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 5 ... 169
101
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 28 June 2020. Melt very much the same as 3rd to 27th June, i.e. gradual intensification of melt. Melt rose yet again, now at 37.5% of the surface area of Greenland. 
Precipitation a bit higher. The result was an SMB loss of just over 2 GT, which is below average..

102
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 29, 2020, 10:52:50 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,180,076 KM2 as at 28-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 64k, 40 k less than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 104k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,268 k, 353 k, 7.2% more than the 10 year average of 4,914 k.
- Extent is at position #4 in the satellite record
- Extent is  10 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  96 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  103 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 49.4% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 78 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.14 million km2, 0.97 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________
Slow extent losses - even though large parts of the Arctic remain extremely warm. Maybe this is due of lack of winds encouraging compaction, while thinning and reduction of concentration of the ice continues?

103
Perhaps we need a vote.

Zuckerg is scum.  -  Yes or NO.

But hang on, should the order be "No or Yes", or should the question be "Is Zuckerberg Scum" ?

Anyway, voting is so yesterday. So no vote.

104
Policy and solutions / Re: Aviation
« on: June 28, 2020, 09:32:54 PM »
Bloomberg on Twitter: "American Airlines said it would sell flights to capacity starting July 1, abandoning caps on passenger loads designed to promote social distancing”
https://mobile.twitter.com/business/status/1276663297350217728
With good luck their 'planes won't be landing in the UK or Europe any time soon.

With bad luck the people who presume to govern us over here will submit to pressure from the USA.

105
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 28, 2020, 04:37:35 PM »
A look at the Arctic Peripheral Seas analysed in my JAXA extent format

A significant change from being #1 early in the melt season to this day at #9.

NSIDC PERIPHERAL ARCTIC SEAS - ICE AREA:  1,196,081 KM2 as at 27-Jun-2020

- Area loss on this day 38k, 6 k less than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 44k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 3,555 k, 211 k, 6.2% more than the 10 year average of 3,344 k.
- Extent is at position #9 in the satellite record
- Extent is  96 k MORE than 2019
- Extent is  151 k MORE than 2016
______________________________-
On average 76.9% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 73 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)
Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 0.19 million km2, 0.11 million km2 above the 2018 minimum of 0.08 million km2.
________________________________________________________

106
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 28, 2020, 03:45:13 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 27-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,379,692 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,379,692    km2      
-255,137    km2   <   2010's average.
 52,691    km2   >   2019
-906,998    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -124    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -38    k   loss
Central Seas___   -86    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -0    k   loss
Bering _______    0    k   gain
Hudson Bay___   -23    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -11    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Greenland____   -2    k   loss
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -6    k   loss
Beaufort_____   -4    k   loss
CAA_________   -1    k   loss
East Siberian__   -12    k   loss
Central Arctic_   -29    k   loss
Laptev_______   -25    k   loss
Kara_________   -8    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 124 k, 15 k more than the 2010's average loss of 109 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #5 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 255 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 907 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 22 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 53 k more than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 213 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
The really below average area losses in the peripheral seas remain - despite the warmth & oftimes real heat  in and around Hudson Bay & The Greenland Sea. Aluminium's gifs seem to show most times sea ice is still being pushed into the Greenland sea from the CAB, offsetting warmth from the south melting the ice .

Even if a bit late, Hudson Bay will completely melt out. The Greenland Sea final result will depend on the strength of ice import.

107
"skepticalscience" has spotted an article describing how Facebook seems to have joined the Climate Science Denial Business

Zuckerberg is scum. Fact or opinion?

https://www.skepticalscience.com/2020-SkS-Weekly-News-Roundup_26.html
Facebook creates fact-checking exemption for climate deniers
Facebook is "aiding and abetting the spread of climate misinformation,” said Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Drexel University.

& here is the link to the full article..
https://heated.world/p/facebook-creates-fact-checking-exemption
Facebook creates fact-checking exemption for climate deniers
Quote
Facebook is "aiding and abetting the spread of climate misinformation,” said Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist at Drexel University. “They have become the vehicle for climate misinformation, and thus should be held partially responsible for a lack of action on climate change.”

Brulle was reacting to Facebook's recent decision, made at the request of climate science deniers, to create a giant loophole in its fact-checking program. Last year, Facebook partnered with an organization, Science Feedback, that would bring in teams of Ph.D. climate scientists to evaluate the accuracy of viral content. It was an important expansion of the company's third-party fact-checking program.

But now Facebook has reportedly decided to allow its staffers to overrule the climate scientists and make any climate disinformation ineligible for fact-checking by deeming it "opinion."

The organization that requested the change, the CO2 Coalition, is celebrating, E&E news reported on Monday. The group, which has close ties to the fossil fuel industry, says its views on climate change are increasingly ignored by the mainstream media. Now it plans to use Facebook to aggressively push climate misinformation on the public—without having to worry about fact checks from climate scientists.

How it all started
A column published in the Washington Examiner in August 2019 claimed that "climate models" were a "failure" that predicted exponentially more warming of the earth than has occurred. The piece, co-authored by notorious climate science denier Pat Michaels, was quickly shared more than 2,000 times on Facebook.

There was just one issue: It wasn't true.

This is exactly the kind of mess that Facebook's network of independent fact-checkers is supposed to solve. In May 2019, Facebook partnered with Science Feedback, a site dedicated to explaining "why information is or is not consistent with the science." Science Feedback's process is extremely rigorous. Each piece has multiple reviewers, and each reviewer "holds a Ph.D. and has recently published articles in top-tier peer-reviewed science journals."

Five scientists reviewed the Washington Examiner article for Science Feedback. The scientists identified a number of problems with the piece: "false factual assertions, cherry-picking datasets that support their point, failing to account for uncertainties in those datasets, and failing to assess the performance of climate models in an objective and rigorous manner." The article was rated "false" by Science Feedback and logged in Facebook's system.

That should have been the end of the story. The Washington Examiner article should have had a warning overlaid each time it was shared on Facebook, and its distribution on Facebook should have been dramatically reduced.

But that's not what happened.

Instead, an organization affiliated with Michaels, the CO2 Coalition, wrote Zuckerberg and complained about Science Feedback's rating. Among other things, the coalition claims that Science Feedback's analysis amounted to "simple differences of opinion." The coalition asked Zuckerberg to "remove Facebook’s censorship, labeling, and restrictions on this article."

Amazingly, it worked. In September, Facebook removed the false rating, overruling the judgment of Science Feedback. According to the Wall Street Journal, Facebook found that the misinformation about climate models was an "opinion" and, therefore, not eligible for fact-checking.

Now, the CO2 Coalition has announced its intention to exploit this loophole to spread climate misinformation on Facebook.

108
The forum / Re: Forum Decorum
« on: June 28, 2020, 08:18:15 AM »
There are several sea ice scientists who follow this forum. Many of them have user names and have been contributors in the past.

However, when the political section became so big, it made it very difficult for them to post here. A-Team complained about that and got the political posts hidden from the main page.

Even with the political section hidden from the main page, it would be potentially damaging to a scientist to post here for fear of being associated with political radicals.  That might be why they have all stopped contributing.

In the past, we have discussed making two forums: one for the political activists and one for the sea ice science.  Neven was not in favor of it because he had to deal with the whole thing.

Now we have three very good moderators to help him out.  Can we revisit the issue of moving the political threads to a different website and keep the sea ice science separate?

I think that might help bring back some people who care about the science, but don’t want to get bogged down in, or associated with, the political discussions.

I’m not saying that the political threads are not important. I’m simply suggesting that it makes sense to separate them from the science threads by putting them on a different forum.

I will probably get a lot of hate for this suggestion, but I come here to learn about the science, and a lot of the science minded people seem to have left because of the political debate.
Trouble is that we seem to have reached "The Last Chance Saloon" to prevent high further Global heating. So the science is now very political.

So where does this recent post by me on "Climate Change Acceptance & Action" belong - science or politics?

A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‘climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways
Quote
The Paris Agreement establishes an international covenant to reduce emissions in line with holding the increase in temperature to ‘well below 2°C … and to pursue … 1.5°C.’ Global modelling studies have repeatedly concluded that such commitments can be delivered through technocratic adjustments to contemporary society, principally price mechanisms driving technical change. However, as emissions have continued to rise, so these models have come to increasingly rely on the extensive deployment of highly speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209?scroll=top&needAccess=true

and then there is this one....
UK Export Finance set to back Total's $20 bln Mozambique LNG project
Quote
JOHANNESBURG/LONDON (Reuters) - Britain’s export credit agency UK Export Finance (UKEF) is set to back a $20 billion liquefied natural gas (LNG) project in Mozambique, a source with direct knowledge of the matter told Reuters on Friday.

UKEF listed the project, led by French energy major Total, as under consideration for financing last August. A decision to contribute will draw criticism from campaigners who have opposed such a move. The source said UKEF was planning to commit funding probably to the tune of around $800 million to the project, which is among several being developed in Mozambique’s north after one of the biggest gas finds in a decade off its coast.
https://af.reuters.com/article/africaTech/idAFKBN23Y0AT-OZABS

With the US Presidential election looming, how can a forum on climate science ignore the prospect of 4 more years of Trump?
With the UK due to host the COP meeting next year, scientists will be dragged kicking & screaming into the political arena whether they like it or not.

One thing that could be done is much more fencing off of the Political threads. e.g. can the forum software stop all political threads , including new ones, appearing in "unread posts"?

109
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 27 June 2020. Melt very much the same as 3rd to 26th June, i.e. gradual intensification of melt. Melt rose yet again, now at 37.2% of the surface area of Greenland. 
Precipitation for a second time was low. The result was an SMB loss of just over 4 GT, which is above average..

Temperatures seem, if anything, rising for the next few days, with real heat in the long afternoons. Most precipitation is forecast to be confined to the SE quadrant of Greenland, and continuing somewhat lower than in recent weeks.

 i.e. There may be some SMB gains in that SE quadrant and perhaps even greater significant losses in all the rest of the coastal regions.

Will Greenland get dryer for the rest of the melt season? They tell us that dry sunny days are the no. #1 snow & ice killer on the land surface during the brief summer to mid-August.
_______________________________________

110
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 28, 2020, 12:14:04 AM »
Any of our US members living / working close to a railway line (or travel to work by train)?

https://www.ecori.org/renewable-energy/2020/6/26/lng-train-shipping-approved
Feds Green Light Use of Trains to Transport LNG
Quote
President Trump has followed through on his pledge to allow trains to transport liquefied natural gas (LNG), a decision opposed by environmental groups and 15 states, including Rhode Island and Massachusetts.

The U.S. Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) issued the final rule June 19. The regulation takes effect 30 days later.

Prior to the agency’s final decision, objections were raised via online comments from across the country. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said the rule was illegal because it lacked required environmental and safety reviews.

“This proposed rule is rushed and ill-advised, and, if finalized, will pose a serious risk to public health and safety — not just in my state but nationwide,” Inslee said.

Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.......

......Others noted the health risks from a leak or fire, especially in densely populated urban areas. They accused PHMSA of rushing approval to benefit the domestic fracking industry.

“We must not be used as guinea pigs by this untested and high-consequence rush to grease the rails for special interests,” wrote Tamar Dick of Bethlehem, Pa.

Dick noted that LNG volume expands significantly when released in the air and is “capable of a far-reaching catastrophe, including a fire too hot to extinguish.”

PHMSA argued in its decision that the rule change was necessary to address regional inadequacies in natural-gas pipeline infrastructure. The federal agency said more natural gas is needed to satisfy growing domestic and international markets.

Train transportation, the agency maintained, is less risky than shipping by highway. LNG is similar to other flammable, cryogenic liquids currently transported by rail. The rule requires the use of an existing class of tank cars, called DOT-113, that is refrigerated and protected with a double-pressure vessel design.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), however, has refuted some of PHMSA’s claims, saying a thorough safety assessment of the DOT-113 tank cars is needed because the colorless, odorless gas is easily ignitable and hard to detect.

“Specifically, an analysis should address fireballs, flash fire, and explosions from ground-level vapor clouds that may expand far beyond the point of release to an ignition source,” according to a letter signed by Robert L. Sumwalt III, chairman of the NTSB.

The NTSB also noted that many more LNG tank cars will be traveling by rail than projected by PHMSA. Without added safety equipment and testing certifications, there isn’t enough data proving LNG can be transported safely, according to the safety board. The NTSB said lower train speed limits should be mandated in high-risk urban areas, special braking is needed, and training required to detect leaks and gas accumulations.

“We believe the risks of catastrophic LNG releases in accidents is too great not to have operational controls in place before large blocks of tank cars and unit trains proliferate,” Sumwalt said.

Sumwalt noted that derailments of DOT-113 tank cars, although rare, can release larger quantities of hazardous material than a truck accident, and that federal regulators have a poor track record of responding to “fiery flammable-liquids accidents.”

The Pennsylvania Independent Oil & Gas Association argued that the refrigerated rail cars have been proven safe to transport flammable cryogenic liquids such as ethylene and hydrogen. Increasing transportation options, the trade group argued, would allow natural-gas producers to make more money selling the fossil fuel around the world.

In a 43-page letter sent earlier this year, attorneys general from 15 states called for safety studies and a full environmental impact report. They noted that LNG would travel through densely populated areas in trains of up to 100 tank cars, on the same rail line used by high-speed passenger trains.

The “finding of no significant impact” by PHMSA, according to the letter, is fundamentally flawed and failed to consider the expected greenhouse-gas emissions attributable to the extraction and use of natural gas and the potential harm to public safety and the environment from accidental releases of LNG.

The letter explained that, in the event of a spill, vaporization creates an extremely cold, gaseous vapor cloud that can embrittle steel, cause severe burns, damage infrastructure, and further complicate an emergency response.

The Surfrider Foundation has pointed to a government study that put the hazard range of such a vapor cloud at more than 1.5 miles.


Under the new rule, there are no limits placed on where LNG trains can travel. Instead, the rail companies must evaluate 27 safety and security risk factors when considering potential routes.

111
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 27, 2020, 11:16:43 PM »
But from Russia.... not the best of news

https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/06/investor-breathes-new-life-major-arctic-coal-project
Investor breathes new life in major Arctic coal project
Roman Trotsenko is the new owner of the coal extraction licenses in the far northern Taymyr Peninsula.

Quote
Trotsenko on the 18th June formalized the acquisition of 75 percent of shares in the Arctic Mining Company and intends to forge ahead with big plans for coal production on the tundra.

The businessman, one of Russia’s richest, plans to invest 33 billion rubles in the project, Forbes informs.

Troubled project
The Arctic Mining Company was formerly owned by Dmitry Bosov, the businessman that in early May this year reportedly took his own life. Bosov and his investment company Alltech had great plans for the project and originally intended to extract several hundred million tons of high-quality coal from his many license areas in Taymyr.

However, progress was seriously hampered by a law suit from Russian environmental control authorities and lack of funds, and in early 2020 Bosov announced that he was abandoning the project.

By that time, construction workers had been in the remote and vulnerable lands since 2016 to prepare for project launch. Reportedly, $86 million had been spent on developments.

Several million tons
According to Forbes, the business deal is based on a swop of assets where Trotsenko gets the Taymyr coal licenses and Alltech takes over full control over the Pechora LNG project.

Revised plans for the coal project includes a 1 million tons production in year 2023 and five million tons by 2025. About 13 billion rubles ($167 million) are to be invested in regional exploration and infrastructure development while 20 billion is to be spent on the coal pits. Trotsenko himself intends to cover about 30 percent of the investments, while the remaining sums will be based on bank credits........
.......
Russia goes for coal
Demands for coals are in steep decline in Europe and other parts of the world, but Russia still envisions a significant growth in its own production.

A new state program for coal development until year 2035 includes an increase in domestic output by up to 50 percent.

According to the program, up to 668 million tons of coal can be extracted by 2035, of which up to 392 million tons can be exported.

China and India are seen as key markets for the carbon-rich black rocks.

112
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 27, 2020, 09:07:50 PM »
I've forgotten who is the judge & what are the specific criteria for announcing "The Arch is Kaput, it is no more!!"

& another image  from http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/image_container.php - but DMI does not time stamp them.

113
3 climate scientists have just published a paper in which they say consensus science has bottled it.

A factor of two: how the mitigation plans of ‘climate progressive’ nations fall far short of Paris-compliant pathways
Quote
ABSTRACT
The Paris Agreement establishes an international covenant to reduce emissions in line with holding the increase in temperature to ‘well below 2°C … and to pursue … 1.5°C.’ Global modelling studies have repeatedly concluded that such commitments can be delivered through technocratic adjustments to contemporary society, principally price mechanisms driving technical change. However, as emissions have continued to rise, so these models have come to increasingly rely on the extensive deployment of highly speculative negative emissions technologies (NETs). Moreover, in determining the mitigation challenges for industrialized nations, scant regard is paid to the language and spirit of equity enshrined in the Paris Agreement. If, instead, the mitigation agenda of ‘developed country Parties’ is determined without reliance on planetary scale NETs and with genuine regard for equity and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’, the necessary rates of mitigation increase markedly. This is evident even when considering the UK and Sweden, two nations at the forefront of developing ‘progressive’ climate change legislation and with clear emissions pathways and/or quantitative carbon budgets. In both cases, the carbon budgets underpinning mitigation policy are halved, the immediate mitigation rate is increased to over 10% per annum, and the time to deliver a fully decarbonized energy system is brought forward to 2035-40. Such a challenging mitigation agenda implies profound changes to many facets of industrialized economies. This conclusion is not drawn from political ideology, but rather is a direct consequence of the international community’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and the small and rapidly dwindling global carbon budget.

Key Policy Insights

Without a belief in the successful deployment of planetary scale negative emissions technologies, double-digit annual mitigation rates are required of developed countries, from 2020, if they are to align their policies with the Paris Agreement’s temperature commitments and principles of equity.

Paris-compliant carbon budgets for developed countries imply full decarbonization of energy by 2035-40, necessitating a scale of change in physical infrastructure reminiscent of the post-Second World War Marshall Plan. This brings issues of values, measures of prosperity and socio-economic inequality to the fore.

The stringency of Paris-compliant pathways severely limits the opportunity for inter-sectoral emissions trading. Consequently aviation, as with all sectors, will need to identify policies to reduce emissions to zero, directly or through the use of zero carbon fuels.

The UK and Swedish governments’ emissions pathways imply a carbon budget of at least a factor of two greater than their fair contribution to delivering on the Paris Agreement’s 1.5-2°C commitment.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14693062.2020.1728209?scroll=top&needAccess=true

And here are extracts from a Guardian article that is even more forthright. One conclusion seems to be "it's the rich wot gets the pleasure, its the poor wot gets the blame".

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record
Government climate advisers running scared of change, says leading scientist
Rapid transformation needed, Kevin Anderson says, particularly in lifestyles of rich

Quote
“Academics have done an excellent job in understanding and communicating climate science, but the same cannot be said in relation to reducing emissions,” said Anderson. “Here we have collectively denied the necessary scale of mitigation, running scared of calling for fundamental changes to both our energy system and the lifestyles of high-energy users. Our paper brings this failure into sharp focus.”

Shortly after the study was published, Anderson posted a warning on Twitter about what he described as a cosy consensus between senior academics, journalists and government scientists, who were unwilling to publicly acknowledge the urgent system-level transformation required to tackle the climate crisis.

He said: “Many senior academics, senior policymakers, basically the great and good of the climate world have decided that it is unhelpful to rock the status quo boat and therefore choose to work within that political paradigm – they’ll push it as hard as they think it can go, but they repeatedly step back from questioning the paradigm itself.”

Anderson said too many models for tackling climate change relied on “unproven technologies far in the future”, such as carbon capture and storage. “Perhaps we’ll be lucky and they will work at huge planetary scale – but it’s one hell of a gamble.”

He said the models also ignored the fact that it was the lifestyles of a relatively wealthy few that gave rise to the lion’s share of emissions.

“Globally the wealthiest 10% are responsible for half of all emissions, the wealthiest 20% for 70% of emissions. If regulations forced the top 10% to cut their emissions to the level of the average EU citizen, and the other 90% made no change in their lifestyles, that would still cut total emissions by a third.

“If we were serious about this crisis we could do this in a year – if we were really serious we could do it in a month, but we are not and our emissions just keep rising.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jun/26/leading-scientist-criticises-uk-over-its-climate-record

114
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 27, 2020, 03:16:55 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 26-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,503,961 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,503,961    km2      
-240,057    km2   <   2010's average.
 35,983    km2   >   2019
-877,663    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -109    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -45    k   loss
Central Seas___   -64    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -1    k   loss
Bering _______   -0    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -27    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -10    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Greenland____   -7    k   loss
Barents ______   -1    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -5    k   loss
Beaufort_____    1    k   gain
CAA_________    1    k   gain
East Siberian__    2    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -26    k   loss
Laptev_______   -16    k   loss
Kara_________   -22    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 109 k, 8 k more than the 2010's average loss of 101 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #5 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 240 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 878 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 74 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 36 k more than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 238 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
Area loss only just over the average area loss- these few days to mid-July are the peak of sea ice area losses at around 100k per day

115
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 27, 2020, 02:15:16 PM »
Quote
but the biggest assumption of all is that SARS-CoV-2 suddenly popped up in November 2019 on a wet market in Wuhan


The origins of the virus are irrelevant to fight it. The origins of the virus may be the biggest assumption from the perspective of mass media or historians, but from an epidemiology and healthcare perspective, the origins are barely relevant. ( except to the super detailed expert developing cures and understanding based on genetics and other specific markers.)
And of somewhat more immediate concern is what is happening now..

World & the USA both at record levels of new cases (using 7 day trailing average for a clearer view). But both the World and USA deaths data not yet showing the sort of increase to be expected very soon. (graphs attached)

The UK graph is also attached, which given the recent UK news reports on mass abandonment of social distancing, suggests the UK is more likely to join the USA & World trends.

I also attach the Italy graph to show where we would like to be by now.

116
As at 26 June 2020,

- The NASDAQ Composite Index is 22% higher than a year ago,

- The S & P 500 Index is 2.3% higher than a year ago,

- The DJ 30 index is still 6% lower than a year ago.

The 30 stocks which make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average are:
3M, American Express, Apple, Boeing, Caterpillar, Chevron, Cisco, Coca-Cola, Disney, Dow, ExxonMobil, Goldman Sachs, Home Depot, IBM, Intel, Johnson & Johnson, JP Morgan Chase, McDonald’s, Merck, Microsoft, Nike, Pfizer, Procter & Gamble, Travelers, Raytheon Technologies, Unitedhealth, Verizon, Visa, Walgreens, and Walmart.

I am sure there is a lesson in there somewhere.

117
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: June 27, 2020, 01:37:20 PM »
He will run. Such narcissists are rarely aware when their situation is worsening (if indeed it is).
Spoiler. If Trump can ignore reality then so can I, at least on this thread.

118
The politics / Re: The Trump Presidency
« on: June 27, 2020, 01:25:08 PM »
I don't think Biden will be running against Trump. It looks like Trump has given up. Joe Scarborough had a good theory this morning, that Trump doesn't really want a second term. That's why he's preaching to his hard core supporters. If they stay with him, he'll have a lot of customers for his new TV station that he can make money with. And I think he could be right. Trump doesn't really want this this job anymore. He never wanted it in the first place, so I think Joe is right; Trump will soon resign, because he hates losing, and the way it looks right now, he'll get his ass kicked badly.

Take with that the SARS2 catastrophe that's happening now, with a wrecked economy and no end in sight for the virus, I think people will start to begin to ask for his resignation.

So shall we place a bet? Will Trump run? Run for president, or run away from his responsibility? I say he will be forced to resign soon. If not resign, then he'll lose badly and blame it on a rigged election. He already started doing that, so... Biden vs Pence?
Why resign ?  it's all over on the 20th Jan 2021 anyway.

The Twentieth Amendment (Amendment XX) to the United States Constitution moved the beginning and ending of the terms of the president and vice president from March 4 to January 20, and of members of Congress from March 4 to January 3.

Why try for another 4 years?
There are a number of court cases out there - some carrying potential time in The Big House - with a statute of limitations ending after Jan 2021 and before Jan 2025. But a man who thinks he's invincible might ignore that.

So, maybe Trump will just not run for a 2nd term. After all, "The Best President That The USA Has Ever Had" might want to leave at the top. And how to do that? Wait until the last moment before announcing he is not a candidate for President. Blame the GOP for being a bunch of girlies for not supporting him, and even betraying him. And how can even the heroic magisterial Trump win with the voting system rigged against him by The Dark State aided and abetted by Fake News leftie antifa commies? That would satisfy his destructive instincts and his need, craving, lust for bigly headlines.

I must admit that scenario would be super duper. Shall I write to him and ask to be his script writer?

119
Very early in the year, and we are about 100 GT below the average.  Is this the year we end up with a negative for SMB?
Below the average, yes, but above last year. I think it can only happen if precipitation in the next two months is well below average - i.e. sunny days & dry. See below....
________________________________________________
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 26 June 2020. Melt very much the same as 3rd to 25th June, i.e. gradual intensification of melt. Melt rose yet again, now at 36.4% of the surface area of Greenland. 
Precipitation for once was low. The result was an SMB loss of nearly 3.6 GT, which is above average..

Temperatures seem, if anything, rising for the next few days, with real heat in the long afternoons. Most precipitation forecast to be confined to the SE quadrant of Greenland, and somewhat lower than in recent weeks.

 i.e. There may be some SMB gains in that SE quadrant and perhaps significant losses in all the rest of the coastal regions.

Will Greenland get dryer for the rest of the melt season?
_______________________________________

120
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 27, 2020, 10:34:33 AM »
2 day gif of Kennedy and Kane Basin.
I say, Niall, what a super gif. Please, pretty please,  add some more as the days go by. Will make a super demo of what the break-up of the arch means.

121
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 27, 2020, 09:56:05 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,291,764 KM2 as at 26-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 56k, 24 k less than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 80k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,156 k, 436 k, 9.2% more than the 10 year average of 4,720 k.
- Extent is at position #3 in the satellite record
- Extent is  150 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  89 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  97 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 47.4% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 80 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.06 million km2, 0.88 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________

122
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:23:13 PM »
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/image_container.php


Falling to bits all over the place.

123
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:07:15 PM »
Is it just me or has it been sweltering in the CAA?? I hate to rely on models so much, however the temperatures as indicated on windy.com have had several of the larger islands in the 50-60f range. I can't say I doubt it that much given the blue hue of the ice, but this entire season is just so strange and lot like the others in my opinion.
If you look at my recent postings on the Greenland SMB & Melting thread, you will see that the CAA / NE Canada / Northern Greenland region has been warm to stinky-poo hot in the last week or two, and looks like staying the same for some time.

124
Policy and solutions / Re: Renewable Energy
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:33:08 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data.

US Solar + wind energy continue to grow - and I haven't the heart to put it in context against fossil fuels.

125
Policy and solutions / Re: Coal
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:29:21 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA
did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data, Coal continues its steep decline, and is actually steeper than the 12 month average graph shows.

126
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 26, 2020, 10:25:10 PM »
https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/

The USA IEA
did its monthly update yesterday, but still very much pre-covid19 and early covid19 data, apart from some petroleum (oil) data that is up to May.
The first graph shows monthly totals of the major fossil fuels analysed by heat content. NB. these are simple monthly totals, NOT 12 month trailing averages. For me the main points are..
- Natural Gas consumption in March did fall, but very much in the normal seasonal pattern,
- Petroleum products supplied dropped sharply in April, but with a partial recovery in May.
- Coal was king, and is now the beggar at the feast. We may hope that one result of covid is its accelerated decline.

The second graph is USA Primary energy consumption by source - the 12 month trailing average. Oil & Gas rule the roost. Crowing about coal plants shutting needs to be put into perspective.

127
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 07:00:46 PM »
4 NSIDC Area Graphs

The CAA did hit the dogleg, but at an area between 75 & 100k less than "normal". When will area loss resume - still very warm to hot in the region.

Russian Shore ...
The Kara Sea continues to shed sea ice area at a high rate. The Eastern end where ice remains is still warm while the Western end, where ice is gone, looks cool.

The Laptev Sea ice area flirts with #1 & #2 position, currently #1. It looks really hot there.

The ESS sea ice area has stalled & gone into reverse. One more day's increase and 1990 becomes the year at #1.
It looks COLD in far Eastern Siberia.


128
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 03:24:21 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 25-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,613,043 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,613,043    km2      
-231,871    km2   <   2010's average.
 25,998    km2   >   2019
-868,707    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -61    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -52    k   loss
Central Seas___   -9    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______    1    k   gain
Bering _______   -1    k   loss
Hudson Bay___   -26    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -13    k   loss
St Lawrence___    0    k   gain
Greenland____   -11    k   loss
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______   -4    k   loss
Beaufort_____    16    k   gain
CAA_________    4    k   gain
East Siberian__    12    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -17    k   loss
Laptev_______   -5    k   loss
Kara_________   -15    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 61 k, 38 k less than the 2010's average loss of 99 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #6 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 232 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 869 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 95 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 26 k more than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 231 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         

129
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:44:54 AM »
World data continues to climb - daily new cases & daily deaths (though as yet the daily deaths graph rises much more slowly than daily new cases ).

A daily new case rate of between 150 & 160k a week puts the monthly rate at between 4.5 & 4.8 million a month.

The data comes from https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ - they are revising the data - usually in an upward direction which is a pain to keep up with.

130
Which would deserve a headline, or even a note?
  • Snow Melts Rapidly in Northern Hemisphere Summer
  • For Months, Now, Northern Hemisphere Snow Extent and Volume Remain Above Average
Or, you could say ...
"the snow year has been a demonstration of what the climate models predict."
Or you could say ...
"development of the new ice sheet in the far North of Canada has been delayed for yet another year."

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

The snow in the far North of Canada continues to vanish. The slope of decline reduces as the available snow declines in thickness and extent- The Gompertz curve kicks in. This I presume will reduce the snowmelt run-ff into the channels of the CAA.

The strongest +ve temperature anomalies are still where not so long ago the strongest -ve temperature anomalies were, i.e. Central Canada & the CAA, and looks set to remain high. As the snow cover disappears I guess the albedo on land will greatly reduce , the land will dry out, and therefore heat up quickly.

131
Greenland and Arctic Circle / Re: The Nares Strait thread
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:56:18 AM »
A little gif - things are changing in Kane ( http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/kane.uk.php )

A lot of snowmelt runoff from Greenland.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,2899.msg270526.html#new

132
Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 25 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 24th June,

except that melt rose yet again, now at 35.8% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation stayed not as strong. The result was an SMB loss of nearly 3 GT, which is close to and a bit above average..

Precipitation and temperatures seem to indicate more of the same for the next few days, with most precipitation on the  eastern half of Greenland, i.e. most SMB loss in the Western coastal region and also the far north.

But each day the melt gets stronger, and the temperature anomalies remain strongly +ve, especially in the north on both sides of the Nares strait. How the arch in the strait has survived given the strong meltwater runoff and warmth I do not know. Perhaps it will just dissolve in situ?

- it is this persistence in combined high melt and precipitation that is interesting -  has a pattern of higher-energy weather set in? (AGW + Polar amplification?)
_______________________________________-
ps For those with less than perfect eyesight - e.g. me, click on the images for a clearer view.

133
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 09:02:14 AM »
Just a reminder why predictions are a mug's game when it comes to Global Sea Ice...

134
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:58:59 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT:  23,450,202 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

An above average daily Arctic sea ice extent loss + a below average daily Antarctic sea ice gain = a Global Sea Ice extent loss for a second day.

- Extent gain LOSS on this day 39k, 55 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 16k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 6.73 million km2, 0.79 million km2, 10.5% less than the 10 year average gain of 7.52 million km2.
- Extent is at position #5 in the satellite record
- 2020 Extent is  0.70 million km2 MORE than 2019,

On average 82.3% of sea ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 132 days to maximum

Projections of the Unknown Quantity. (Table JAXA-AA1)

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2020 of 25.07 million km2, 1.31 million km2 above the 2016 record low maximum of 23.76 million km2.
However, before that there is also the false maximum rapidly approaching in late June – i.e. NOW, or early July, followed by the false minimum in August/September before the “maximum maximum” for the year.


135
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:43:21 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  14,102,139 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

- Extent gain on this day 50k, -39 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 89k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 11.34 million km2, 0.20 million km2, (1.8%) less than the 10 year average of 11.55 million km2.
- Extent is at position #14 in the satellite record of which 8 lower values are in the years before 2000
- Extent is  63 k LESS than 2016
- Extent is  809 k MORE than 2017
- Extent is  256 k MORE than 2018
- Extent is  857 k MORE than 2019
- Extent is  40 k LESS than the 1980's Average

- On average 72.3% of ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 87 days to maximum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining freeze (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in Sept 2020 of 18.53 million km2, 0.47 million km2 above the 2017 record low maximum of 18.06 million km2.
___________________________________________________________

136
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:26:55 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,348,063 KM2 as at 25-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 89k, 16 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 73k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,100 k, 460 k, 9.9% more than the 10 year average of 4,640 k.
- Extent is at position #2 in the satellite record
- Extent is  -156 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  97 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  146 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 46.6% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 81 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.04 million km2, 0.86 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________

137
Arctic sea ice / Re: The 2020 melting season
« on: June 25, 2020, 07:59:51 PM »
....Yet what's far more concerning for me is the record-breaking regional changes, especially the recent onslaught of ice in the CAA. From my perspective, the snow and sea ice there serve as a mitigating factor to WAA over the thick MYI that builds up against the north CAA and Greenland. Losing the CAA ice early in the season seems like it would make the thick MYI much more vulnerable late in the season, as well as creating open water that does not normally occur in this area during peak insolation (impacting the following freezing season).

I'm curious to hear what the veterans have to say on this. I've been lurking since 2015, but don't have a very longitudinal perspective on this, only started to become familiar with most of this content in the past couple years.
I am also not a veteran (on this forum)- so instead I put into the search facility "garlic press". If the CAA melts out early, and the winds / currents do their stuff, thick ice from the Cntral Arctic will be squeezed into the multiple open & warm water channels of the CAA - i.e. the CAA becomes "The Garlic Press".

Here is a posting from A-Team back in 2016, that shows this effect lasting well into October.

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1457.msg91963.html#msg91963

I also attach the lovely gif he made. Perhaps 2020 will mimic 2016?

138
Glaciers / Re: Alpine Glaciers
« on: June 25, 2020, 05:39:45 PM »
Hot off the Press.... read all about it.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16818-0?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news#Abs1

Rapid glacier retreat and downwasting throughout the European Alps in the early 21st century
Quote
Abstract
Mountain glaciers are known to be strongly affected by global climate change. Here we compute temporally consistent changes in glacier area, surface elevation and ice mass over the entire European Alps between 2000 and 2014. We apply remote sensing techniques on an extensive database of optical and radar imagery covering 93% of the total Alpine glacier volume. Our results reveal rapid glacier retreat across the Alps (−39 km² a−1) with regionally variable ice thickness changes (−0.5 to −0.9 m a−1). The strongest downwasting is observed in the Swiss Glarus and Lepontine Alps with specific mass change rates up to −1.03 m.w.e. a−1. For the entire Alps a mass loss of 1.3 ± 0.2 Gt a−1 (2000–2014) is estimated. Compared to previous studies, our estimated mass changes are similar for the central Alps, but less negative for the lower mountain ranges. These observations provide important information for future research on various socio-economic impacts like water resource management, risk assessments and tourism.

Introduction
Substantial retreat and downwasting of mountain glaciers due to global warming have been observed worldwide1. In the European Alps, glaciers have been retreating since the Little Ice Age (~1850)2,3,4 and future ice volumes are predicted to be largely reduced5,6,7. During previous decades, accelerated glacier shrinkage has been reported8,9,10. Mass-change rates were close to −1 m.w.e. a−1 during the first 5 years of the 21st century11. The ongoing reduction of glacier volume raises challenges for water supply during dry periods, civil security, and tourism12.

Mountain regions are frequently described as “water towers”13. Seasonal shifts in glacier meltwater discharge can have widespread impact on runoff during dry periods14,15,16. In the Alps, meltwater contributes to late-summer runoff when seasonal snow cover is minimal17. During 1908–2008 glacier discharge contributed ~20% to August runoff of the Rhone and Po rivers17. However, maximum runoff from glacier long-term storage (“peak water”) has already been or will be reached in the coming decades14.

On a regional scale, changes in seasonal runoff affect the production of renewable energy in Alpine countries and require adaptive strategies for hydropower18. As another important economy, summer tourism partly relies on the scenery of the glacierized Alpine landscape. Shrinking glaciers affect tourism by changing the shape of the landscape and frequency of natural hazards19......

Results
Alpine-wide glacier shrinkage and downwasting

Highly negative mean elevation changes (< −0.6 m a−1, Fig. 1a) are recorded for both larger subregions in the Western (regions 01–06) and Eastern Alps (regions 07–10) during 2000–2014 (Fig. 2 and Table 1). Balanced conditions (elevation change ~0 m a−1) are observed above ~3500 m a.s.l. for the Graian, Pennine, and Bernese Alps with no region having significantly positive values even at highest glacier elevations. In many regions, change rates are negative throughout all altitudes, indicating the loss of former accumulation areas and thinning over the entire glacier. Particularly, areas below ~2000 m a.s.l. experience average regional surface lowering of up to 5 m a−1 in the Graian, Bernese, and Glarus Alps. Glacier-specific change rates can be even more negative (e.g., < −8 m a−1 at terminus of Grosser Aletsch, Bernese Alps) caused by the complete downwasting of frontal areas during the observation period. Area (Fig. 1b) and mass change (Fig. 1c) are controlled by the regionally different extents of glaciers. The highest absolute area reductions are found in the Bernese, Pennine, and Graian Alps which include the largest glacier areas of the Alps. The overall retreat is ~39 ± 9 km² a−1, corresponding to an area loss rate of ~1.8% a−1 between 2000 and 2014

We demonstrate the vulnerability to an imminent glacier vanishing by imposing the present mass-change rates (2000–2014) on total estimated ice volumes28 for each region. Figure 1d shows the glacier volume (~130 km³) at beginning and the proportion of ice that would survive under current regional mass-change rates (−1.0 to −2.3% a−1) over the course of the 21st century. This approach does not consider dynamic adjustments nor climate projections or any other factors which can only be achieved by respective modeling attempts6. Nevertheless, our extrapolated values match well with model projections6 and show that the lower Alpine mountain ranges would be almost ice-free by the end of this century. The remaining glacier volume of the entire Alps would be approximately one-third compared with the volume at beginning of the 21st century. Larger amounts of ice (>10 km³) would only be left in the Pennine and Bernese Alps whereas the Dauphiné, Glarus, and Lepontine Alps are prone to be nearly ice-free within this century.
__________________________________________________________________
PS: You have to click on the images, and then again to get full page, and yet again to get fullsize.
(even though I have reduced their original size)

139
The rest / Re: The Collapse Of America
« on: June 25, 2020, 03:26:08 PM »
OMG!!! Bolton is a greedy piece of shit without any respect for the country he swore to protect...
He's worse than Trump!

What a disgusting hypocritical lying greedy sack of shit...

But we already knew that, didn't we?
Trump should've kept him in the tent - pissing out,
Now he's outside the tent - pissing in.

I believe that's a lesson in Statecraft from one Lyndon B. Johnson.

140
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 03:19:38 PM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,436,977 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

EDIT


Something must have gone badly wrong at NSIDC. The data for the 24th June has been significantly changed in the data files for the update produced on the 26th.

e.g.
total area loss according to NSIDC data for the 24th June produced on the 25th = 34k,

total area loss according to NSIDC data for the 24th June produced on the 26th = 60k,

So the data and tables produced by the sweat of my brow that were attached  are completely useless, of value Sweet FA.

Hence this edit is deleting the data from this post, from whence it will be consigned to the Vale of Tears to join most of Humanity's achievements.
_____________________________________

141

Can you really model something that you don't understand? Yes, you can. But it will definitely be GIGO.
Yes you can and it will not necessarily be GIGO.

Before the nature of gravity was described by Newton models were constructed to determine the trajectory of cannonballs.

Scientists in Ancient Egypt modelled the annual floods of the Nile and predicted whether it would be a good or bad year. They knew nowt of the seasonal rains in the headwaters of the Blue Nile.

Priests in Neolithic times designed monuments such as Stonehenge relying on predictions of the movement of the sun in the heavens.

142
Consequences / Re: COVID-19
« on: June 25, 2020, 01:44:50 PM »
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries gives a slightly different result for the USA.

It shows the 7 day trailing average of daily new cases at a new record of 32.4k.

The 7 day trailing average of daily deaths still unchanged, but with hospitalisations increasing and miracles in short supply, it is only a matter of time before that graph heads up.
______________________________________________________
ps:- One of the hottest new spots is Texas - being where Musk may well move the Tesla operation lock stock & barrel because California was too insistent on maintaining the lockdown.

143
The defence  getting themselves organised - (hoping for NOT 4 More Years?)
One can only wish them the best of luck, because assuredly they will need it. At least they have a wide range of friends (see 2nd quote below).

https://www.skepticalscience.com/43_steps_for_restoring_science.html
   
Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term
Posted on 22 June 2020 by Guest Author

A guest repost by the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund (CSLDF). Fundraising is not the objective of this article but readers may wish to know that CSLDF is currently conducting a summer fundraiser to support the important work of defending research scientists and research integrity from anti-science interference by politicians and industrial interests.
Quote

We’re one of the dozens of organizations working to advance good government, public health, and environmental, consumer, human, and civil rights, who today [June 11] collectively released Restoring Science, Protecting the Public: 43 Steps for the Next Presidential Term.

The COVID-19 crisis shows what can happen when science is sidelined from policy decisions or subverted for political purposes. When data is suppressed or manipulated, or medical experts and scientists are prevented from sharing their expertise with the public, the result is a dearth of information the public needs to operate safely during a pandemic—and more people get sick and die.

The politicization of science isn’t new, but it has escalated into a full-blown crisis under the Trump administration. In the Silencing Science Tracker we maintain with Columbia Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Law, we’ve documented 428 instances of science being censored or restricted since November 2016. Many of these actions pose troubling risks to public health.

The next administration must prioritize repairing the culture of scientific integrity in the federal government. Federal scientists must be free to pursue valid research and communicate their findings to the press and taxpaying public without fear of political interference or manipulation. Those in federal agencies who have decision-making authority on matters that involve or use science must fully consider the best available science. And much more.

This series of memos provides concrete steps the next administration can take to restore a culture of scientific integrity across the federal government. These would help rebuild public trust in scientific institutions and ensure that scientific evidence informs government decisions. They also represent simple, low-cost, good government reforms that would improve efficiency, transparency, and accountability.

The memos offer recommendations in eight categories:

  • Federal advisory committees
    Personnel policy
    Agency scientific independence
    Restoring strength to scientific agencies
    Whistleblower protections
    Scientific communications
    Data collection and dissemination
    Regulatory reform
We will share these recommendations with major presidential campaigns and transition teams. We encourage all who have influence over White House and executive branch priorities in 2021 to read these short documents and take them to heart.[/size]

https://www.csldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/restoring-science-protecting-the-public.pdf
Quote
ENDORSED BY..
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, AFL-CIO / Californians for Pesticide Reform / Center for Biological Diversity / Center for
Reproductive Rights / Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) / Climate Science Legal Defense Fund /
Environmental Protection Network / Equity Forward / FracTracker Alliance / Friends of the Earth / Government Accountability Project
/ Government Information Watch / Greenpeace USA / Inland Ocean Coalition / Jacobs Institute of Women’s Health / Milwaukee
Riverkeeper / National Center for Health Research / National Children’s Campaign / National Federation of Federal Employees /
National Freedom of Information Coalition / National Parks Conservation Association / National Women’s Health Network / Ocean
Conservation Research / Oceana / Oceanic Preservation Society / Open the Government / Pesticide Action Network / Project on
Government Oversight / Public Citizen / Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility / Revolving Door Project / Society of
Professional Journalists / United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) / Union of Concerned
Scientists / Virginia Association of Biological Farming

144
Shit just went bad on Greenland...


The percentage area of melt is pretty much the same on the NSIDC Greenland Today graph and the DMI graph. High, but not that unusual

This year is nothing special SO FAR.
Perhaps I will have to eat my words.....

Data from...
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
http://ensemblesrt3.dmi.dk/data/prudence/temp/PLA/PP_GSMB/

Data as at 24 June 2020 - very much the same as 3rd to 23rd June,

except that melt rose again, now at 34.5% of the surface area of Greenland,  while precipitation stayed pretty strong. The result was an SMB loss of just above 2 GT, which is close to average..

Precipitation and temperatures seem to indicate more of the same for the next few days, with most precipitation on the  eastern half of Greenland, i.e. most SMB loss in the Western coastal region and also the far north.

But each day the melt gets stronger, and the temperature anomalies remain strongly +ve, especially in the north on both sides of the Nares strait. How the arch in the strait has survived given the strong meltwater runoff and warmth I do not know. Perhaps it will just dissolve in situ?

- it is this persistence in combined high melt and precipitation that is interesting -  has a pattern of higher-energy weather set in? (AGW + Polar amplification?)
_______________________________________-
ps For those with failing eyesight - e.g. me, click on the images for a clearer view.

145
Arctic sea ice / Re: Global sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 10:08:25 AM »
JAXA GLOBAL SEA ICE EXTENT:  23,489,297 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

An above average daily Arctic sea ice extent loss + a below average daily Antarctic sea ice gain = a Global Sea Ice extent loss on this day.

- Extent gain LOSS on this day 34k, 36 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 2k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 6.77 million km2, 0.74 million km2, 9.8% less than the 10 year average gain of 7.51 million km2.
- Extent is at position #5 in the satellite record
- 2020 Extent is  0.79 million km2 MORE than 2019,

On average 82.1% of sea ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 133 days to maximum

Projections of the Unknown Quantity. (Table JAXA-AA1)

Average remaining sea ice gain (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in November 2020 of 25.12 million km2, 1.36 million km2 above the 2016 record low maximum of 23.76 million km2.
However, before that there is also the false maximum rapidly approaching in late June or early July, followed by the false minimum in August/September before the “maximum maximum” for the year.
___________________________________

146
Antarctica / Re: Sea Ice Extent around Antarctica
« on: June 25, 2020, 09:53:17 AM »
JAXA ANTARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  14,052,320 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

- Extent gain on this day 66k, -13 k less than the average gain on this day (of the last 10 years) of 79k,
- Extent gain from minimum on this date is 11.29 million km2, 0.16 million km2, (1.4%) less than the 10 year average of 11.46 million km2.
- Extent is at position #17 in the satellite record of which 10 lower values are in the years before 2000
- Extent is  46 k LESS than 2016
- Extent is  821 k MORE than 2017
- Extent is  326 k MORE than 2018
- Extent is  948 k MORE than 2019
- Extent is  1 k LESS than the 1980's Average

- On average 71.7% of ice gain from minimum to maximum done, and 88 days to maximum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining freeze (of the last 10 years) would produce a maximum in Sept 2020 of 18.57 million km2, 0.51 million km2 above the 2017 record low maximum of 18.06 million km2.
___________________________________________________________
No drama -

147
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 25, 2020, 09:41:34 AM »
JAXA ARCTIC SEA ICE EXTENT:  9,436,977 KM2 as at 24-Jun-2020

- Extent loss on this day 100k, 24 k more than the average loss on this day (of the last 10 years) of 76k,
- Extent loss from maximum on this date is 5,011 k, 444 k, 9.7% more than the 10 year average of 4,567 k.
- Extent is at position #2 in the satellite record
- Extent is  -161 k LESS than 2019,
- Extent is  105 k MORE than 2016,
- Extent is  124 k LESS than 2012
______________________________-
On average 45.9% of melting from maximum to minimum done, and 82 days to minimum

Projections. (Table JAXA-Arc1)

Average remaining melt (of the last 10 years) would produce a minimum in Sept 2020 of 4.05 million km2, 0.88 million km2 above the 2012 minimum of 3.18 million km2.
______________________________
Is this the start of a substantial new wave of extent losses?

148
Shit just went bad on Greenland...


The percentage area of melt is pretty much the same on the NSIDC Greenland Today graph and the DMI graph. High, but not that unusual

This year is nothing special SO FAR.

149
Arctic sea ice / Re: 2020 Sea ice area and extent data
« on: June 24, 2020, 03:11:09 PM »
NSIDC Total Area as at 23-Jun-2020 (5 day trailing average) 7,733,847 KM2         
         
Total Area         
 7,733,847    km2      
-298,472    km2   <   2010's average.
-82,176    km2   <   2019
-955,401    km2   <   2000's average.
         
Total Change   -52    k   loss
Peripheral Seas   -46    k   loss
Central Seas___   -5    k   loss
         
Peripheral Seas         
Okhotsk______   -0    k   loss
Bering _______    1    k   gain
Hudson Bay___   -16    k   loss
Baffin  Bay____   -13    k   loss
St Lawrence___   -0    k   loss
Greenland____   -16    k   loss
Barents ______   -2    k   loss
         
Central Arctic  Ocean Seas         
Chukchi______    7    k   gain
Beaufort_____    17    k   gain
CAA_________   -12    k   loss
East Siberian__    15    k   gain
Central Arctic_   -7    k   loss
Laptev_______   -7    k   loss
Kara_________   -18    k   loss
         
Sea ice area loss on this day 52 k, 37 k less than the 2010's average loss of 89 k         
         
- 2020 area is at position #3 in the satellite record.         
- 2020 Area is 298 k less than the 2010's average         
- 2020 Area is 955 k less than the 2000's average         
- 2020 Area is 17 k more than 2016         
- 2020 Area is 82 k less than 2019          
- 2020 Area is 154 k more than 2012
         
___________________________________________         
Another really low daily sea ice area loss, though the Peripheral Seas lost more sea ice area as did the CAA & the Kara Sea.

150
Policy and solutions / Re: Oil and Gas Issues
« on: June 24, 2020, 02:01:21 PM »
The natural gas production decline forecast by Rystad is merely a hiatus.

CO2 emissions need to drop by 7% per annum  to keep the sliver of hope for a limit to a 1.5 Celsius temperature increase alive.

I am sure that Solar, Wind, Batteries & EVs will increase greatly this decade.
I am also sure that the required 7% annual reduction in CO2 emissions will not be achieved, probably not even in 2020.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 169