also be unexpected for another reason. At times, some critics have said my comedy risks reinforcing old stereotypes.

The truth is, I’ve been passionate about challenging bigotry and intolerance throughout my life. As a teenager in the UK, I marched against the fascist National Front and to abolish apartheid. As an undergraduate, I traveled around America and wrote my thesis about the civil rights movement, with the help of the archives of the ADL. And as a comedian, I’ve tried to use my characters to get people to let down their guard and reveal what they actually believe, including their own prejudice.

Now, I’m not going to claim that everything I’ve done has been for a higher purpose. Yes, some of my comedy, OK probably half my comedy, has been absolutely juvenile and the other half completely puerile. I admit, there was nothing particularly enlightening about me – as Borat from Kazakhstan, the first fake news journalist – running through a conference of mortgage brokers when I was completely naked.

But when Borat was able to get an entire bar in Arizona to sing “Throw the Jew down the well,” it did reveal people’s indifference to antisemitism. When – as Bruno, the gay fashion reporter from Austria – I started kissing a man in a cage fight in Arkansas, nearly starting a riot, it showed the violent potential of homophobia. And when – disguised as an ultra-woke developer – I proposed building a mosque in one rural community, prompting a resident to proudly admit, “I am racist, against Muslims” – it showed the acceptance of Islamophobia.

That’s why I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you. Today around the world, demagogues appeal to our worst instincts. Conspiracy theories once confined to the fringe are going mainstream. It’s as if the Age of Reason – the era of evidential argument – is ending, and now knowledge is delegitimized and scientific consensus is dismissed. Democracy, which depends on shared truths, is in retreat, and autocracy, which depends on shared lies, is on the march. Hate crimes are surging, as are murderous attacks on religious and ethnic minorities.

What do all these dangerous trends have in common? I’m just a comedian and an actor, not a scholar. But one thing is pretty clear to me. All this hate and violence is being facilitated by a handful of internet companies that amount to the greatest propaganda machine in history.

The greatest propaganda machine in history.

Think about it. Facebook, YouTube and Google, Twitter and others – they reach billions of people. The algorithms these platforms depend on deliberately amplify the type of content that keeps users engaged – stories that appeal to our baser instincts and that trigger outrage and fear. It’s why YouTube recommended videos by the conspiracist Alex Jones billions of times. It’s why fake news outperforms real news, because studies show that lies spread faster than truth. And it’s no surprise that the greatest propaganda machine in history has spread the oldest conspiracy theory in history – the lie that Jews are somehow dangerous. As one headline put it, “Just Think What Goebbels Could Have Done with Facebook.”

73
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: November 26, 2019, 05:24:47 PM »
Meanwhile, back in the USA, since the year 2000...
- US consumption of coal has almost halved .
- Natural Gas consumption has increased by about 30%.

BUT in energy terms (monthly consumption in trillions of BTU)
- coal reduced by circa 750,
- natural gas up by about 600.

Natural Gas consumption is also about 160 percent higher than coal. Excluding methane leakage etc, they say natural gas produces about 50% of CO2 per unit of energy compared with coal.

This suggests that in the USA Natural Gas consumption is now more important than coal in terms of CO2 pollution.

74
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 26, 2019, 04:35:17 PM »
Climate?  5th also ran on the issues.  Not much help there then.  Although the UK has reduced direct CO2 emissions by some 40% compared to 1990 levels and has a net 0 target of 2050.
The UK was doing well on reducing CO2 emissions and then....

- onshore wind power banned,
- solar power subsidies scrapped and zero payment for excess energy going back into the grid.

Lots of policy announcements but the Government committee says CO2 emissions reductions are stalling (apart from completing the death of coal).
Fossil fuel subsidies continue - Government determined to keep oil & gas exploration going in the North Sea.

Expect a load more blah blah up to the 2020 Glalgow conference & then....?

75
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 26, 2019, 03:31:18 PM »
Which does not imply "formal recognition of the end of material growth".
Yep.

This cynic believes we will see the end of material growth -

Some seek  the end of material growth.
Some have the end of material growth forced upon them. Ouch.

76
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 26, 2019, 03:27:17 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 25 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,595,019 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,595,019    km2      
-271,107    km2   <   2010's average.
-650,028    km2   <   2018
-793,251    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    107    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    26    k   gain
Central Seas__    69    k   gain
Other Seas___    11    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    0    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    3    k   gain
Greenland____    14    k   gain
Barents ______    10    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____   -2    k   loss
CAA_________    2    k   gain
East Siberian__    19    k   gain
Central Arctic_    10    k   gain
         
Kara_________    17    k   gain
Laptev_______    7    k   gain
Chukchi______    16    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    2    k   gain
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    9    k   gain

Daily gain 107 k, 22 k MORE than the 2010's average of 85 k.

Area gain well above average but less than the previous 3 days - peaked, maybe?.
_______________________________________________
Comments
- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 271 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 650 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,048 km2

2019 area now 3rd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +3.0  to +1.2 celsius over the next 5 days, -  warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, cold on the Atlantic Front.

Winds highly variable in strength and direction.

Will daily gains stay above average? NSIDC daily extent gains up and down like a yo-yo.

Area losses on the Atlantic Front have stopped and reversed. Greenland and Barents Seas gains continuing. Chukchi extent gains continuing.
________________________________________________________________________

77
I seems we probably don't need any extra feedbacks etc etc for global heating to reach uncomfortable levels.

Cross-posted from Paris 2015 thread.
UNEP have issued their 2019 emissions gap report.

Executive Summary - https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EGR19ESEN.pdf
Full Report - https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EGR2019.pdf

Press release - https://newclimate.org/2019/11/26/emissions-gap-report-2019/
Quote
Geneva, 26 November 2019 – unless global greenhouse gas emissions fall by 7.6 per cent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world will miss the opportunity to get on track towards the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

UNEP’s annual Emissions Gap Report says that even if all current unconditional commitments under the Paris Agreement are implemented, temperatures are expected to rise by 3.2°C, bringing even wider-ranging and more destructive climate impacts. Collective ambition must increase more than fivefold over current levels to deliver the cuts needed over the next decade for the 1.5°C goal.

Quote
“For ten years, the Emissions Gap Report has been sounding the alarm – and for ten years, the world has only increased its emissions,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
“There has never been a more important time to listen to the science. Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”[/size]

I think we are well and truly screwed.

78
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 26, 2019, 02:36:34 PM »
UNEP have issued their 2019 emissions gap report.

Executive Summary - https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EGR19ESEN.pdf
Full Report - https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/EGR2019.pdf

Press release - https://newclimate.org/2019/11/26/emissions-gap-report-2019/
Quote
Geneva, 26 November 2019 – unless global greenhouse gas emissions fall by 7.6 per cent each year between 2020 and 2030, the world will miss the opportunity to get on track towards the 1.5°C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement.

UNEP’s annual Emissions Gap Report says that even if all current unconditional commitments under the Paris Agreement are implemented, temperatures are expected to rise by 3.2°C, bringing even wider-ranging and more destructive climate impacts. Collective ambition must increase more than fivefold over current levels to deliver the cuts needed over the next decade for the 1.5°C goal.

Quote
“For ten years, the Emissions Gap Report has been sounding the alarm – and for ten years, the world has only increased its emissions,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
“There has never been a more important time to listen to the science. Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”[/size]

I think we are well and truly screwed.



79
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 26, 2019, 02:21:20 PM »
"Formal recognition of the end of material growth " ... yeah right. And the earth is flat and created by the flying spaghetti monster.
Quote
For ten years, the Emissions Gap Report has been sounding the alarm – and for ten years, the world has only increased its emissions,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. “There has never been a more important time to listen to the science. Failure to heed these warnings and take drastic action to reverse emissions means we will continue to witness deadly and catastrophic heatwaves, storms and pollution.”
https://newclimate.org/2019/11/26/emissions-gap-report-2019/

80
Policy and solutions / Re: Policy and solutions in the Netherlands
« on: November 25, 2019, 03:37:28 PM »
But if the defences against African Swine Fever fail.....

It's in Poland, only 70 km from the German border.
UK pig farmers are holding their breath.

And the world demand for pork (since China had to slaughter most of their pigs) is greater than world supply.

81
Permafrost / Re: Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover / Misc Obs
« on: November 24, 2019, 04:29:17 PM »
Northern Hemisphere Winter 2019-2020 Snowcover is - average.

82
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 24, 2019, 04:01:28 PM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :-   23,566,742  km2(November 23, 2019)

- 2019 is 3rd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 76 k, 49 k more than the last 10 years' average of 26 k,
- Extent loss to date 1.03 million km2, 0.02 million (2%) less than the 10 year average of 1.05 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 1.85 million km2 greater than 2016,
- 11.6 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 83 days to the average minimum date of 13 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

Still extremely / ridiculously early to take this seriously. Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 15.51 million km2, 0.04 million less than the record low in early 2018.
_____________________________________________________________

83
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 24, 2019, 03:35:47 PM »
gerontocrat:
Quote
Extent gain on this day 78 k, 26 k more than the average gain of 104 k
Don't you mean less than?

Thanks Tom, left my brain in the car park today.

84
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 23, 2019, 04:27:55 PM »
This quote is from an article about something completely different, but maybe it applies to the issues discussed in many threads on the ASIF, including this thread......

Quote
Things go along much as before, until – seemingly abruptly, but not really – they don’t. What now for it all? I can’t help thinking of that great bit of Hemingway dialogue from The Sun Also Rises. “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways,” comes the reply. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-sacked

85
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 23, 2019, 04:18:08 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 22 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 8,218,936 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 8,218,936    km2      
-401,240    km2   <   2010's average.
-735,973    km2   <   2018
-1,010,227    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    153    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    37    k   gain
Central Seas__    107    k   gain
Other Seas___    10    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    3    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    17    k   gain
Greenland____    10    k   gain
Barents ______    8    k   gain
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    2    k   gain
CAA_________    5    k   gain
East Siberian__    35    k   gain
Central Arctic_    26    k   gain
         
Kara_________    12    k   gain
Laptev_______    4    k   gain
Chukchi______    24    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______    0    k   gain
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___    9    k   gain

Daily gain 153 k, 82 k MORE than the 2010's average of 71 k.

Area gain extremely above average, and increasing mightily.
_______________________________________________
Comments
- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 401 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 736 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,143 km2

2019 area still 2nd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +2.9  to +1.7 celsius over the next 5 days, - increasing warmth in the Chukchi/Bering Strait, getting colder on the Atlantic Front and the Central Arctic Ocean.
 
Will daily gains stay above average? NSIDC daily extent gains up and down like a yo-yo.

The Chukchi big bite is in a very rapid freeze now the wind has changed and is now only a medium-sized bite. Area area losses on the Atlantic Front have stopped . Greenland and Barents Seas gains accelerating

It seems winds - direction, strong or weak, are still the main short-term influences at the moment.
________________________________________________________________________

86
Policy and solutions / Re: Tesla glory/failure
« on: November 23, 2019, 03:19:37 PM »
So I could potentially maintain my farm , transport, and home energy needs with solar.

How is it there in the future, Bruce? ;)

Quote
Too bad I don’t have that amount of spare change lying around.

In your case, it's a business expense, even lowering the hurdles, no? Is there not a possibility to get it as a tax refundable expense?
This is off-topic, except maybe it shows the massive gulf between Musk's CyberTruck and the real needs required from a truck by small businessmen and farmers such as Bruce Steele.

In the US of A, big farms, especially commercial farms are doing very well. (Note that Bloomberg has said Trump's farming aid (China problem) is going to the big farmers, NOT the small farmers).

The smallest household farms make a loss, and depend on other income sources. I guess Bruce Steele is in the group always wondering if expenses will be greater than income. At the same time, he is trying to farm as carbon-neutral as possible and restore soil fertility.

The attached data suggests that a farmer such as Bruce won't have 70,000 bucks lying around doing nothing for an extra 5k solar array, an extra  powerwall and the low-end cybertruck. This is the real world for the majority of farmers in the US of A. The big boys have got it made.

The UK is the same. Europe probably not as much.
____________________________________________
https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ag-and-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/farming-and-farm-income/
Most farmers receive off-farm income, but small-scale operators depend on it
Median total household income among all farm households ($75,994) exceeded the median for all U.S. households ($61,372) in 2017. Slightly more than half of U.S. farms are very small, with annual farm sales under $10,000; the households operating these farms typically rely on off-farm sources for the majority of their household income. Median household income and income from farming increase with farm size; the typical household operating the largest commercial farms earned $346,218 in 2017, and most of that came from farming.

87
Arctic sea ice / Re: "Stupid" Questions :o
« on: November 23, 2019, 01:57:26 PM »
How i understand it, it depends on the weather in the Arctic, but it increases the likelihood for bad weather and more warm waters from the south reaching the north (which is an effect with delay).
The 2016 El Nino may well have been responsible for unprecedented strong melt and slow refreeze of the Antarctic Sea ice which has not really recovered in the years 2017 to 2019.

I think AbruptSLR has written much about the effects on melting at depth of the Antarctic ice shelves and marine-terminating glaciers.

88
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 23, 2019, 12:26:34 PM »
This quote is from an article about something completely different, but maybe it applies to the issues discussed in many threads on the ASIF, including this thread......

Quote
Things go along much as before, until – seemingly abruptly, but not really – they don’t. What now for it all? I can’t help thinking of that great bit of Hemingway dialogue from The Sun Also Rises. “How did you go bankrupt?” “Two ways,” comes the reply. “Gradually and then suddenly.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/22/prince-andrew-duke-of-york-sacked

89
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2019/2020 freezing season
« on: November 22, 2019, 05:43:56 PM »
Chukchi Freeze

There has been a pretty constant northerly wind on that area for about a week now.

That looks set to change within a few days to south-westerlies. I'm guessing the change in winds will be pretty negatively impactful for the ice thats forming there.


NullSchool has changed its mind ? By the 27th strong winds aimed at the Bering Strait from the Beaufort return?

click gif to play - plays 3 times & stops.

90
Policy and solutions / Re: Electric cars
« on: November 22, 2019, 04:12:14 PM »
Adding more panels in such a case will not  increase you peak generation during the middle of the day but it will make a great deal of difference off peak and in winter.
I had a 20 day stretch in January where my 4.5 kW system produced a total of 14 kWh, less than 1 kWh per day. I would probably need a 100 kW system to cover all of my winter usage.
There's an old rule - the 80-20 rule.

To get 80% of the theoretical benefits requires 20% of the total effort/expense.
To get the last 20% of the theoretical benefits takes 80% of the total effort/expense.
Also the law of diminishing returns applies.

So look at your local situation and just do the bit that makes sense given today's technology / cost and forget the rest.
You can always have another look 3-5 years down the track.

91
Part of the problem may well be that the economic costs of climate change are under-estimated by standard economic analysis.

SkepticalScience put me on the trail to:--

https://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/11/new-report-finds-costs-of-climate-change-impacts-often-underestimated/
and from there to the original report....
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/the-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts/
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/The-missing-economic-risks-in-assessments-of-climate-change-impacts-2.pdf

The missing economic risks in assessments of climate change impacts
Policy publication  20 September, 2019

Quote
In order to make well-informed decisions on climate change action, leaders need to understand clearly the nature and magnitude of the risks to lives and livelihoods that are being created by climate change. Unfortunately, much of the technical advice and recommendations about these risks incorporate assessments of the economic implications that omit or underplay the largest potential impacts of climate change.

This policy insight seeks to identify and draw attention to these missing and under-represented risks. The authors also discuss how populations might fare in light of their potential to adapt in the face of these risks. When the risks are taken into account, the case for strong, deliberate and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions becomes even more compelling.

Summary points
- Economic assessments of the potential future risks of climate change have been omitting or grossly underestimating many of the most serious consequences for lives and livelihoods because these risks are difficult to quantify precisely and lie outside of human experience.

- Political and business leaders need to understand the scale of these ‘missing risks’ because they could have drastic and potentially catastrophic impacts on citizens, communities and companies.

- Scientists are growing in confidence about the evidence for the largest potential impacts of climate change and the rising probability that major thresholds in the Earth’s climate system will be breached as global mean surface temperature rises, particularly if warming exceeds 2°C above the pre-industrial level. These impacts include:

- Destabilisation of ice sheets and glaciers and consequent sea level rise
    Stronger tropical cyclones
    Extreme heat impacts
    More frequent and intense floods and droughts
    Disruptions to oceanic and atmospheric circulation
    Destruction of biodiversity and collapse of ecosystems
Many of these impacts will grow and occur concurrently across the world as global temperature climbs.

- Some of these impacts involve thresholds in the climate system beyond which major impacts accelerate, or become irreversible and unstoppable.

- When a threshold is breached, it might cause one or more other thresholds to be exceeded as well, leading to a cascade of impacts.

- Many of these impacts could exceed the capacity of human populations to adapt, and would significantly affect and disrupt the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people worldwide.
- These impacts would also undermine economic growth and development, exacerbate poverty and destabilise communities.

- Economic assessments fail to take account of the potential for large concurrent impacts across the world that would cause mass migration, displacement and conflict, with huge loss of life.

- Economic assessments that are expressed solely in terms of effects on output (e.g. gross domestic product), or that only extrapolate from past experience, or that use inappropriate discounting, do not provide a clear indication of the potential risks to lives and livelihoods.

- It is likely that there are additional risks that we are not yet anticipating simply because scientists have not yet detected their possibility, as we have entered a period of climate change that is unprecedented in human history.

- Some advances are being made in improving economic assessments of climate change impacts but much more progress is required if assessments are to offer reliable guidance for political and business leaders on the biggest risks.

- The lack of firm quantifications is not a reason to ignore these risks, and when the missing risks are taken into account, the case for strong and urgent action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions becomes even more compelling.

From the Yale Climate Connections article
Quote
Continued economic growth: How reliable?
One problem is that these climate economic models tend to assume that the global economy will continue to grow reliably regardless of the magnitude of climate change. As climate historian Naomi Oreskes and British economist Nicholas Stern recently wrote in the New York Times, the models “approach climate damages as minor perturbations around an underlying path of economic growth, and take little account of the fundamental destruction that we might be facing because it is so outside humanity’s experience.” As Stern and economist Simon Dietz concluded in a 2015 paper, these models have “in‐built assumptions on growth, damage and risk, which together result in gross underassessment of the overall scale of the risks from unmanaged climate change.”

....economic models assuming that the global economy will continue to hum along with only relatively minor climate perturbation will inevitably underestimate the economic impacts of severe climate change. The economy has consistently grown in the past, but that doesn’t mean it must continue to grow rapidly in the future in the face of potentially extreme changes to the climate and widespread societal impacts.

92
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 22, 2019, 12:32:30 PM »
Interesting data Gerontocrat!

Would adding additional columns showing the bolded country's combined CO2 output compared with the combined CO2 output the IEA allows be difficult?

The figures as given are important, but two additional columns might make it clearer for some of us.


BTW I haven't thanked you recently for the charts you have compiled and shared. Is there a website where these could be accessed? I much prefer using data compiled by friends that I trust to information I've picked up in my own ventures out into the wildes of the interweb!


FWIW I think we blew through 1,5 & 2 degrees some time ago.


Stay Healthy - we need you
Terry
The graphs in the above post are not mine - they are straight from the UNEP reports, and I have no access to the data they used.

I am dithering about making a website - its not the making of it, it is the time maintaining it.
e.g. in 40 days time I have to tell my maze of spreadsheets that we are in 2020, and there are lots of little algorithms that manipulate data from a baseline date buried in them.

Then not much later I have to tell my spreadsheets that 2020 is a leap year. Groan.

What I do (when I remember) is take what I like or need of the attachments to ASIF postings (or the posting itself) by downloading them and saving them to my hard disc.

Keep on trucking, Terry.

93
Policy and solutions / Re: Extinction Rebellion
« on: November 21, 2019, 09:28:43 PM »
Perhaps he found the transition from Rising Up to XR a little too restrictive.

With hardcore social reformers, these comments do not engender such criticism

But people who are concerned about climate change are not hardcore social reformers, for the most part, they are just concerned about the future of their progeny.
I don't give a damn about him.

The concern is that an awful lot of people would like to demolish XR and this sort of stuff can be (as they say these days) weaponised.

94
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 21, 2019, 07:41:53 PM »
In contrast, in recent days strong Atlantic southerly winds have caused extent reductions on the Atlantic Front, even pushing back the ice edge into the Central Arctic Sea. The wind pattern now looks somewhat confused.

But here are the graphs to the 20 Nov

95
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 21, 2019, 03:21:59 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 20 November 2019 (5 day trailing average) 7,956,714 km2
                                 
Total Area         
 7,956,714    km2      
-525,778    km2   <   2010's average.
-838,530    km2   <   2018
-1,155,528    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Area Change    74    k   gain
Peripheral Seas    12    k   gain
Central Seas__    56    k   gain
Other Seas___    7    k   gain
         
Peripheral Seas         
Bering _______    2    k   gain
Baffin  Bay____    17    k   gain
Greenland____   -6    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
         
CAB Seas         
Beaufort_____    4    k   gain
CAA_________    10    k   gain
East Siberian__    38    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -10    k   loss
         
Kara_________   -7    k   loss
Laptev_______   -3    k   loss
Chukchi______    24    k   gain
         
Other Seas         
Okhotsk______   -2    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___    9    k   gain

Daily gain 74 k, 7 k MORE than the 2010's average of 67 k.

Area gain a bit above average, and increasing.
_______________________________________________
Comments
- 2019 Area now less than the 2010's average by 526 k.
- 2019 Area is less than 2018 by 839 k
- 2019 is more than 2016 by 1,031 km2

2019 area 2nd lowest in the satellite record.
________________________________________________________________________
Freezing Outlook?

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +3.5  to +2.4 celsius over the next 5 days, - generally strong +ve anomaly over most of the Arctic Ocean, but gradually getting colder.
 
Will daily gains stay below average? NSIDC daily extent gains up and down like a yo-yo.

The Chukchi big bite in a rapid freeze now the wind has changed.
In contrast, area losses on the Atlantic Front (including the Central Arctic Sea) from strong winds from the North Atlantic.
________________________________________________________________________

96
Consequences / Re: Worst consequence of AGW
« on: November 21, 2019, 02:20:11 PM »
Ferrets would not survive in the wild.
They have enough trouble surviving indoors.
Ferrets have trouble surviving in the wild because man has destroyed most of their natural habitat.

Read on:
https://www.cuteness.com/article/natural-habitat-ferret

European Ferret
The European ferret (Mustela putorius) is found throughout Europe as well as in northern and western Asia and northern Africa. These ferrets are found in forests, meadows, parks, villages, farms and barns. In general, they are located anywhere that their food sources can be found. They feed on mice, rats, small mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians.

Black-Footed Ferret
The black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) is found in North America. Black-footed ferrets are highly specialized predators that depend on prairie dogs for both food and shelter.The majority of the black-footed ferret's diet is made up of prairie dogs. The ferrets live in prairie dog towns in underground tunnels.

Topographical Regions
Ferrets live in a variety of habitats, including plains, forests, mountainous regions, deserts, tundra and grasslands.

Dwindling Numbers
Because of the loss of habitat European ferrets have been faced with, the number of ferrets in the wild is dwindling. The black-footed ferret declined almost to extinction at one point and remains threatened. However, they are making a comeback after a population of over 100 ferrets was discovered in Wyoming. The conversion of grasslands to agricultural use and programs that have been put in place to eradicate prairie dogs have reduced the ferret habitat. It is now less than two percent of what it once was.

97
Policy and solutions / Re: UN Climate Agreement - Paris 2015 and beyond
« on: November 21, 2019, 01:59:04 PM »
Going backwards. Of the reports that have come out this year this UNEP report is perhaps the worse.

The contrast between what could be done to reduce Global Heating and what seems will be done to accelerate Global Heating is profound and certainly more than confirmed my most pessimistic thoughts and feelings.

Quote
Governments are planning to produce about 50% more fossil fuels by 2030 than would be consistent with limiting warming to 2°C and 120% more than would be consistent with limiting warming to 1.5°C.

To estimate the production gap, this report puts forward a method analogous to that used in the Emissions Gap Report. It uses publicly available data to estimate the difference between what countries are planning and what would be consistent with 1.5°C and 2°C pathways, based on scenarios from the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C. In aggregate, countries’ planned fossil fuel production by 2030 will lead to the emission of 39 billion tonnes (gigatonnes) of carbon dioxide (GtCO2). That is 13 GtCO2, or 53%, more than would be consistent with a 2°C pathway, and 21 GtCO2 (120%) more than would be consistent with a 1.5°C pathway. This gap widens significantly by 2040.

Many countries appear to be banking on export markets to justify major increases in production (e.g., the United States, Russia, and Canada) while others are seeking to limit or largely end imports through scaled-up production (e.g., India and China). The net result could be significant over-investment, increasing the risk of stranded assets, workers, and communities, as well as locking in a higher emissions trajectory.
Links.........
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/fossil-fuel-production-on-track-for-double-the-safe-climate-limit

UNEP Reports
https://productiongap.org/2019report/
http://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Production-Gap-Report-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf
http://productiongap.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Production-Gap-Report-2019-Executive-Summary.pdf

98
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 21, 2019, 11:50:56 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT :-  23,790,35 km2(November 20, 2019)

- 2019 is 3rd lowest in the satellite record since 1979,
- Extent loss on this day 105 k, 32 k more than the last 10 years' average of 73 k,
- Extent loss to date 0.81 million km2, 0.12 million (13%) less than the 10 year average of 0.93 million km2 by this day.
- Extent is 2.15 million km2 greater than 2016 due to extremely low extent in both the Arctic and Antarctic at this time,
- 10.2 % of the average ice loss of the season done, with on average 86 days to the average minimum date of 13 Feb.

The Perils of Projections

Still extremely / ridiculously early to take this seriously. Average melt from this date would produce a minimum of 15.62 million km2, 0.07 million more  than the record low in early 2018.
_____________________________________________________________

99
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2019 sea ice area and extent data
« on: November 21, 2019, 09:58:43 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT :- 9,408,208 km2(November 20, 2019)

- Extent gain on this day 58 k, 12 k less than the average gain of 70 k,
- Extent gain in this freezing season to date is 5,444 k, 264 k (5.1%) MORE than the average gain to date of 5,180 k.
- Extent is 2nd lowest in the satellite record, below 2016 (1,005 k lower extent), 2012 ( 92 k higher extent), and 2017 ( 12 k higher extent),
- Extent is 565 k less than 2018
- Extent is 144 k (1.5%)  less than the 2010's average,
- on average 52.6 % of extent gain for the the season done, 112 days on average to maximum.

Projections.

Average remaining extent gain in the last 10 years from this date produces a maximum of 14.07 million km2, above the lowest in the satellite record by 0.19 million km2.
____________________________________________________________
Ice Gain Outlook??

Diminishing +ve SST anomalies.
GFS says Arctic temperature anomalies in the range +3.5  to +2.4 celsius over the next 5 days, - generally strong +ve anomaly over most of the Arctic Ocean, but gradually getting colder.
_____________________________________________________________

100
Arctic sea ice / Re: When will the Arctic Go Ice Free?
« on: November 20, 2019, 11:16:27 PM »
And a posting this evening from Abrupt SLR @ https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2205.msg237666.html#msg237666

and I quote the first paragraph:-
Quote
The linked article/reference indicates that the Arctic Ocean could be seasonally ice free between 2044 and 2067, by constraining the relationship between sea ice extent and sea ice albedo feedback (SIAF) and found that: 'The relationship is strengthened when models with unrealistically thin historical ice are excluded.'  Obviously, this stronger relationship projects greater Arctic Amplification and consequently greater values of ECS than previously assumed by consensus climate science:

Title: "Arctic Ocean could be ice-free for part of the year as soon as 2044"

https://phys.org/news/2019-11-arctic-ocean-ice-free-year.html

and another link:- http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/arctic-sea-ice-melting-2044

and an image.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 31